Surely exploitation relates to US companies closing factories in the US, where all their customers are, and moving the factory out to China where they can pay workers peanuts and still charge their customers the same price.
What value has been added by the capitalist? To make a profit the factory owner either pays his staff less than they are worth or over charges his customers. That is exploitation of the many for the sake of one and leads to super rich and super poor. QED our status quo.
It is important to keep in mind is that fairness does not inherently make one earn less money. It makes someone NOT earn MORE money, which inherently is unfair only to THOSE people who want to make MORE money. If you start baking cookies and sell those for $1. In 3 years you stop making cookies yourself but have 40 employees making those cookies. Only 1 person in capitalist society will earn MORE among those other 40 people. Additional income could be gained by paying less to loyal employees.
From his website: Jacob Spinney performs seemingly impossible feats of thought reading and mind control. "Some people confuse me with a psychic. However, I prefer to call myself a Mentalist in that none of what I do, to my knowledge, involves any paranormal or supernatural abilities. I merely use my five senses to create the illusion of the sixth." IS THIS REALLY THE PERSON YOU SHOULD BE LISTENING TO FOR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL COMMENTARY? Is it me or does this guy seem really douche-ey...
We're not against Capitalism. We're not against profit. We're not against success. We're against GREED. Greed is the ugly underbelly of Capitalism that nobody likes to talk about. It's destroying our country from the inside. Greed is the belief in limitless profits and unending expansion. While the media has everyone distracted watching out for terrorists in turbans carrying AK-47s, our country is being pillaged by REAL terrorists in suits carrying briefcases.
You're deliberately leaving out the part where the only thing that "worked" about Marxism lies in it's ability to murder and oppress people in huge numbers.
@NiceGuyCody You are deliberately confusing socialism with communism.. It seems like you need to do a little more research into what socialism really is.. Marx believed that you had to have democracy to eventually have socialism.. There are social-democracies around the world that have higher standards than the US.. When and where has TRUE Marxist philosophy killed anyone? seriously you guys are so funny cause you can't tell the difference between socialism and communism..
Really? Thats not exploitation from a Marxist or Socialist point a view. Marx wrote that exploitation as treatment of factory workers in London in 19th century. The factory workers at that time worked long hour in unsafe, unhygenic conditions for the low amount of pay that the workers were hardly able to survive off of. Marx was advocating that factory workers being able to work reasonable hours in safe environments with reasonable pay so that the workers and their families can survive.
is the capitalism logo inspired by coca-cola lol? what communists tend to not understand is that the strength, and its weakness, of capitalism is its ability to adapt and always change, due to forces such as people's demands, needs, trends, and other natural factors. If one type of capitalism fails, it will just reinvent itself - but the weakness of this chaotic nature means we dont know if we get a good result in the end.
The worker is exploited by capitalism, when capitalists' business ventures fail and then the worker is coerced to bail out the very same capitalists who had previously made themselves filthy rich on the back of the ordinary workers (ie their market). When they become bankrupt, their debts are wiped and the workers (taxpayers) have to pick up the tab. This has been happening in the so-called free markets of the western world over the past few years and this is exploitation.
@bacabu30 When the government intervenes in the market to, say, bail out a business, then it is no longer a free market. It is a government-manipulated market. It makes no sense to point to the effects of a government-manipulated market and then blame it on an economic model that requires zero government manipulation in order to work.
@JacobSpinney The funny thing is that capitalism (in its current form) would have probably imploded by now only for lots of governments around the world bailed out reckless speculating banksters. While it might not be the fault of the system of capitalism per se that governments have forced workers to pick up capitalism's tab, the reality is that when the current economic mess finally quietens down, we'll return to the top 1% making obscene amounts of money while some people have to scrimp.
@bacabu30 - If governments acquired their wealth and status by satisfying the people they are supposed to serve, and not imprisoning those who sought the same goods and services from another provider, they would cease to be governments.
But your first claim definitely depends on the capitalist in question. I know of very few that have been able to successfully exploit others without the assistance of special government favors.
@JacobSpinney These are the same governments who would pale at the mere utterance or whiff of socialism or social democratic principles. But, as you say, they're not being very true to capitalism when they force the workers to bail out the very élite who claim to be capitalists and free marketeers. Most of the world's wealth is owned & controlled by around 400 world corporations. When the shit hits the fan, they force the workers to bail them out...they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
Jacob Spinney wants you thinking about exploitation in terms of direct personal investment, he doesn't want you thinking about the day to day lives of labor, who must work to make the business owners richer while living being treated as a disposable commodity and doing all the labor, putting the largest amount of work into making the company prosper.
Reverse who the person was asking to do business with. The socialists would have returned the entrepreneur a lot more money.
Capitalist Exploitation: You go to work for a business monarch who has a monopoly over the company you work for as a disposable feudal serf, the monarch takes the majority of your earnings as labor and gives you back a small share as a wage.
Corporatist Exploitation: Oligarchs steal the Company from the Monarch, then do what the Monarch did.
Socialist Exploitation: You go to work for yourself and own an equal share in the company as your fellow workers, the horror.
@FreeTheWorker There is a bunch of stuff you forget when it comes to Socialist exploitation. For instance what about those who invest more have no gain in what they do. The fact is your liberty right then and there was restricted by a group of central planners to what they believe is for the common good. Marxism and Socialism is the road to serfdom, it is a primitive idea of collectivism that the life style we once had in the Feudal system.
@batman93oo In my company, pay is effected by the work you put in, and we've only had one free rider who was fired because he violated contract. We each own the company and are bound by contract to pull our fair share in the company, major decisions are made through workplace democracy, our general manager was elected from the work force based on management skill, and the better we do our job the more we all make and the more we can invest back into the company.
@FreeTheWorker I was clearly pointing out socialist exploitation and not work place ethics, What you just said isn't socialist. Your company has that freedom to do that in a capitalistic society because of the freedom that it provides. I know someone who has yet to make a personal gain from her own business she started because she is making sure her workers are paid enough. It is great what you guys do, but it may not work best for everyone. my point is a market will decide what is desirable.
@batman93oo I'm not completely sold on the socialist label because everyone seems to think it's something different, but many of my co-workers and many of the workers in other cooperatives seem to think this is a socialist business model.
A capitalist society? What do you think capitalism is? Capitalism is when a private owner owns the work place and controls the means of producting, owning the work that labor puts in generally paying a wage. You seem to think capitalism is the market. It's not
@FreeTheWorker Socialism in it's most basic of definition is the planning of a economy whether it be from a centralized gov or majority. I'm not arguing work ethics or company models but on principle. the only reason your company survives is because we still allow certain freedoms to companies and leave to them how things are run. Private ownership is necessary for a market because no one but yourself can tell you what to trade and the workers don't have to work someone if they are unsatisfied
@batman93oo That's not true, you are misdefining the words capitalism and socialism because you have not researched the meanings of the terms and the different forms of each system of ownership, and are instead repeating opinionated right winged propaganda.
There are forms of socialism that don't even allow a state, and forms of capitalism that require a state. You know nothing of socialism or capitalism.
@FreeTheWorker Have fun reading your Hegel-degenerate idol Marx. For the fact that you decided months later to respond and conclude to something as you know "nothing". I am not arguing in forms of capitalism but principally the idea of individualism and free markets. Socialism requires planning with or without a state. The minority will always be ignored to what he thinks the best way to use his own property. Tell me when you finally figure out what a commodity is.
@NiceGuyCody So what about libertarian socialism? You seem to be ignorant of all forms of socialism other than state socialism. Also Socialism doesn't automatically promise equal shares, in a socialist work place workers can democratically decide pay or work out a contract of pay by labor, in my own company we have elected management who get's paid nearly double the rest of us, but we can also vote someone else into that position if he isn't doing a good job, and we decided the pay.
"Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder". So is 1 in 3 people who earn less than $2 a day relative? Or is Walmart paying sweat shop workers 0.1 cents an hour relative? Sure exploitation is relative but isn't freedom? But what isn't relative is capitalism supporting dictatorships. No that's fact.
@dancthegr What do you consider "capitalism" to be? To me, the word "capitalism" means a complete separation between economy and state. Therefore, it is impossible, by definition, for capitalism to support dictatorships since, by doing so, it would no longer be capitalism. If you disagree with my definition, then we are merely quibbling over words rather than actual content.
