Thunderf00t vs. HowTheWorldWorks

[VanDoodah]

The guy who made this video is a typical indoctrinated American moron who cannot distinguish between government control and slavery.

"If you don't get to keep the fruits of your labour, that is slavery."

So, under capitalism, where the workers don't keep what the fruits of their labour, they are slaves? I agree.

[666or999]

@VanDoodah Under capatislism workers sign away the fruits of thier labours for the ability to proform so labour and cash. It is all voluntary. And don't try to say that i am also indoctrinated for I am English.

[VanDoodah]

@666or999 I was being sarcastic. Also, how arrogant do you have to be to claim that being English = being cleverer than everyone else? I'm English, and in my experience we're not exactly the brightest bunch.

[666or999]

@VanDoodah I'm english so I was not indoctrinated into being a capatilist since capatilists are so rare here. And please note that sarcasism does not communicate well in text.

[VanDoodah]

@666or999 Well, seeing as how we are a capitalist country, I wouldn't say that capitalists are rare here. Secondly, I am not convinced that you are English; English people should be able to write in their own language properly, something which you cannot.

[666or999]

@VanDoodah England is capitalist? Redistribution of wealth is common here, one of our main 2 parties identifies itself as socialist and it heavily regulates industries. Plus I don't think I have ever really met anyone who identifies themselves as a capitalist.

[VanDoodah]

@666or999 Actually, the Tories identify themselves as capitalists, Labour as Third Way and the Liberal Democrats as either capitalist or Third Way, depending on who you ask. Redistribution of wealth basically never occurs in the UK; it's a popular myth promoted by the free market right. Still, that's irrelevant, as socialism isn't about redistribution of wealth - it's about workers' control.

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@Houshalter The demand for labour is not infinite, governments tried to create full employment but found that capitalism cannot maintain full employment; this is a fact. In fact anything that functions within a natural system cannot be infinite in anyway, it will reaches limits which cannot be overcome. Without government regulation capitalism cannot function, capitalism spends to little on research and cannot be sustainable in the long term because it relies on exponential growth.

[DeadMarine1980]

The dude who made this vid failed at history classs and life. Capitalism is slavery as well. The powers at top want workers to work for low pay (if not free, the American south was an extream capitalist state), so they can maximize profits for themselves.....Why do you think the rich fight taxes....because they are greedy. If the rich could inslave the population again like it was before the civil war they would.

[achilles6822]

Are there seriously still people who argue labor determines the price of a product?

you can work for 5 days making a pack of gum and im still only paying 1 dollar for it.

[stoopefy]

this must be another HTWW sock account... Even with your voice distorted i can still tell its you

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@jerthemessiah

"People have always had to work or starve. Mans natural state is poverty."

The situation of acute food shortages exists in a context of a systemic crisis of capitalism with multiple facets: economic, ecological, social, food, energy and so on. Capitalism has demonstrated its inability to meet the basic needs of most of the world’s population as well as its total incompatibility with the maintenance of the ecosystem (Antentas and Vivas, 2008).

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@blurbum9

Can you not quit and start your own business? Bottom 50% of people in my country have about 1% of the wealth. Not really an option. (UK).

Can you do all of these things in a socialist country where the government owns all of the businesses? It would be like quitting and starting work with the same employer...

In a socialist country you can still have a private sector if you want, see socialist market economy.... and China.

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@blurbum9

So you can't apply somewhere else and get a job at a different place? Not really as there is always less jobs than people in a capitalistic system. Some people do get the job they but in reaity the rest of us do want jobs we can get.

You can't report a dishonest business to the better business bureau? Question has nothing to do with me.

Are not many labor unions more powerful than the employer themselves? No not in my country they smashed them.

[Houshalter]

@HandOfNodzx128k, the demand for labor is infinite. In a capitalist system you can always find another job, it's the government that limits the number of jobs with controls over the market. As for capitalism not being able to meet basic needs, there has never been a famine in a capitalist country and we have an abundance of food, so many homes the government is trying to regulate their prices, etc. As for pollution, governments are the largest polluters on the planet!

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@4gl2u

(...) Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work."

If all you have to sell than yourself you are basically a slave in any capitalist system.

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@4gl2u

"This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past.In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living.

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@4gl2u As Marx writes:

"The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the indigenous population of that continent, the beginnings of the conquest and plunder of India, and the conversion of Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting of black-skins, are all things which characterize the dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief moments of primitive accumulation."