@dancthegr First, what $1 can buy where they live is a lot more than what $1 can buy here. So our scale of comparison is already skewed. Second, we shouldn't be comparing our standard of living to theirs, as our society has far more capital and thus higher wages that can be paid. What we should compare is the standard of living of these people before these factories to what it is currently. If we make this comparison, it is without question that they are better off and continue to get richer.
@JacobSpinney no $1 in most countries can't buy much. And exploitation is not relative when 1 billion starve a year. Of course you will argue that it is better than collective farming. However lassiez faire capitalism does not support fair trade; which is a solution. I am also sure that by your definition, it is not exploitation that women work 2/3s of hours yet own 1% of the world's wealth. Sure that's relative to you even communist.
@dancthegr You did not respond to any of the points I made. The parts of an economy that might widely be considered unfair are almost always the consequence of legitimized coercion. NOT of voluntary human interaction. The more you believe that humans interacting on a voluntary basis is the cause of exploitation and that legitimized coercion is the solution, the more you will enslave yourself.
@JacobSpinney yes you are correct. Corporations have taken on the rights of humans due to the passing of laws and in return have become tyrannical beings that only want profit. Even Milton Friedman suggested that corporations had a moral responsibility to produce a profit
@JacobSpinney I have to ask, where did the mass of landless peasants, stripped of the means of their own survival come from (such as in the early industrial revolution, or in current 3rd world nations - do not move context to later developments, after the masses benefited from mass social movements that you are against). In capitalism, we have voluntary choice within it's context, but we don't have choice if we want to participate or not.
@JacobSpinney In Socialism the creator is fed, the retailer is fed, and unlike capitalism, the man who puts the two together, doesn't make off with a hefty profit. Then the creation is given out to all the citizens as a privilege of citizenship.
@ORACLE063 Serfdom is a class system. Classes don't exist in Communism (where things go after Socialism). The only way a serf exists is if the government isn't working. So I'm as likely to be a serf in any form of government, so long as it works poorly. Hopefully concerned citizens like us will make the US better.
@Kidarias01 LOLOLOLOL. This post is completely false. You need to finish your GED, then you can go to college and take some history and economics classes. It'll do you good. And stop listening to MSNBC.
@svvmichael1 Amazing that you have derived so much about my life from a simple profile. Hey you know my email though, just ad a .gmail onto the end of that and send me a message. If you are right, then you should be able to tell me why I'm wrong. I await your email.
@Kidarias01 In socialism, their is no creator because there is no incentive to create. In USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc there were no video game systems, no fashionable clothes, no decent cars, innovation is not appreciated. So, since there is no creation, there is no retailer to feed. In capitalism, innovation is lauded, the creator makes money, his "helpers" (fabricators, marketers, etc) also make money. That is the best system on earth. Capitalism is the way to "spread" the...
@Kidarias01 ...in a moral way, and not by limiting innovation, theft, and coercion. Socialism is just a sickness of a system borne of lazy people and power mad people.
@svvmichael1 In Socialism there can be intensive. A socialist believes that everyone should be fed, and housed, and that money cannot be the main incentive for creativity. If you talk about creativity, look up the results of the candle problem. As for the USSR, they were the first ones to put an object in space (if I can claim that, they were kind of feudalistic)
@svvmichael1 In socialism there can be incentive. Socialists do believe that everyone should be fed and housed. For creativity, look how monetary incentives work in creative challenges. Should the worker be incentivized with money, yes, but money hurts creativity.
@NiceGuyCody "And Socialism is a system which thrives through and inevitably produces dictators". Well it didn't in Chile, Britain, Germany or the rest of Europe. Try doing some background research rather than making swooping generalisations and limiting the options.
@34lbs "chile's was overthrown by the military on behalf of the people" and legitimised torture, murder and authoritarian regime? The Chilean experiment was a text book version of when lassiez faire goes terribly wrong. There was mass-employment, vast poverty of 40%, hyper-inflation and vast debts. Of course, this could never happen in Europe because of "democracy"
Well it is the workers that actually make the boss the money, without the workers, he would only be making as much money as the workers are after the boss has stolen it all. Surely the workers who work in the mills ought to own the mills?
@LancePoint9 uhhhh what? A company cant exist without shareholders or capital. Thats why people put money into stocks is so they can make money when the company succeeds. No money = no company
Question, does this argument also apply to stock owners who contribute nothing to a corporation other than some capital and a share of the ownership? Not calling it exploitation, just don't see their share of helping the company or improving productivity when passive share owners don't produce anything.
@LancePoint9 They produced the capital to invest and are rewarded for risking that capital which potentially produces jobs for individuals to produce their own capital and if savy will in turn invest that capital n so on. That is if they had anything left over after expenses and being taxed to support a socialist society.
@seeqr9 If taxes hamper business, why is there no correlation between taxes and economic growth? Reagan raised taxes in his era but the economy still grew. I also don't like it when my bank starts risk taking with my money and can't cover their debts, then comes running for a bailout that takes even more of my money. Why should banks be allowed to take risks with other people's money?
@LancePoint9 Good question. Thats wer the manipulation of currency not backed by any tangible value (federal reserve notes) comes in as well as the bubbles they create. Artificial growth. That is not free market capitalism, thats Gov in bed w big business. Any person/business getting balied out by one person/group with anothers money w/o ther consent is SOCIALISM not capitalism. Free market would have let them fail like they should hav. You will find that we dont really disagree vry mch....
@seeqr9 I talk about taxes and suddenly I'm a socialist. I know the value of capitalism. I merely point out that taxes alone have not hampered it. Regulations and monetary policy are different matters which have had negative effects. If we are going to talk economic theory, there is one fault with capitalism. The invisible hand idea that everyone benefits through everyone acting in their own interests does not work in practice. That's my only doubt about capitalism, prove me wrong.
@LancePoint9 I wasnt calling u a socialist brother. I was under the impression we were having a real conversation with no intentions for insult. That is the only reason i took time to even reply further. But bak to the tlk, mon. policy n reg. is the same matter if the policy is to reg. Also I personally rather the "invisible hand" take care of things than the hands of the "well intentioned" Mob or small council of "intelectually elite". Like i said its about consent. Freedom 2 use what u earn.
@LancePoint9 The only thing that really needs proving is the idea that forcing someone to do something is moral. If I as a person in power taxed u n ur family for a kidney n saved others life with it they would think i was a hero. But u would call me a thief n u would b right. But if u could profit frm voluntarily selling ur kidney to those people evryone would win. Except me as said person of power of course. i would have to actually produce or contribute in a moral and valuable way.
@seeqr9 Step back for a moment. It is my interest to satisfy my desires, not my morality.If there is no profit to be found for taking care of the elderly, i don't do it. There is a profit to be made in selling drugs. If i can make a personal profit in the short term, i will overlook long term costs to the society. I will not consider who gets hurt or sick from my business or product because there is no immediately self serving reason to care about others. I only see a carrot, not the giant stick
@LancePoint9 Well I admire your honesty. It is now clear why u support a nanny state.ur tryin to protect the downtrodden frm urself. I personally would do the moral thing as that is my desire. Of course instant gratification is a temptation but it is up to us to raise our children, n ourself if it wasnt done, to do the same. But I should not b forced to contribute to a group of "do gooders" who may do bad with my contribution just because ther r ppl who dont have ther principles in order. BUT...
@LancePoint9 in a free society with proper rule of law ( protection of life liberty n property) u would have to pay for your long term damage to ppls life or property(body) thus making u think ahead long term for ur own self interest. otherwise u would end up losing way more than u ever gained from those ppl in the long run. Its the nanny state that protects the drug co. frm bein sued n payin for damages. look at vaccines. It backfires. its called "moral hazard".
@seeqr9 You sound high and mighty but have just proven my point. Now you what to regulate my behavior through the proper rule of law. You want it to become necessary that I consider my long term interests. Is forcing me to do something moral? Besides, if you give the government no money, how can they fund the police to keep bad people away.
@seeqr9 The drug companies are interested in profit. If invisible hand was true, there would be no need for proper rule of law. Certainly Big business and government are in bed together which leads to us being screwed. Again proving that chasing their own interests does not help us. Also funny that you call me honest and seeking a nanny state when i told you i was a capitalist. My point is that a true believer in invisible hand would do anything thinking that it always help society.