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@4gl2u "Socialism is slavery" Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. Socialism in its essence is a state of society in which all people work cooperatively as "equals" for the common good of all. This is not slavery, by any meaning of the word.

[jerthemessiah]

@HandOfNodzx128k Sounds like government owns everything including the people.

[HandOfNodzx128k]

@4gl2u In easy steps for you. Voluntarily action of an agent in a system requires the employee to have the same bargaining power as the employer. This is not the case, if the employer has more power than the employee, he can set terms and you will be force to accept if there is nothing else available. This is not voluntarily action of an agent, after all you have to work. There is no real choice.

[jerthemessiah]

@HandOfNodzx128k People have always had to work or starve. Mans natural state is poverty.

[blurbum9]

@HandOfNodzx128k

So you can't apply somewhere else and get a job at a different place?

You can't report a dishonest business to the better business bureau?

Are not many labor unions more powerful than the employer themselves?

Can you not quit and start your own business?

Can you do all of these things in a socialist country where the government owns all of the businesses? It would be like quitting and starting work with the same employer...

[HandOfNodzx128k]

Capitalism found slavery profitable and had no problems morally using slaves. Slavery was stopped because there was no moral reason to justify it and people fought to stop it. Capitalism would still be using slaves if it was not outlawed. The USA had a civil war to stop capitalist from using slaves. It was christains like quakers that fought to get it outlawed. Capitalism is plain evil if you are a christain. Distribution of surplus under socialism is not slavery.

[4gl2u]

@HandOfNodzx128k

Slavery does not benefit the economy as a whole. The civil war had nothing to do with capitalism, it was an issue of whether the federal government had the power to prohibit slavery. It wasn't written in any manifesto that people at the time had the right to own slaves, but it was yet to be written that the government could stop you from doing so. Individual rights are required for capitalist economies to function, and all slavery did was remove demand from the market.

[HandOfNodzx128k]

For a start socialism is not slavery. "If you dont have the right to keep the fruits of your labor then you are nothing but a slave." That means everyone that cannot keep the fruits of your labor, which is most of the people working for a employer for a wage. To make a good return the employer will pay a work less than the fruits of his labour. Full socialism is a society that is no longer based on coercive wage-labour. Capitalism is slavery.

[4gl2u]

@HandOfNodzx128k The people working for an employee wage are voluntarily trading the product of their labour for said wage. And in the instances where they're producing something, it's with materials that don't belong to them, so they wouldn't be entitled to the end result to begin with.

Socialism is slavery because the government not only owns, but has the right to own, all areas of the economy, including both your labour and everything you produce.

[epsilon8998]

"If you do not have the rights to keep the fruits of your labor, then you are a slave!" Hey! You just described capitalism! Now you understand the concept of wage-slavery. Good job!

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 That was the most saddening attempt at a response I've seen all day. If you don't understand capitalism, then you've no mind in trying to criticize it.

[Elendil176]

@AuTaliah Yeah, just tell him to shut up when you can't respond to his points! That's the way to win an argument...

[AuTaliah]

@Elendil176 I can't respond to his points? What points are you talking about? All he did was state something incorrect about capitalism. Is that how you'd go about winning an argument, Elendil?

If anything, I was indoctrinated into liberalism, and it's likely that you were as well. The government runs the schools, so it's not surprising that all of their curriculum teaches that the solution to all of society's problems is to expand government. It's a self-serving ideology, don't you see?

[epsilon8998]

@Elendil176 Don't worry about me and AuTallah. No capitalist has an argument strong enough to win against me. You can stand back and watch or participate in the slaughter with me if you wish. It'll be quite a sight to see anyway lol

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 In your head, you won before I even responded to you. That's why you're such a lost cause; there's literally no convincing you, and unfortunately that's just the standard of discourse that I've adjusted to here on the internet. I've also realized that the point of any argument really isn't trying to convince the person you're arguing with, it's hoping that the undecided people still on the fence about it don't fall victim to your poisonous bullshit. Is that clear?

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah No it's just I've had plenty of arguments against capitalists and they all use the same tired old excuses for a system that alienates and exploits them, and they foolishly go on about defending it like it's something that's going to benefit them. Little do you know it but chances are I am fighting for YOUR interest, whether you accept it or not. Because chances are (literally about 1000 to 1) you are not a capitalist but are a mere worker who works for a wage. Wage labor exploits you!

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah HAHAHAHAHAHA. The fact that you think I'm wrong about it just proves your stupidity. I have no don't you're going to counter my definition by saying that "capitalism is defined as freedom" when you don't even see that capitalism both restricts and denies freedom to most people. Your theories are a crock of shit. Get off of MY YOUTUBE before I have to beat you down even further

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 It doesn't restrict or deny freedom to most people. You just don't know what you're talking about, which is why you provided such a lengthy non-argument. Go ahead, "beat me down even further." As if you're capable at all.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah If only there was a way to transmit all the works and knowledge of all the world's best thinkers into one little paragraph. But since that is not possible, I'll do my best to explain it in just half of one. Capitalism denies freedom because it creates inequality: a class with more property and another with less. Since property is the determining factor of success in capitalism, those without property are forced into poverty and failure, and thus, it denies them freedom.

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 Freedom is the power to act without externally imposed restraints. Just because somebody has more money than you doesn't mean you have any less freedom. Somebody born in the ghetto has no less rights than a wealthy business owner, or a member of congress.

Society requires classes to function, and nobody is permanently stuck within the class that they were born into. This rhetoric merely fuels my initial accusation that you don't understand the system that you're trying to critique.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah And your power to act is restricted by the state enforced property rights that limit your ability to physically interact with your environment. Since the world and human society is produced through active production, the relationships that we must enter into to engage in that production thus effects the limits of our freedom. These relationships often compel us to conform to certain standards that society demands so that we may participate in production...

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah ... These pressures to conform put limits on our freedom. Our economic and political worlds do not protect the individuals right to NOT conform, as it should if it is really the protector of freedom like it constantly claims it is. People are pressured by economic and social forces beyond their control to conform to society's standards by centering their lives around a prefigured productive process that excludes their ability to influence it...

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 ... and just because somebody "pressures" you to conform to a perceived social norm doesn't mean that you've been stripped of your freedom not to do so. You've certainly been consistent in your misunderstanding of freedom actually is, which would explain your nonsense claim that capitalism somehow restricts it. The fact is, conformity is easy. It's easier to get by if you fit in with everybody else, so that's what a lot of people choose to do. There's absolutely no force involved.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah Too bad property rights place restrictions when those rights are made irrelevant when wealth inequalities give more opportunities to one person over another. Let's take an example. Let's say that you didn't want to work for a wage anymore. You wanted to exercise your right not to conform with everyone else, so you chose not to get a job. "But how are you going to eat?" You ask yourself, without any money to buy it with. Well you'll just build yourself a garden in your backyard! ...

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 "Too bad property rights place restrictions when those rights are made irrelevant when wealth inequalities give more opportunities to one person over another."

It sure took you long enough to explain, but you basically described somebody constructing such a large building on their property that it stops the sun from reaching your property, which kills your garden and forces you to get a job so you can afford paying somebody else to grow your food for you.

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 There are also some obvious advantages to living in a community, the most important of which is trade. This involves a mutual transaction: you provide goods and services to the people in the community, and those people provide goods and services to you. It makes more sense to specialize and trade than it does to try to live as "lone wolves" and do everything ourselves.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah But your idea of a "community," in no way describes realistic communities in capitalism. These transactions are not mediated between people directly on a personal level based on goodwill. If that were true then we would have communism, you see. Capitalism transactions are instead mediated through the universal transferability of money and labor. People must buy their goods on the market, but to do this they must sell their labor power for money...

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah ... At no point does the motive of profit become discounted because of relationships. In fact, profit actually destroys relationships because it discounts the humanity within the people who are selling their labor power. People must sell their time and become the virtual slaves to their bosses for a set amount of time throughout their day. This means they become accustomed to accepting orders from a tyrannical leader, and dictatorial systems become acceptable in everyday interaction

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah Yes, exactly. Freedom depends on both conceptions of freedom, the freedom "from" and the freedom "to." Right-libertarian philosophies normally only consider the first form of freedom, the freedom "from," meaning as a "condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed against..." Those are Murray Rothbard's words. But he and others like him do not consider freedom that is enabled and made actual.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah ... Since you do have a right to do it, after all. So you put together all your money you have saved and get to work! After lots of hard labor, you create a self-sustaining garden that can feed you... All in the back yard of your suburban community house. But there's a problem. All the property around you had previously been unused, with no houses built on them. But the owner of that property now wants to build more houses next to yours in a project he calls "community development"...

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah ... "Community development? That doesn't sound so bad. It actually sounds kind of nice!" You say to yourself. So you accept his proposal, thinking it will benefit you too. But what this does to your garden completely kills it, because the erection of all the houses around you, with their fences and towering rooftops, blocks out all the sunlight to your garden, and kills your food. You are then compelled to get a job and mold your life to theirs. That is how your freedom is lost.