@LancePoint9 I am most certainly not for monopolies or corprate bailouts using others capital. That can only happen with Gov intervention though. It comes down to consent. If you knowingly invested in the bank then thats ur risk. If ur money was taken by "gun point" n threat of imprisonment n given to the bank that is most vile on the level with rape or hurting children IMHO. Socialism or any other Gov involvment is wut makes this all possible while makin it harder for honest people to become..
@LancePoint9 wealthy and do good things for many people. I cant speak for you or others but i do know that I am honest and would do good things n I have the feeling u would do the same. I refuse to believe I'm the only one. True free market capitalism is the truly equal opportunity way of doin things. Not equal outcome but equal opportunity. Then we can use our own wealth to do as we see fit rather than sum criminals bailing out banks n other criminals :)
Very interesting analogy. It seems that the worker clearly should buy his own "widget" in this example, so that he may multiply his income by 9. This then begs the question, why don't all workers simply buy their own widgets instead of working for less?
@MarxismToday Because they lack the necessary savings to make the investment. Or they just prefer working rather than managing. Or they would rather make a much more stable and guaranteed income immediately, before the product is even sold, rather than gamble on whether their product will make a profit or not.
@JacobSpinney Yes, and I think if we look at the real world, your first reason would be the case in the vast majority of situations. And wouldn't another way to say this be "he does not have access/ownership of the means of production?"
In a participatory society, we'd all come to some agreement to rotate the job of making fishing nets equally between us, and all give small portions of our fish to that person while she made nets. We wouldn't let that person starve for a day, like some rugged individualist collection of thugs would.
That just sounds like some stupid faux-utopia whereby everybody is forced to give up any semblance of choice or freedom in order to enslave themselves to YOUR authoritarian beliefs.
Isnt there a missed point when he attributes the existence of the widget to the person wanting to mass produce it? The issue is that the person with the widget who is doing no work will make 10 times that of the person doing all the work. True capitalist ideology suggests that you earn the amount you work for so the hardest worker would get the most money. We all know that this is false because the hardest workers are almost always paid the least in buisnesses. It is a self contradictory system
@ZombiBuddy 'True capitalist ideology suggests that you earn the amount you work for so the hardest worker would get the most money.' no thats marxism.
@achilles6822 Actually the concept is very far away from Marxism. Other than that, hasnt it been the main point of capitalism supporters that hard work pays off? With that in mind look at say a sweat shop or factory floor worker. They are easily the hardest workers, but the pay borders on nothing. Explain how that works.
@ZombiBuddy You know what, I take it back. Your right marxists dont say you work for the amount you earn, they say your work (+ materials) decides the value of what you produce. What really happened was you just made a logical error. Why would earning the amount you work for imply that hard workers would get more money? If a hard worker earns next to nothing, he still earned a certain amount. So, since he "earned the amount he worked for", there isnt a contradiction. cont.~
@ZombiBuddy ~Cont. Keep in mind before you respond that the ideology 'Hard work pays off' or 'you earn the amount you work for' isn't a mandatory philosphy capitalists have to adopt in order to be capitalists.
@achilles6822 But that proves my point. Proponents of capitalism proclaim that it is a fair system, but in practice it thrives on making sure that progress for the worker is impossible. If the work never pays off then no one would want to work. This is where proponents talk about equal oppurtunity, but in reality know that their is no guaranteed reward for hard work. Otherwise no one would support it.
@ZombiBuddy Your shifting focus, first you said it was a self contradictory system, now your saying what every other anti cap says, that the workers are exploited. Another thing, we dont claim its fair (at least a lot of us don't). We just claim its more fair than the rest of the systems. For some people the work does pay off, for others it doesn't, this will be true no matter what system we are talking about. As for it thriving on making sure that progress for the worker is impossible, false.
@achilles6822 All right your being honest, but you are making a mistake if you think that capitalism is the fairest system. Capitalism requires both exploitation of the worker and hinderance of the worker in order to function. If the worker is not exploited then an elite class cannot form . If the progress of the worker is unhindered then the elite class will be threatened. This is the is the contradiction, that capitalism needs progress, but must hinder internal progress for elites to benefit .
@ZombiBuddy "If the worker is not exploited then an elite class cannot form" I actually kind of agree, but the private elite class formed from govt invlovment, not voluntary trade and investment. In a matter of fact, nearly all monopolies that have formed in the U.S. were an outcome of government favoritism. Despite this, there are small buisnesses that employ workers that don't hinder worker progress. And while its true the owners are filthy rich, both parties progress. This is what i support
@achilles6822 Are you talking about corporation owners or the owners of our country or what? Because that would be a hard sell to say that they arent rich. And way back to shifting focus (as you accused me of), ive stated the contradiction within capitalism and in no way have I advocated Marxism.
@ZombiBuddy I was talkign about small buisness owners, and I didnt accuse you of being a marxist. Just out of curiosity did you see both posts or just one? Cause there are plenty of buisnesses where both employer and employee make progress.
"in practice it thrives on making sure that progress for the worker is impossible. If the work never pays off then no one would want to work. "
All of these arguments you're making apply far more aptly to the inevitable Nomenklatura which springs up in Socialism, and which exists only to keep the citizenry in a collectivist feudalism whereby the Government is the sole beneficiary.
I like these videos, they're a platform for discussion.
I agree with communism in this case. The extreme welfare of the 'happy few' will barely decrease if the exploitation of their employees is put to an end anyway.
After all, what's more important: Money or general welfare?
@VideoFreeMichael What people like this guy seem to think is that the answer to radical extreme is a polar opposite radical extreme. Radicalism in anything - politics, economic policy, religion, etc. - is a very dangerous thing.
Another severe misrepresentation of socialism and capitalism. Also extremely biased.
Your confirmation bias is astounding but I don't think watching more of your videos would prove you actually made up your mind in a critical way about these topics.
For those of you using the US as their prime example for Capitalism, don't. It's crony capitalism that is hindered with many regulations and fees.
Pure capitalism the based on the consensual trade of capital. Consensual is important there as it makes it capitalism the only moral system when compared to socialism or communism.
marx never advocated for statism, he emphasized workers unions taking over. this is the position of syndicalists today. First change the government, then once it's fixed everything destroy it. Mao wanted to keep the government. therefore he is not a marxist. I do not defend the authoritarian half of leftism. neither do most leftists.
@makev9k Uhh I don't know oh yeah Scandinavia and some European countries are very close to it and they felt little of the global recession because of it!
Its fine to produce more value than what you're paid, if it's all really voluntary. The reality is that society is structured to remove this choice from labor. Because capital is concentrated among the few, while the many have little more than their labor to offer, the law of supply and demand works against them. The only way for labor to prevent their pay falling below a living wage is for all the widget workers to organize and tell the widget owner that they're on strike.
Capitalist propaganda. Two thumbs way down. In socialism you get paid more and have good benefits. Why don't you people get out of America and go to a socialist country that is not communist
Depends on what you mean by socialist. By American definitions of the word then pretty much every western european country, with the possible exception of the UK, would be socialist.
As with most things in life its not a question of black and white. Capitalism has many good points but so does socialsim. The sensible thing is to apply the most appropriate system in the areas were it works best.
So for venture were genuine competipon can exist capitalism works well.
... competition is impossible or higly impractical (like health care or the military or police or fire fighting) then social systems work best. And by "work best" I mean produce the best results for the capital used i.e. the most efficient use of resources. It is a myth that capitalism is always more efficient the huge inefficiencies present in the american health care system is evidence of this. Similarly the disaterous privitisation of the UK rail network demonstrates this as well.
@evilreligion The inefficiencies are caused by the US government. The market prices are no longer set by the individual, but by third parties. That monopoly was granted to the insurance companies by the US government. This got it's big kick start by Teddy Roosevelt. The universal health care system was in it's infancy in the US in late 1800s-early 1900s, Teddy pushed it as a progressive, and low and behold, everything has gotten worse sense. The Nazis where also progressive (modern liberals.)
@evilreligion The US has been funding hospitals since 1946, Costs didn't go down. Read Hill-Burton act. 1954 Start the big third party plan, exempting taxes on health care provided by big employers. I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.
Britain, France and every other first world nation has been doing the same and they have far more efficient healthcare systems than the US. The difference is that the other countries systems provide fully socialised healthcare were the US relies upon the worst of both worlds. It funds some hospitals by tax payers and then outsources the delivery of thsoe services to a highly inefficient oligopoly of inssurence companies. Its madness!
@4500jas You don't get paid more and you don't get more benefits. Your taxes will be so High that it would seem you're getting benefits, but your really just paying for them in taxes. Plus, the only way you would get paid more in a socialist country was if you were a lazy slob eating potato chips all day.
@chris96kalonji What people like this guy seem to think is that the answer to radical extreme is a polar opposite radical extreme. Radicalism in anything - politics, economic policy, religion, etc. - is a very dangerous thing.
@chris96kalonji Nah Communism is garbage, you have no future no goals in communism. Yeah Stalin and Che were right and they are the ones that needed to get shot when they were born.
@shellarrowz Actually, that's all you have in Communism. You become a doctor in order to help people, not for the money like a lot of people in Capitalis. Also, you provided with no facts or evidence of why Communism is bad. Think about, why is there so much corruption in America. Besides, it's a country that lies to its people constantly. About 9/11, and the fact that it's a Republic not a Democracy, and that American citezens don't have a say in anything that goes on in their government.
@chris96kalonji Who decides who is a doctor? Who would want to take out the garbage? How do people get rewarded for scarce labor as opposed to abundant labor? How do you solve the calculation problem? What about marginal utility?
Doctors SHOULD get paid more, it takes a lot of time to be a doctor and their labor is SCARCE, meaning, there's a lot less potential for people to be doctors than there is for people to be dock workers. America is corrupt because of big government, not capitalism.
@s0beit No, there's a difference between money EARNED through WORK, and money gotten through OWNING. Big corporations don't have to do shit, and it's no because of hard work. It's because they were able to exploit and use other people successfully, it's because they were good liers. Also, some people can't get treated well because they can't afford those extremely high hospital bills. Sir, we are on the same team, but if you like things the way they are, I'm willing to squash you like a bug...
@chris96kalonji That's your perception, it's clear you're heavily anti-corporation and you also clearly have no real arguments against this video or any arguments i put forth and you also don't really know how to spell, anyway, we're clearly not on the same team. Tyranny of the majority or tyranny of government is no different than what is already being offered now, your utopian perception that this time it'll turn out different amuses me to no end.
@chris96kalonji You have to understand, you completely ignored the argument in the video in your argument. The capital corporations invest into every day life from being OWNERS of big machinery, big companies, allows people to prosper more than they would if they weren't there in the first place. While it may not seem as cool as the star-wars utopian ideals of the venus project or the supposed 'solidarity' of socialist nations, it's a system that has boosted quality of life for every human.
@chris96kalonji Finally, no, I don't want things to stay the way they are. I want more freedom of trade and more freedom in social life, total freedom, not a life of austerity through morons attempting to muck with human nature. It's clear you, and in fact most socialists, have absolutely no idea how the economy works now, how it should work, or simple economic models or theories work. I understand your frustration, this isn't a fair game we've been given, but it isn't the market's fault.
@chris96kalonji Money=Power, anyone is capable of becoming rich (least in the US) If they are not rich its there own fault and have shame on them. People want money so they have more power. With power you can do alot more things. Can you afford a a luxury boat? First class ticket? Mansion? Ferriai? Money makes life more enjoyable (usally) Capitalism has its good, which i see nothing good about communism. Communism is being equal? being the same? Thats bullshit and its never going to work.
@JacobSpinney "To stop others from copyrighting it and then suing me."
I know this is an old comment, but frankly, that is a cowardly thing to do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be able to rebuke that copyright claim regardless, since you won't be employed or even affiliated with the person who "steals" your content?
Anyways, Creative Commons is useless outside of the domain you originally posted on anyway. Policing the Internet is impossible.
Surely exploitation relates to US companies closing factories in the US, where all their customers are, and moving the factory out to China where they can pay workers peanuts and still charge their customers the same price.
What value has been added by the capitalist? To make a profit the factory owner either pays his staff less than they are worth or over charges his customers. That is exploitation of the many for the sake of one and leads to super rich and super poor. QED our status quo.
erichargrave12 6 days ago
It is important to keep in mind is that fairness does not inherently make one earn less money. It makes someone NOT earn MORE money, which inherently is unfair only to THOSE people who want to make MORE money. If you start baking cookies and sell those for $1. In 3 years you stop making cookies yourself but have 40 employees making those cookies. Only 1 person in capitalist society will earn MORE among those other 40 people. Additional income could be gained by paying less to loyal employees.
Ycatsahoy 1 week ago
This video is 100% EPIC
stebecool 3 weeks ago
@stebecool 100 % epic fail ?...yes it is ...:D
thelion2430 1 week ago
@thelion2430 I will congratulate you when you become property of the state, a slave of the state.
stebecool 1 week ago
@stebecool Slave of the state or slave of the company? No difference! Freedoom!!!!!
MrCipriani18 9 hours ago
Capitalism: one man expoliting another.
Communism: the opposite.
Capitanvolume 4 weeks ago
@Capitanvolume hahahaahah brilliant
34lbs 3 days ago
Thank you
lastpatriot4America 1 month ago
this huy rules. i;m glad to see somone put the scoilist liberals in there place. because factcs trump opinions and emotion
7777TheShade 1 month ago
From his website: Jacob Spinney performs seemingly impossible feats of thought reading and mind control. "Some people confuse me with a psychic. However, I prefer to call myself a Mentalist in that none of what I do, to my knowledge, involves any paranormal or supernatural abilities. I merely use my five senses to create the illusion of the sixth." IS THIS REALLY THE PERSON YOU SHOULD BE LISTENING TO FOR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL COMMENTARY? Is it me or does this guy seem really douche-ey...
BillGoose1313 1 month ago
We're not against Capitalism. We're not against profit. We're not against success. We're against GREED. Greed is the ugly underbelly of Capitalism that nobody likes to talk about. It's destroying our country from the inside. Greed is the belief in limitless profits and unending expansion. While the media has everyone distracted watching out for terrorists in turbans carrying AK-47s, our country is being pillaged by REAL terrorists in suits carrying briefcases.
BillGoose1313 1 month ago
I would like to see capitalism actually working some day before I put my trust into it.. until then.. Karl Marx was right about everything..
DustinLT1985 1 month ago
@DustinLT1985
You're deliberately leaving out the part where the only thing that "worked" about Marxism lies in it's ability to murder and oppress people in huge numbers.
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody You are deliberately confusing socialism with communism.. It seems like you need to do a little more research into what socialism really is.. Marx believed that you had to have democracy to eventually have socialism.. There are social-democracies around the world that have higher standards than the US.. When and where has TRUE Marxist philosophy killed anyone? seriously you guys are so funny cause you can't tell the difference between socialism and communism..
DustinLT1985 1 month ago
Really? Thats not exploitation from a Marxist or Socialist point a view. Marx wrote that exploitation as treatment of factory workers in London in 19th century. The factory workers at that time worked long hour in unsafe, unhygenic conditions for the low amount of pay that the workers were hardly able to survive off of. Marx was advocating that factory workers being able to work reasonable hours in safe environments with reasonable pay so that the workers and their families can survive.
TheMasterjack89 1 month ago
is the capitalism logo inspired by coca-cola lol? what communists tend to not understand is that the strength, and its weakness, of capitalism is its ability to adapt and always change, due to forces such as people's demands, needs, trends, and other natural factors. If one type of capitalism fails, it will just reinvent itself - but the weakness of this chaotic nature means we dont know if we get a good result in the end.
MrBigEnchilada 3 months ago
The worker is exploited by capitalism, when capitalists' business ventures fail and then the worker is coerced to bail out the very same capitalists who had previously made themselves filthy rich on the back of the ordinary workers (ie their market). When they become bankrupt, their debts are wiped and the workers (taxpayers) have to pick up the tab. This has been happening in the so-called free markets of the western world over the past few years and this is exploitation.
bacabu30 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bacabu30 When the government intervenes in the market to, say, bail out a business, then it is no longer a free market. It is a government-manipulated market. It makes no sense to point to the effects of a government-manipulated market and then blame it on an economic model that requires zero government manipulation in order to work.
JacobSpinney 4 months ago 10
@JacobSpinney The funny thing is that capitalism (in its current form) would have probably imploded by now only for lots of governments around the world bailed out reckless speculating banksters. While it might not be the fault of the system of capitalism per se that governments have forced workers to pick up capitalism's tab, the reality is that when the current economic mess finally quietens down, we'll return to the top 1% making obscene amounts of money while some people have to scrimp.
bacabu30 4 months ago
@bacabu30 - How did the 1% acquire their wealth?