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 "You are then compelled to get a job and mold your life to theirs. This is how your freedom is lost."

That has nothing to do with freedom; you're talking about "getting a job" as if we're all doing generic office tasks for a living and that by merely having a job we're all exactly the same. It couldn't be farther from the truth. To conform to somebody is to adjust to it, or to become similar to it. If you're busy trying to grow enough food in your backyard to keep yourself ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah alive, and you happen to notice that the community of people down the road are doing just fine because they interact with each other economically, then of course you'd want to conform to the system that's doing so well for them! It doesn't mean you instantly lose your sense of individuality and turn into a grey blob that's completely indistinguishable from everybody else in the community, it just means that you provide goods and services to them, and that they'll provide goods and ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah services to you. If that's too intrusive on your rights, then you can go back to your garden and try to grow enough food to make it through the winter.

"There are situations such as what I just explained that can lead to a decrease in freedom because of conflicting property rights."

If the American government wanted to drain Lake Michigan, they wouldn't have the legal right to do so, because although the entirety of the lake is located in the United States, draining it would ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah result in the rest of the great lakes' water levels dropping significantly, and all of them but Lake Michigan are partially owned by Canada. So in other words, I don't have to look to your situation to see an example of conflicting property rights. This sort of thing happens all the time, and it doesn't discredit capitalism because capitalism doesn't boast perfection.

There will always be discrepancies; that's why we have a court system. To make decisions such as that draining ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah Lake Michigan would have to be done with the Canadian government's consent because doing so would affect their property. In other words, to the lone gardener whose neighbours just obstructed his garden's view of the sun: stop your bitching and take them to court; they're infringing on your rights.

"If we are not allowed the legal and physical-material ability to produce our means to live, then we have no right to life to begin with."

This is such nonsense, you're trying to say ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah that if we don't have the ability to grow the food that we need to live, then we don't have the right to live at all. I'm going to try to put this as simply as possible. I don't need a farm of my own, I just need to be able to buy the end result, which is food, from somebody that does have a farm. I've seen plenty of ideologues go down this path before, and the idea is usually that if you can't afford to buy your own farm, and the government says you're not allowed to steal one, ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah then capitalism must be evil because it infringes on your rights to grow your own food; ignoring of course the people whose rights you wish to infringe on to acquire a farm since you don't have enough money to buy one. It's a pathetic appeal to emotion.

"Capitalism limits our ability to create by alienating us from the productive process, and by taking away the wealth of society."

An opportunity is just a possibility with a favourable disposition; you cannot create opportunity ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah for yourself, or it stops being opportunity. This is getting old; you're just basing arguments on your own imaginary definitions of the terms that you're misusing. Capitalism doesn't limit your ability to create, in fact it fosters more innovation and has created more wealth than any other ideology in the history of the world.

The short-term solution known as "socialism" is what takes away wealth from society, because all it does is spread it around, and dwindle it down.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah Yes, opportunities CAN be created by applying human labor to alter the conditions of the environment to tip the scales towards a favorable disposition. It's the versatility of human labor power applied to the world that can change it so fundamentally that the results cannot even be predicted. We can alter the universe around us, and so CREATE entirely new opportunities for us when there were none before. Who could have imagined, 100 years ago, that we would travel to the moon some day?

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 The excuse I'd use for capitalism, as you put it, would be that it has the highest success rate of creating wealth, ergo raising our standard of living and alleviating suffering. No other philosophy has done nearly as much good as capitalism has, and literally all of the alternatives offered by these social critics involve removing or restricting individual freedom, and none of them have ever worked.

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah Indeed, I've both freedom to religion and freedom from torture; one is a condition, the other is an exemption, much like we'd use it to describe something that doesn't cost any money. I don't see how right-wing libertarianism restricts one's freedom in the second sense, and you don't seem to do much to explain how it does. If there's something I'm missing, then go ahead and explain it.

The system I described was capitalism on the most basic level, before we had monetary ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah establishments coining money for us. If we abolished that system tomorrow and decided to use a resource-based economy more aligned to a communal barter system, then it wouldn't stop being capitalism. Your criticism that people are forced to sell their labour in order to take part in modern trade is valid, except that it's not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with the monetary system, something I and a lot of other right-wing libertarians are also critical of.