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt Through greed, exploitation, and destruction of the environment? LOL
bacabu30 3 months ago
@bacabu30 - Sounds like a perfect description of governments to me.
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt Depends on the government.
bacabu30 3 months ago
@bacabu30 - If governments acquired their wealth and status by satisfying the people they are supposed to serve, and not imprisoning those who sought the same goods and services from another provider, they would cease to be governments.
But your first claim definitely depends on the capitalist in question. I know of very few that have been able to successfully exploit others without the assistance of special government favors.
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt Or even through corruption, theft/misappropriation and ruthlessness.
bacabu30 3 months ago
@bacabu30 - Can you give some real-life examples of where this has occurred in the absence of special government favors?
StateExempt 3 months ago
@JacobSpinney These are the same governments who would pale at the mere utterance or whiff of socialism or social democratic principles. But, as you say, they're not being very true to capitalism when they force the workers to bail out the very élite who claim to be capitalists and free marketeers. Most of the world's wealth is owned & controlled by around 400 world corporations. When the shit hits the fan, they force the workers to bail them out...they shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
bacabu30 4 months ago
@JacobSpinney If the government is forced to intervene in a free market wouldn't that mean that the free market is not working?
DustinLT1985 1 month ago
Where do you stand on Anarcho-Socialism?
Mcupobob 4 months ago
@Mcupobob If it's voluntary, I'm all for it.
JacobSpinney 4 months ago 8
@JacobSpinney
but its inherently not since anarcho.socialism means that your have to be a slave to your group, so its still no better than a state
unfad1ng 2 months ago
@JacobSpinney Exaclty but name one ti
ORACLE063 1 month ago
Jacob Spinney wants you thinking about exploitation in terms of direct personal investment, he doesn't want you thinking about the day to day lives of labor, who must work to make the business owners richer while living being treated as a disposable commodity and doing all the labor, putting the largest amount of work into making the company prosper.
Reverse who the person was asking to do business with. The socialists would have returned the entrepreneur a lot more money.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
Capitalist Exploitation: You go to work for a business monarch who has a monopoly over the company you work for as a disposable feudal serf, the monarch takes the majority of your earnings as labor and gives you back a small share as a wage.
Corporatist Exploitation: Oligarchs steal the Company from the Monarch, then do what the Monarch did.
Socialist Exploitation: You go to work for yourself and own an equal share in the company as your fellow workers, the horror.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker There is a bunch of stuff you forget when it comes to Socialist exploitation. For instance what about those who invest more have no gain in what they do. The fact is your liberty right then and there was restricted by a group of central planners to what they believe is for the common good. Marxism and Socialism is the road to serfdom, it is a primitive idea of collectivism that the life style we once had in the Feudal system.
batman93oo 3 months ago
@batman93oo In my company, pay is effected by the work you put in, and we've only had one free rider who was fired because he violated contract. We each own the company and are bound by contract to pull our fair share in the company, major decisions are made through workplace democracy, our general manager was elected from the work force based on management skill, and the better we do our job the more we all make and the more we can invest back into the company.
You're wrong and ignorant.
FreeTheWorker 3 months ago
@FreeTheWorker I was clearly pointing out socialist exploitation and not work place ethics, What you just said isn't socialist. Your company has that freedom to do that in a capitalistic society because of the freedom that it provides. I know someone who has yet to make a personal gain from her own business she started because she is making sure her workers are paid enough. It is great what you guys do, but it may not work best for everyone. my point is a market will decide what is desirable.
batman93oo 3 months ago
@batman93oo I'm not completely sold on the socialist label because everyone seems to think it's something different, but many of my co-workers and many of the workers in other cooperatives seem to think this is a socialist business model.
A capitalist society? What do you think capitalism is? Capitalism is when a private owner owns the work place and controls the means of producting, owning the work that labor puts in generally paying a wage. You seem to think capitalism is the market. It's not
FreeTheWorker 3 months ago
@FreeTheWorker Socialism in it's most basic of definition is the planning of a economy whether it be from a centralized gov or majority. I'm not arguing work ethics or company models but on principle. the only reason your company survives is because we still allow certain freedoms to companies and leave to them how things are run. Private ownership is necessary for a market because no one but yourself can tell you what to trade and the workers don't have to work someone if they are unsatisfied
batman93oo 3 months ago
@batman93oo That's not true, you are misdefining the words capitalism and socialism because you have not researched the meanings of the terms and the different forms of each system of ownership, and are instead repeating opinionated right winged propaganda.
There are forms of socialism that don't even allow a state, and forms of capitalism that require a state. You know nothing of socialism or capitalism.
FreeTheWorker 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
batman93oo 3 weeks ago
@batman93oo That's not true, it varies according to the socialist work place. You're just reciting right winged propaganda.
FreeTheWorker 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FreeTheWorker Have fun reading your Hegel-degenerate idol Marx. For the fact that you decided months later to respond and conclude to something as you know "nothing". I am not arguing in forms of capitalism but principally the idea of individualism and free markets. Socialism requires planning with or without a state. The minority will always be ignored to what he thinks the best way to use his own property. Tell me when you finally figure out what a commodity is.
batman93oo 3 weeks ago
@FreeTheWorker
"Socialist Exploitation: You go to work for yourself and own an equal share in the company as your fellow workers, the horror."
Here "Yourself" means "The Government", and "Own An Equal Share" means "Whatever the State decides to leave you".
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody So what about libertarian socialism? You seem to be ignorant of all forms of socialism other than state socialism. Also Socialism doesn't automatically promise equal shares, in a socialist work place workers can democratically decide pay or work out a contract of pay by labor, in my own company we have elected management who get's paid nearly double the rest of us, but we can also vote someone else into that position if he isn't doing a good job, and we decided the pay.
FreeTheWorker 3 weeks ago
"Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder". So is 1 in 3 people who earn less than $2 a day relative? Or is Walmart paying sweat shop workers 0.1 cents an hour relative? Sure exploitation is relative but isn't freedom? But what isn't relative is capitalism supporting dictatorships. No that's fact.
dancthegr 4 months ago
@dancthegr What do you consider "capitalism" to be? To me, the word "capitalism" means a complete separation between economy and state. Therefore, it is impossible, by definition, for capitalism to support dictatorships since, by doing so, it would no longer be capitalism. If you disagree with my definition, then we are merely quibbling over words rather than actual content.
JacobSpinney 4 months ago
@dancthegr First, what $1 can buy where they live is a lot more than what $1 can buy here. So our scale of comparison is already skewed. Second, we shouldn't be comparing our standard of living to theirs, as our society has far more capital and thus higher wages that can be paid. What we should compare is the standard of living of these people before these factories to what it is currently. If we make this comparison, it is without question that they are better off and continue to get richer.
JacobSpinney 4 months ago 4
@JacobSpinney no $1 in most countries can't buy much. And exploitation is not relative when 1 billion starve a year. Of course you will argue that it is better than collective farming. However lassiez faire capitalism does not support fair trade; which is a solution. I am also sure that by your definition, it is not exploitation that women work 2/3s of hours yet own 1% of the world's wealth. Sure that's relative to you even communist.
dancthegr 4 months ago
@dancthegr You did not respond to any of the points I made. The parts of an economy that might widely be considered unfair are almost always the consequence of legitimized coercion. NOT of voluntary human interaction. The more you believe that humans interacting on a voluntary basis is the cause of exploitation and that legitimized coercion is the solution, the more you will enslave yourself.
JacobSpinney 4 months ago 2
@JacobSpinney yes you are correct. Corporations have taken on the rights of humans due to the passing of laws and in return have become tyrannical beings that only want profit. Even Milton Friedman suggested that corporations had a moral responsibility to produce a profit
dancthegr 4 months ago
@JacobSpinney I have to ask, where did the mass of landless peasants, stripped of the means of their own survival come from (such as in the early industrial revolution, or in current 3rd world nations - do not move context to later developments, after the masses benefited from mass social movements that you are against). In capitalism, we have voluntary choice within it's context, but we don't have choice if we want to participate or not.
slmrcs 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney In Socialism the creator is fed, the retailer is fed, and unlike capitalism, the man who puts the two together, doesn't make off with a hefty profit. Then the creation is given out to all the citizens as a privilege of citizenship.
Kidarias01 1 month ago
@Kidarias01 what a moron you are. PRIVELEDGE. your a serf.... no wait SERFS ONLY PAID 30%.
ORACLE063 1 month ago
@ORACLE063 Serfdom is a class system. Classes don't exist in Communism (where things go after Socialism). The only way a serf exists is if the government isn't working. So I'm as likely to be a serf in any form of government, so long as it works poorly. Hopefully concerned citizens like us will make the US better.
Kidarias01 1 month ago
@Kidarias01 LOLOLOLOL. This post is completely false. You need to finish your GED, then you can go to college and take some history and economics classes. It'll do you good. And stop listening to MSNBC.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 Amazing that you have derived so much about my life from a simple profile. Hey you know my email though, just ad a .gmail onto the end of that and send me a message. If you are right, then you should be able to tell me why I'm wrong. I await your email.
Kidarias01 1 month ago
@Kidarias01 In socialism, their is no creator because there is no incentive to create. In USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc there were no video game systems, no fashionable clothes, no decent cars, innovation is not appreciated. So, since there is no creation, there is no retailer to feed. In capitalism, innovation is lauded, the creator makes money, his "helpers" (fabricators, marketers, etc) also make money. That is the best system on earth. Capitalism is the way to "spread" the...
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@Kidarias01 ...in a moral way, and not by limiting innovation, theft, and coercion. Socialism is just a sickness of a system borne of lazy people and power mad people.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 In Socialism there can be intensive. A socialist believes that everyone should be fed, and housed, and that money cannot be the main incentive for creativity. If you talk about creativity, look up the results of the candle problem. As for the USSR, they were the first ones to put an object in space (if I can claim that, they were kind of feudalistic)
Kidarias01 1 month ago
@svvmichael1 In socialism there can be incentive. Socialists do believe that everyone should be fed and housed. For creativity, look how monetary incentives work in creative challenges. Should the worker be incentivized with money, yes, but money hurts creativity.
Kidarias01 1 month ago
@Kidarias01 Money hurts creativity? You just proved you are an idiot. Bye fool.
svvmichael1 1 month ago
@dancthegr I lived in the phillipines and i could feed my self for a day with 120 pesos!, here in australia i can only buy a cheeseburger.
34lbs 6 days ago
@34lbs well that is an exception to the rule
dancthegr 4 days ago
@dancthegr in what way? Buying power relative to inflation in the phillipines is less than mexico.
34lbs 3 days ago
@dancthegr
"But what isn't relative is capitalism supporting dictatorships. No that's fact."
And Socialism is a system which thrives through and inevitably produces dictators.
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiceGuyCody "And Socialism is a system which thrives through and inevitably produces dictators". Well it didn't in Chile, Britain, Germany or the rest of Europe. Try doing some background research rather than making swooping generalisations and limiting the options.
dancthegr 1 month ago
@dancthegr remember that all those governments were voted out, ohh yeah and chile's was overthrown by the military on behalf of the people.
34lbs 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@34lbs "chile's was overthrown by the military on behalf of the people" and legitimised torture, murder and authoritarian regime? The Chilean experiment was a text book version of when lassiez faire goes terribly wrong. There was mass-employment, vast poverty of 40%, hyper-inflation and vast debts. Of course, this could never happen in Europe because of "democracy"
dancthegr 1 day ago
I have one word for this video and this channel: NEV.
kingofcrunk1010 4 months ago
Well it is the workers that actually make the boss the money, without the workers, he would only be making as much money as the workers are after the boss has stolen it all. Surely the workers who work in the mills ought to own the mills?
23lFrench 4 months ago
@23lFrench Meant to say ought to *run the mills.
23lFrench 4 months ago
Even if its UP TO HIM to decide?
socialism.
turtleking9999 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 uhhhh what? A company cant exist without shareholders or capital. Thats why people put money into stocks is so they can make money when the company succeeds. No money = no company
zwdog1122 5 months ago 2
Question, does this argument also apply to stock owners who contribute nothing to a corporation other than some capital and a share of the ownership? Not calling it exploitation, just don't see their share of helping the company or improving productivity when passive share owners don't produce anything.
LancePoint9 5 months ago
@LancePoint9 They produced the capital to invest and are rewarded for risking that capital which potentially produces jobs for individuals to produce their own capital and if savy will in turn invest that capital n so on. That is if they had anything left over after expenses and being taxed to support a socialist society.
seeqr9 4 months ago
@seeqr9 If taxes hamper business, why is there no correlation between taxes and economic growth? Reagan raised taxes in his era but the economy still grew. I also don't like it when my bank starts risk taking with my money and can't cover their debts, then comes running for a bailout that takes even more of my money. Why should banks be allowed to take risks with other people's money?
LancePoint9 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 Good question. Thats wer the manipulation of currency not backed by any tangible value (federal reserve notes) comes in as well as the bubbles they create. Artificial growth. That is not free market capitalism, thats Gov in bed w big business. Any person/business getting balied out by one person/group with anothers money w/o ther consent is SOCIALISM not capitalism. Free market would have let them fail like they should hav. You will find that we dont really disagree vry mch....
seeqr9 4 months ago
@seeqr9 I talk about taxes and suddenly I'm a socialist. I know the value of capitalism. I merely point out that taxes alone have not hampered it. Regulations and monetary policy are different matters which have had negative effects. If we are going to talk economic theory, there is one fault with capitalism. The invisible hand idea that everyone benefits through everyone acting in their own interests does not work in practice. That's my only doubt about capitalism, prove me wrong.
LancePoint9 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 I wasnt calling u a socialist brother. I was under the impression we were having a real conversation with no intentions for insult. That is the only reason i took time to even reply further. But bak to the tlk, mon. policy n reg. is the same matter if the policy is to reg. Also I personally rather the "invisible hand" take care of things than the hands of the "well intentioned" Mob or small council of "intelectually elite". Like i said its about consent. Freedom 2 use what u earn.
seeqr9 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 The only thing that really needs proving is the idea that forcing someone to do something is moral. If I as a person in power taxed u n ur family for a kidney n saved others life with it they would think i was a hero. But u would call me a thief n u would b right. But if u could profit frm voluntarily selling ur kidney to those people evryone would win. Except me as said person of power of course. i would have to actually produce or contribute in a moral and valuable way.
seeqr9 4 months ago
@seeqr9 Step back for a moment. It is my interest to satisfy my desires, not my morality.If there is no profit to be found for taking care of the elderly, i don't do it. There is a profit to be made in selling drugs. If i can make a personal profit in the short term, i will overlook long term costs to the society. I will not consider who gets hurt or sick from my business or product because there is no immediately self serving reason to care about others. I only see a carrot, not the giant stick
LancePoint9 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 Well I admire your honesty. It is now clear why u support a nanny state.ur tryin to protect the downtrodden frm urself. I personally would do the moral thing as that is my desire. Of course instant gratification is a temptation but it is up to us to raise our children, n ourself if it wasnt done, to do the same. But I should not b forced to contribute to a group of "do gooders" who may do bad with my contribution just because ther r ppl who dont have ther principles in order. BUT...
seeqr9 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 in a free society with proper rule of law ( protection of life liberty n property) u would have to pay for your long term damage to ppls life or property(body) thus making u think ahead long term for ur own self interest. otherwise u would end up losing way more than u ever gained from those ppl in the long run. Its the nanny state that protects the drug co. frm bein sued n payin for damages. look at vaccines. It backfires. its called "moral hazard".
seeqr9 4 months ago
@seeqr9 You sound high and mighty but have just proven my point. Now you what to regulate my behavior through the proper rule of law. You want it to become necessary that I consider my long term interests. Is forcing me to do something moral? Besides, if you give the government no money, how can they fund the police to keep bad people away.
LancePoint9 4 months ago
@seeqr9 The drug companies are interested in profit. If invisible hand was true, there would be no need for proper rule of law. Certainly Big business and government are in bed together which leads to us being screwed. Again proving that chasing their own interests does not help us. Also funny that you call me honest and seeking a nanny state when i told you i was a capitalist. My point is that a true believer in invisible hand would do anything thinking that it always help society.