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah I think that local trade is a wonderful thing, and I like living in a community where it's fairly common. But for larger scale operations, offering the goods and services directly to those whose goods and services you want in return just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work.

Nobody is forced to get a job, they choose that route because it's easy. I don't know how many times I've said that already. If I wanted to, I could pick up a loan today and start my own business.

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah It's difficult. There's risk involved. It takes initiative, and not everybody succeeds at it. So it's likely that I'll take the easier, less stressful route, and seek employment at somebody else's business. But don't you dare try to pretend that society doesn't give me that option.

Just because someone's boss has a specific criteria for how they want a job done doesn't mean they're a tyrant. It sounds like you're describing a bad sitcom about a fast food franchise, with the ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah overtly loud and demanding stereotype of a manager walking around complaining about things. Then again, most left-wing criticism involves appealing to the worst case scenario, as if it's news that a human concept can't manage perfection. In the system I advocate, some people will end up with such large debts to pay that they're reduced to slaves de facto, and I have absolutely no problem with that.

If a private investor somehow bought Lake Michigan, they still wouldn't have the ...

[AuTaliah]

@AuTaliah ... right to drain it. The same principle that forbids the United States government from draining Lake Michigan now would then apply to that individual. If that situation actually happened, then property rights would dictate that if said person cannot drain his lake without by effect draining other lakes that are connected to it, then to do so he needs the consent of whoever owns the lakes that his lake is connected to. There's nothing wrong with this system.

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 In hindsight, the bit about someone becoming a slave de facto sounds to evidence your claim about right-libertarianism not defending freedom "from." I'll explain. If I take out a loan and lose the money, then I should be held responsible for that. I use 'enslaved' in the sense of being brought into servitude, because I have a responsibility to pay back my creditor, and if I don't pay him back, then I've effectively stolen from him. That's the system defending the creditor's rights.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah Though if the American and Canadian Governments were nearing bankruptcy and in risk of default, maybe they would sell Lake Michigan to a private buyer. And if that private buyer then wanted to drain the lake for some pet project of his own, the concept of private property (being that the lake is legally his to do with) does not prohibit him to do so. In fact it PROMOTES his doing so because of the competitive nature of property within the market.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah ... This turns their attention away from realizing the importance of the self and its relation to society, and this is how capitalism limits our freedom. It is precisely because of the limits placed on our potential for action by private property and commodity exchange that we are not as free as we like to imagine ourselves to be.

[AuTaliah]

@epsilon8998 There's no imagination involved. The state's enforcement of property rights merely prevents you from stealing another person's property. If that wasn't clear before, capitalism dictates that the only logical limit the state can put on your freedom is that you cannot infringe on the rights of others. This whole play about social conformity somehow being a tenant of capitalism is just as much nonsense as socialism itself. How incredibly disappointing.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah The reason you don't understand how property rights can be detrimental to freedom is precisely because you DON'T use your imagination. There are situations such as what I just explained that can lead to a decrease in freedom because of conflicting property rights. When everyones rights are based on a "got mine get yours" attitude, everyone is placed in competition with everyone, so that a gain in their rights can only be achieved at the loss of another person's rights...

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah ... and rights are by their nature productive rights. If we are not allowed the legal and physical-material ability to produce our means to live, then we have no right to life to begin with. Because in order to be free, we must be alive, healthy, aware and capable of taking our own actions to begin with: that means the freedom to create our own opportunities. Capitalism limits our ability to create by alienating us from the productive process, and by taking away the wealth of society.

[Elendil176]

Interestingly enough, usually in a Capitalist society, you DON'T get to keep the fruits of your labor. They go to your employer, and you are payed an arbitrary sum of money. So, yeah, in Capitalism, you are disconnected from the fruits your labor. By the way, how is TF advocating Socialism (I doubt you even know what it is, if you're calling it slavery).

[AuTaliah]

@Elendil176 Salaries aren't assigned arbitrarily you moron. And they ARE the fruit of our labour, as they represent further goods & services. The difference between such a system and socialism is that it's completely voluntary; you could go out and make something yourself, without utilizing the means of production already owned by another individual. In a socialism, you have no such rights, because your entire life is owned by the collective. That's why it's slavery.