LancePoint9 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 I am most certainly not for monopolies or corprate bailouts using others capital. That can only happen with Gov intervention though. It comes down to consent. If you knowingly invested in the bank then thats ur risk. If ur money was taken by "gun point" n threat of imprisonment n given to the bank that is most vile on the level with rape or hurting children IMHO. Socialism or any other Gov involvment is wut makes this all possible while makin it harder for honest people to become..
seeqr9 4 months ago
@LancePoint9 wealthy and do good things for many people. I cant speak for you or others but i do know that I am honest and would do good things n I have the feeling u would do the same. I refuse to believe I'm the only one. True free market capitalism is the truly equal opportunity way of doin things. Not equal outcome but equal opportunity. Then we can use our own wealth to do as we see fit rather than sum criminals bailing out banks n other criminals :)
seeqr9 4 months ago
Very interesting analogy. It seems that the worker clearly should buy his own "widget" in this example, so that he may multiply his income by 9. This then begs the question, why don't all workers simply buy their own widgets instead of working for less?
MarxismToday 5 months ago
@MarxismToday Because they lack the necessary savings to make the investment. Or they just prefer working rather than managing. Or they would rather make a much more stable and guaranteed income immediately, before the product is even sold, rather than gamble on whether their product will make a profit or not.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago 5
@JacobSpinney Yes, and I think if we look at the real world, your first reason would be the case in the vast majority of situations. And wouldn't another way to say this be "he does not have access/ownership of the means of production?"
MarxismToday 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney You ever notice how you have to explain the obvious to socialists?
newperve 2 months ago
In a participatory society, we'd all come to some agreement to rotate the job of making fishing nets equally between us, and all give small portions of our fish to that person while she made nets. We wouldn't let that person starve for a day, like some rugged individualist collection of thugs would.
mojorhythm 7 months ago
@mojorhythm
That just sounds like some stupid faux-utopia whereby everybody is forced to give up any semblance of choice or freedom in order to enslave themselves to YOUR authoritarian beliefs.
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody Then you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about.
mojorhythm 1 month ago
BULLSHIT
AtheismCentral 7 months ago
@AtheismCentral - You're a moron. A Michael Mooron who knows less about economics than the average five year old.
thomaserossi 7 months ago 2
everyone born in middle europe knows that socialism is terrible
father042 7 months ago
Isnt there a missed point when he attributes the existence of the widget to the person wanting to mass produce it? The issue is that the person with the widget who is doing no work will make 10 times that of the person doing all the work. True capitalist ideology suggests that you earn the amount you work for so the hardest worker would get the most money. We all know that this is false because the hardest workers are almost always paid the least in buisnesses. It is a self contradictory system
ZombiBuddy 7 months ago
@ZombiBuddy 'True capitalist ideology suggests that you earn the amount you work for so the hardest worker would get the most money.' no thats marxism.
achilles6822 7 months ago
@achilles6822 Actually the concept is very far away from Marxism. Other than that, hasnt it been the main point of capitalism supporters that hard work pays off? With that in mind look at say a sweat shop or factory floor worker. They are easily the hardest workers, but the pay borders on nothing. Explain how that works.
ZombiBuddy 7 months ago
@ZombiBuddy You know what, I take it back. Your right marxists dont say you work for the amount you earn, they say your work (+ materials) decides the value of what you produce. What really happened was you just made a logical error. Why would earning the amount you work for imply that hard workers would get more money? If a hard worker earns next to nothing, he still earned a certain amount. So, since he "earned the amount he worked for", there isnt a contradiction. cont.~
achilles6822 7 months ago
@ZombiBuddy ~Cont. Keep in mind before you respond that the ideology 'Hard work pays off' or 'you earn the amount you work for' isn't a mandatory philosphy capitalists have to adopt in order to be capitalists.
achilles6822 7 months ago
@achilles6822 But that proves my point. Proponents of capitalism proclaim that it is a fair system, but in practice it thrives on making sure that progress for the worker is impossible. If the work never pays off then no one would want to work. This is where proponents talk about equal oppurtunity, but in reality know that their is no guaranteed reward for hard work. Otherwise no one would support it.
ZombiBuddy 7 months ago
@ZombiBuddy Your shifting focus, first you said it was a self contradictory system, now your saying what every other anti cap says, that the workers are exploited. Another thing, we dont claim its fair (at least a lot of us don't). We just claim its more fair than the rest of the systems. For some people the work does pay off, for others it doesn't, this will be true no matter what system we are talking about. As for it thriving on making sure that progress for the worker is impossible, false.
achilles6822 7 months ago
@achilles6822 All right your being honest, but you are making a mistake if you think that capitalism is the fairest system. Capitalism requires both exploitation of the worker and hinderance of the worker in order to function. If the worker is not exploited then an elite class cannot form . If the progress of the worker is unhindered then the elite class will be threatened. This is the is the contradiction, that capitalism needs progress, but must hinder internal progress for elites to benefit .
ZombiBuddy 7 months ago
@ZombiBuddy "If the worker is not exploited then an elite class cannot form" I actually kind of agree, but the private elite class formed from govt invlovment, not voluntary trade and investment. In a matter of fact, nearly all monopolies that have formed in the U.S. were an outcome of government favoritism. Despite this, there are small buisnesses that employ workers that don't hinder worker progress. And while its true the owners are filthy rich, both parties progress. This is what i support
achilles6822 7 months ago
@ZombiBuddy *the owners are not filthy rich*
achilles6822 7 months ago
@achilles6822 Are you talking about corporation owners or the owners of our country or what? Because that would be a hard sell to say that they arent rich. And way back to shifting focus (as you accused me of), ive stated the contradiction within capitalism and in no way have I advocated Marxism.
ZombiBuddy 7 months ago
@ZombiBuddy I was talkign about small buisness owners, and I didnt accuse you of being a marxist. Just out of curiosity did you see both posts or just one? Cause there are plenty of buisnesses where both employer and employee make progress.
achilles6822 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZombiBuddy
"in practice it thrives on making sure that progress for the worker is impossible. If the work never pays off then no one would want to work. "
All of these arguments you're making apply far more aptly to the inevitable Nomenklatura which springs up in Socialism, and which exists only to keep the citizenry in a collectivist feudalism whereby the Government is the sole beneficiary.
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
I like these videos, they're a platform for discussion.
I agree with communism in this case. The extreme welfare of the 'happy few' will barely decrease if the exploitation of their employees is put to an end anyway.
After all, what's more important: Money or general welfare?
Tuck213 9 months ago
Yeah, like you for instance...
evsnova74 9 months ago
this is brainwashing and you're all sheep. save yourself the mental frustration and just turn it off and seek the truth.
(and i could be a conservative or liberal, it doesn't matter, it's just that this is really one-sided propaganda.)
VideoFreeMichael 9 months ago
@VideoFreeMichael What people like this guy seem to think is that the answer to radical extreme is a polar opposite radical extreme. Radicalism in anything - politics, economic policy, religion, etc. - is a very dangerous thing.
xexixk 9 months ago
Another severe misrepresentation of socialism and capitalism. Also extremely biased.
Your confirmation bias is astounding but I don't think watching more of your videos would prove you actually made up your mind in a critical way about these topics.
lynth 9 months ago
For those of you using the US as their prime example for Capitalism, don't. It's crony capitalism that is hindered with many regulations and fees.
Pure capitalism the based on the consensual trade of capital. Consensual is important there as it makes it capitalism the only moral system when compared to socialism or communism.
Nice vid Jacob :)
sbank 10 months ago 12
@sbank
wouldn't Somalia be a good example of Capitalism?
Evan2718281828 6 months ago
@Evan2718281828
No. I don't know why Leftists keep clinging to that false analogy, yet pretend that Stalin, Mao ET AL weren't "True Scotsmen".
NiceGuyCody 1 month ago
@NiceGuyCody
stalin = state capitalist
mao = state communist
marx never advocated for statism, he emphasized workers unions taking over. this is the position of syndicalists today. First change the government, then once it's fixed everything destroy it. Mao wanted to keep the government. therefore he is not a marxist. I do not defend the authoritarian half of leftism. neither do most leftists.
Evan2718281828 1 month ago
@makev9k Uhh I don't know oh yeah Scandinavia and some European countries are very close to it and they felt little of the global recession because of it!