[Elendil176]

@AuTaliah Sorry, but you are clearly a sub 70 IQ conservative, indoctrinated from birth. You destroy the American economy, and you can't just shut the fuck up, and keep your ideology to yourselves. I like how you just say "nuh-uh" to my first argument, and don't provide any logic in return. A salary is something you get paid, for the fruits of your labor. If you work at McDonalds, and you flip hamburgers, the fruits of your labor would be hamburgers. But those go to your employer, who sells them

[AuTaliah]

@Elendil176 Somebody's salary is determined by supply & demand, it's not arbitrary by any means. If you use my spatula to flip my hamburgers over my grill, does that mean you're entitled to them once they finish cooking? The transaction that's happening is that you're selling the labour of flipping a burger, and then selling the burger that you flipped in exchange for your salary. If you want to spend that salary on the burger you flipped, you're free to do so, but you probably don't want to.

[Elendil176]

@AuTaliah By the way, it's clear that you don't understand socialism. Socialism is an ideology in which the means of production are controlled by the PEOPLE, therefore necessitating a democracy. By the way, it's interesting that you bring up slavery, because under capitalism, slavery was a perfectly justifiable institution (e.g., US slave trade).

[AuTaliah]

@Elendil176 Socialism isn't necessarily democratic, and this "owned by the people" nonsense is just rhetoric that socialists use to make it sound friendly and inviting. The truth is that socialism is merely the government taking complete control of a country's industry, stripping economic freedom from its people.

Slavery and capitalism logically don't function together, which is why the capitalist United States was the first place in the world to abolish slavery.

[epsilon8998]

@AuTaliah alright I have a response for you but it's too long to include in here. I tried to PM you but I need to add you as a friend first.

[hamnose]

I don't see anywhere in this guy thunderf00ts videos where he says these things which you accuse him of saying. Are you on medication or just dishonest?

[jordler]

capitalism is being a salve to the big companys. you work pay check to pay check and get paid nothing while they make billions .

[glramer2007]

@jordler that's not capitalism, that's corporate greed.

[Shydrow]

good job pointing out his flaw man

[faithfulstronghold]

Your kidding Right.

[Shydrow]

You also can start said company and do much more as well.

[AuTaliah]

@jordler It's not slavery if it's voluntary, idiot.

[iamufreak]

I think you confused socialism with communism. In Any case, any system is subject to corruption.

Socialism, every individual is supposed to have his say on what people should have. But being done through government. it is prone to be abused more than capitalism.

On the other hand, If you lived in a pure capitalistic system. Only the rich would survive. You live, I assume, in America. Which is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Medical insurance is a socialist system.

[AFXE]

Capitalism doesn't allow you to keep all the fruits of your labour, it exploits your labour to give a large portion of your fruits of labour to an elite class whilst you are given a wage which for most people is just enough to get by in their society. Nobody really has a choice whether they participate in the labour market, where instead of being owned indefinitely they are rented temporarily, and if they do not participate they are likely to go onto welfare (a socialist idea). Thats not freedom

[Charonveritas]

AFXE, you're confusing Capitalism with "taxation"... Pure Cap promotes the idea that the harder you work, the more you get if your work, and, or product is viable.

Taxation by the political "elitists" is what robs you of the fruit of your labor.

But you are correct that the premise of welfare is a socialistic one. Not originally intended as one, but through its' perverse metamorphosis, it has arrived at that destination.

[AFXE]

Charonveritas

When I say elitist I don't JUST mean political elitists, I also mean corporate elites. Those that own the means of production (the elite) hire workers to produce the product or service for which they earn a wage whilst the elite class takes a profit. Essentially the value of labour and its neccessity in producing the product or service that allows the capitalist to make a profit is reduced and a large portion of that workers labour value goes not to the worker but to the elites.

[AFXE]

pt 2

This then allows that capitalist class to enjoy salaries hundreds of times greater then the workers who allowed them to earn those salaries and enjoy mansions, cars, the freedom to travel etc whilst the worker just manages to get buy (if that). This is called exploitation. When the political elites taxes that money does not just go on that politicians exhuberant lifestyle (not to say that can't happen) but mostly goes on public services. Police, military, roads, schools, even healthcare.

[AFXE]

pt 3

within a civilized society it makes sense and is in fact quite moral for each person to contribute to a public good. It can be argued at what point the democratically elected government should use taxation to provide services and at what point it should be provided by the private sector but I think it is undeniable that some things within this exploitative capitalist system need to be controlled democratically in the pursuit of meeting the needs of the people rather then shareholders.

[AFXE]

4

I think it's clear to most people the absolutely massive problems that the U.S has with healthcare because of the stranglehold private healthcare insurance 'providers' have over it. The rest of the world believe me finds it mysterious why the richest country on earth can only provide good quality healthcare to an increasingly wealthy class whilst all other developed countries provide it to everyone affordably and often free of charge whilst largely having no worst and sometimes better service.

[educatedidiot0]

dude, the voice... you're smart mouth pundit!

[ManlySlut]

Socialism is NOT slavery.

Socialism is a collective ideology that people AGREE to.

How can you agree to be a slave?

[Daclunator]

i've got my chains ready, let's become slaves XD

sorry, I actually agree with this point. It litterally means a social society, simple

[CaitiffFTW]

I wouldn't say that socialism IS slavery. So, I disagree with the maker of the video. However, in socialism, the fruits of a person's labor is taken by the state, to give out however the state deems fit. In slavery, the fruits of a person's labor are taken by the master, and given out however the master deems fit.

The idea that the sweat of a person's brow belongs more to the state than it does to oneself, to me, is loathsome. So, while socialism isn't slavery, socialism is similar to slavery.

[7ebuss]

is this person darth vader?

[Gradivus375]

The problem with all Government types is that they ALL look great on paper. It's the human factors that screw them all up. Factors from the governing to the governed. Democracy is my government of choice but it is far from perfect as can only be depicted on paper.

[UltraSpeciated]

You make reasonable points, but I don't think Tf00t was advocating total socialism at any point. He was merely pointing out that in a civilised society, you need elements of both capitalism and socialism.

HTWW is flat out telling us that socialism is bad, which is utter crap.

Here in England, get my healthcare for free, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[paulk314]

Yeah, I just robbed a bank the other day and now I can buy all sorts of stuff! I wouldn't have it any other way!

[AshillaBeige]

You think your health care is free? Wow...

[SelfMadeFailure]

You get your health care for free? And here I've been sitting like a sucker in Canada paying for mine with taxes. If Britain wasn't in the process of devolving into an Orwellian nightmare I would totally move there.

[AuTaliah]

@UltraSpeciated England has the worst healthcare in the modern world. You accept socialism only because you don't understand it, and you wouldn't have it any other way because you're ignorant to the alternatives.

[Elendil176]

@AuTaliah Evidence, please? Where do you get that idea? England has one of the best health care systems in the world, with a 93% satisfaction rate. According to the World Health Organization, it's 18th in the world (France is #1), while the U.S. is 37th, right above Slovenia and Cuba. I think you are either stupid, or lying. At this point, it's probably both.

[AuTaliah]

@Elendil176 The World Health Organization rankings you cite are 10 years old and don't account exclusively for the quality of care provided, which if they did the United States would still be at the top. The reason the USA spend so much is because they outsource to other countries, many of which have single-payer systems and ultimately receive terrible healthcare in comparison. Trust me, I live in one.

h ttp : / / ww w . liberty-page . c o m / issues / healthcare / socialized . ht ml # britain

[waltmanxp]

Good point.

[dieutombe]

If socialism is slavery than the majority of the industrialized world is enslaved. It doesn't seem that way to me. The institution of regulations and limitations on capitalist economies to protect the interests of the general populous is something that every country learned early in the 20th century. All modern economies are now mixed economies. Rigidly planned economies are inefficient certainly, but pure capitalist economies are unstable and prone to sacrifice the general welfare for profit.

[paulk314]

General welfare is not sacrificed to profit. When each individual seeks a profit, this is the best for the general welfare.

[dieutombe]

So allowing risky business practices that lead to economic crisis helps the general welfare of the nation? We have mixed economy with regulations to prevent the kinds of horrors that we witnessed in the 1930's. I'm not against individuals seeking profit. I am only against individuals doing so in risky and stupid ways. The only way to stop that is to place restrictions on the ways people can pursue profit. We don't let people sell snake oil anymore, so why should we let banks sell risky funds.

[paulk314]

Actually lending agencies made risky loans because they were coerced by government to do so precisely because we have a mixed economy. If we had been under Capitalism, this crisis would never have occurred.

We don't let people sell snake oil because that constitutes fraud. I'm against selling under false pretenses.

[dieutombe]

Right cuz the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 "forced" the major banks into crossing into multiple industries such as banking, brokerage and insuring. They "forced" them to sell mortgages in over valued securities. Of course the government also "forced" large numbers of banks to commit mortgage fraud. The point being that there were regulations that were on the books or that were taken off at the end of the 90s that, if enforced by big government, might have stopped the crisis.