4500jas 11 months ago
@4500jas Scandinavian GDP as in relation to the rest of the world
1980 0.74%
1990 0.67%
2000 0.56%
Estimated 2010 0.46%
Sure is growing their economy.
Greece is European, they went bankrupt.
asleeperj 10 months ago
Being forced to choose starvation wages or nothing when there are enough resources available for everyone to live is exploitation, not liberty.
mf91007 11 months ago
Its fine to produce more value than what you're paid, if it's all really voluntary. The reality is that society is structured to remove this choice from labor. Because capital is concentrated among the few, while the many have little more than their labor to offer, the law of supply and demand works against them. The only way for labor to prevent their pay falling below a living wage is for all the widget workers to organize and tell the widget owner that they're on strike.
mf91007 11 months ago
Hilarious! Even if it means I end up making less money?
zardozcs 1 year ago
Capitalist propaganda. Two thumbs way down. In socialism you get paid more and have good benefits. Why don't you people get out of America and go to a socialist country that is not communist
4500jas 1 year ago
@4500jas Is there any First World country that is socialist? (just wondering, because I can't find any).
Makve9k 11 months ago
@Makve9k
Depends on what you mean by socialist. By American definitions of the word then pretty much every western european country, with the possible exception of the UK, would be socialist.
As with most things in life its not a question of black and white. Capitalism has many good points but so does socialsim. The sensible thing is to apply the most appropriate system in the areas were it works best.
So for venture were genuine competipon can exist capitalism works well.
In areas were..
evilreligion 11 months ago
@Makve9k
... competition is impossible or higly impractical (like health care or the military or police or fire fighting) then social systems work best. And by "work best" I mean produce the best results for the capital used i.e. the most efficient use of resources. It is a myth that capitalism is always more efficient the huge inefficiencies present in the american health care system is evidence of this. Similarly the disaterous privitisation of the UK rail network demonstrates this as well.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@evilreligion The inefficiencies are caused by the US government. The market prices are no longer set by the individual, but by third parties. That monopoly was granted to the insurance companies by the US government. This got it's big kick start by Teddy Roosevelt. The universal health care system was in it's infancy in the US in late 1800s-early 1900s, Teddy pushed it as a progressive, and low and behold, everything has gotten worse sense. The Nazis where also progressive (modern liberals.)
asleeperj 10 months ago
@evilreligion The US has been funding hospitals since 1946, Costs didn't go down. Read Hill-Burton act. 1954 Start the big third party plan, exempting taxes on health care provided by big employers. I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.
asleeperj 10 months ago
@asleeperj
Britain, France and every other first world nation has been doing the same and they have far more efficient healthcare systems than the US. The difference is that the other countries systems provide fully socialised healthcare were the US relies upon the worst of both worlds. It funds some hospitals by tax payers and then outsources the delivery of thsoe services to a highly inefficient oligopoly of inssurence companies. Its madness!
evilreligion 10 months ago
@4500jas because it's bankrupting everyone, the US included.
asleeperj 10 months ago
@4500jas You don't get paid more and you don't get more benefits. Your taxes will be so High that it would seem you're getting benefits, but your really just paying for them in taxes. Plus, the only way you would get paid more in a socialist country was if you were a lazy slob eating potato chips all day.
creator5593 10 months ago
Communism is garbage.
shellarrowz 1 year ago
@shellarrowz This is socialism, not communism -.-
TheShiftingStudios 10 months ago
@shellarrowz Capitalism is garbage. Stalin and Che were right about one thing, some people need to be shot, so that the rest of us can live in peace.
chris96kalonji 9 months ago
@chris96kalonji - I'm assuming the "rest of us" is a very elite few.
HexTest 9 months ago
@chris96kalonji What people like this guy seem to think is that the answer to radical extreme is a polar opposite radical extreme. Radicalism in anything - politics, economic policy, religion, etc. - is a very dangerous thing.
xexixk 9 months ago
@chris96kalonji Nah Communism is garbage, you have no future no goals in communism. Yeah Stalin and Che were right and they are the ones that needed to get shot when they were born.
shellarrowz 8 months ago
@shellarrowz And everyone has a future with capitalism? =/
KefkasInsanity 8 months ago
@shellarrowz Actually, that's all you have in Communism. You become a doctor in order to help people, not for the money like a lot of people in Capitalis. Also, you provided with no facts or evidence of why Communism is bad. Think about, why is there so much corruption in America. Besides, it's a country that lies to its people constantly. About 9/11, and the fact that it's a Republic not a Democracy, and that American citezens don't have a say in anything that goes on in their government.
chris96kalonji 8 months ago
@chris96kalonji Who decides who is a doctor? Who would want to take out the garbage? How do people get rewarded for scarce labor as opposed to abundant labor? How do you solve the calculation problem? What about marginal utility?
Doctors SHOULD get paid more, it takes a lot of time to be a doctor and their labor is SCARCE, meaning, there's a lot less potential for people to be doctors than there is for people to be dock workers. America is corrupt because of big government, not capitalism.
s0beit 8 months ago
@s0beit No, there's a difference between money EARNED through WORK, and money gotten through OWNING. Big corporations don't have to do shit, and it's no because of hard work. It's because they were able to exploit and use other people successfully, it's because they were good liers. Also, some people can't get treated well because they can't afford those extremely high hospital bills. Sir, we are on the same team, but if you like things the way they are, I'm willing to squash you like a bug...
chris96kalonji 8 months ago
@chris96kalonji That's your perception, it's clear you're heavily anti-corporation and you also clearly have no real arguments against this video or any arguments i put forth and you also don't really know how to spell, anyway, we're clearly not on the same team. Tyranny of the majority or tyranny of government is no different than what is already being offered now, your utopian perception that this time it'll turn out different amuses me to no end.
s0beit 8 months ago
@chris96kalonji You have to understand, you completely ignored the argument in the video in your argument. The capital corporations invest into every day life from being OWNERS of big machinery, big companies, allows people to prosper more than they would if they weren't there in the first place. While it may not seem as cool as the star-wars utopian ideals of the venus project or the supposed 'solidarity' of socialist nations, it's a system that has boosted quality of life for every human.
s0beit 8 months ago
@chris96kalonji Finally, no, I don't want things to stay the way they are. I want more freedom of trade and more freedom in social life, total freedom, not a life of austerity through morons attempting to muck with human nature. It's clear you, and in fact most socialists, have absolutely no idea how the economy works now, how it should work, or simple economic models or theories work. I understand your frustration, this isn't a fair game we've been given, but it isn't the market's fault.
s0beit 8 months ago
@chris96kalonji Money=Power, anyone is capable of becoming rich (least in the US) If they are not rich its there own fault and have shame on them. People want money so they have more power. With power you can do alot more things. Can you afford a a luxury boat? First class ticket? Mansion? Ferriai? Money makes life more enjoyable (usally) Capitalism has its good, which i see nothing good about communism. Communism is being equal? being the same? Thats bullshit and its never going to work.
shellarrowz 7 months ago
I have. Have you?
FULL of them?
Really??
That sounds like the sort of comment made by someone who gets their information second hand.
billburns2 1 year ago
awesome vid but you shouldn't support intellectual property
StatelessEuphoria 1 year ago 2
@StatelessEuphoria I don't.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 3
@JacobSpinney
copyrighted video?
StatelessEuphoria 1 year ago
@StatelessEuphoria You mean the creative commons license that I've placed this, and all my other videos, under?
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 2
@JacobSpinney
Why place it under any license at all?
StatelessEuphoria 1 year ago
@StatelessEuphoria To stop others from copyrighting it and then suing me.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago 41
@JacobSpinney
I see. Carry on.
StatelessEuphoria 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
They can do that? Holy shit. Demonstrates the corruption of IP.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I was thinking about doing this until I saw the last 5 seconds of the video. Damn.
Icemario87 11 months ago
@JacobSpinney "To stop others from copyrighting it and then suing me."
I know this is an old comment, but frankly, that is a cowardly thing to do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be able to rebuke that copyright claim regardless, since you won't be employed or even affiliated with the person who "steals" your content?
Anyways, Creative Commons is useless outside of the domain you originally posted on anyway. Policing the Internet is impossible.
KefkasInsanity 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney That's hilarious.
SculptedThoughts 7 months ago
@JacobSpinney : Lolz. nice one bro. Cheer up. All bad things have to come to an end. One day the Free Capitalism will come to our society. :)
larsiemannen 6 months ago