[paulk314]

*Might* have stopped the crisis... for a while, at least. What would have prevented the crisis is if the market had been free to begin with. The repealing of one act followed a decade later by a financial crisis in no way indicates that free markets are to blame. The fact is that this was nowhere close to a free market.

[dieutombe]

Right, because there were no economic crisis during the 19th or early 20th centuries when the markets were really free...

[paulk314]

Whatever crises there were, they were caused by government regulation.

However, I'm not going to continue if you're going to be rude and sarcastic.

[dieutombe]

Well, since you obviously have no knowledge of the history of early free market capitalism,(otherwise you would not make such a bold and obviously false general assertion as "Whatever crises there were, they were caused by government regulation.") I will end our conversation with this last snide comment. Please read a history book.

[Xtro2005]

No, diversifying their porfolio wasn't the problem. It was the CRA, ACORN and HUD pressure on (and legal obligation for regulated) banks to provide sub prime loans that began this crisis. You can see very clearly from the findings of the HMDAs (1 and 2) that the sub prime lending didn't begin until state pressure arose. The very purpose of the HMDA was to investigate the banks "fair" lending practices.

[Xtro2005]

"Well, since you obviously have no knowledge of the history of early free market capitalism..."

Even Keynes believed in a boom bust economic model.

[Xtro2005]

Furthmore there's no such thing as a risk free sub-prime loan. By definition sub-prime is high risk. However the Gov felt it was in society's best interest to force banks to provide these irresponsible loans.

[wizkid2000]

yeah I thought the plagiarism claim was ridiculous too.

[SUSPENDEDKUFFAR]

To user amstedam*** if you want to advertise your commie websites, you can do it on your own channel.

[bello787878]

what if a child is watching it?

[SUSPENDEDKUFFAR]

Another ridiculous argument TF makes is that somehow HTWW should be discredited because of the adds on his videos; so does that mean I shouldnt believe anything in a newspaper because they have advertisements or a news broadcast because the run commercials?

[Elendil176]

@SUSPENDEDKUFFAR Hmm.. well Fox News runs commercials and ads, and we all know that they aren't trustworthy.

[lunaris19]

Are you Chad Vader by any chance? lol just kidding.

Back to the topic at hand, I believe that Thunderf00t knows more when it comes to the natural sciences, particularly biology and chemistry, than social sciences like political science.

[infidelforlife]

well this infidel give you a 5***** bro

[christo930]

This video fight was never about socialism vs capitalism. It was about laissez-faire capitalism vs the system we have had which would be a mix of the two. HTWW prefers the laissez-faire version while TF prefers some socialist ideas. TF points to slavery as something acceptable in a profit only motive. The point was always that the gov needs to provide certain services that the market will not provide. HTWWs immediately repositioned TAA and TFs arguments as promoting communism.

[christo930]

HTWWs misrepresents global warming as a left wing popular opinion when it is the work of decades of scientific investigation.

[SUSPENDEDKUFFAR]

The earth has had dozens of ice ages as well as periods of warming in the past. The climate is constantly changing; either warming or cooling. I would prefer a warming rather than another ice age; but it is irrelevant as there isnt jack crap we can do about it either way.

[christo930]

I assume you are aware of the snowball earth? The only plausible exit from the global snowball is CO2 built up from volcano's, since the albedo of the earth is too high and there is no water vapor in the air. Without co2 how do you get our of the snowball earth? Too much of a good thing, is too much. People think AGW is a new thing, it's been studied for many decades. I trust scientists a lot more than politicians. Why gamble that the politicians are right and science wrong?

[gworksnell]

LOL! Global warming is "political" bullshit. Plain and simple, even the right wing polis endorse it for the most part because of VOTES. That's it you loser.

[christo930]

You make a great argument, you should be a lawyer!

[SUSPENDEDKUFFAR]

That is not the impression I had while watching it.

[christo930]

Start over, starting with TAA's initial attack. HTWWs repositioned TAAs statements, or at least made some big assumptions.

[SUSPENDEDKUFFAR]

I agree that he is well educated in the field of science and I actually agree with a lot of what he says on that subject. I subscribed to him a long time ago for this reason; but in this debate he is off his rocker.

[theanswersofnwo3]

Don't waste your time with thunderf00t. He is a typical idiot atheist.

[SUSPENDEDKUFFAR]

I have many friends that are atheist, as well as friends that are religious; this is not the issue.

[BigDaddyBongos]

I'm an atheist, and I think thundef001 is a total idiot.

[SUSPENDEDKUFFAR]

The irony of TF blaming capitalism for slavery while advocating socialism is mind boggling.