 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating capitalism versus communism, and we are starting right now. With T-Jump's opening statement in defense of capitalism, T-Jump, the floor is all yours. Yeah, so communism is shit. My opponent and all communist debaters face an impossible task in the debate because economic and political systems are kind of like technologies. If one works better, you don't need to debate it. You just, you don't need papers, you don't need cherry-picked examples of successful companies. If it works, you can just start a company and make millions in proving it successful and inspire others to follow in your footsteps. If it works for most people, it will take over because it's more successful. Some of debating economic systems is like, whoever looking at a Boeing 747 and someone saying, I can do it better. Well, I mean, okay then, if you can do it better, stop spending your time debating and go do it. But for some reason, no communist or socialist debaters are going to go out and start companies based on their ideas. I wonder why that is. Is it because it's hard, because most fail? If communism and socialism are so great, then go out and start socialist and communist companies and communities. So and show that they are successful and inspire people to make more until it grows to be a serious competitor to capitalist economies. This is the only way for communists and socialists or any economic debate to be won. Go out and do it and make enough success to compete with the current biggest leader. In my camp on the capitalist side, I have hundreds of thousands of successful capitalist businesses supporting billions of people, improving everyone's quality of life more than any other system ever in human history. The communist socialists, and I'm adding those two together, they are different things, but I'm gonna give them as best evidence I possibly can by adding them together. And if you do, you have a few thousand or so successful communist businesses, socialist communist businesses. And to be fair, many of them are more successful than some capitalist companies, but even so, like every blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. Any system can cherry pick a few successful examples in that system, but that's not evidence, it's a better system. To have evidence of a better system, you need to show that on average, any random person can choose to go with your system and have a higher rate of success than the other systems. In order to do that, you need to go out and start your own companies or societies or communities and show that the success rate of this kind of system is higher than the success rate of the competing system. That's why in my worldview, I believe my knowledge of economics gives me the ability to start a company. And so I'm starting an atheist church with the goal of lowering the cost of living as much as possible by buying apartment buildings and lowering rent because I believe my economic system can work and can make a profit, but we don't see this in the communist socialist camp. They just like talking about it. So if they really think that their system can work, you can go out and do it, make a system that works. Again, cherry-picked examples of some successful companies or papers do nothing. The proof is in their proverbial pudding. We can have lots and lots of examples of papers of successful capitalist countries, but we don't really need them because we can just look around us. The effect, the positive effect of capitalism can be seen in essentially every country in the world. It has increased the quality of life for everyone throughout every society, pretty much with a few exceptions of the Aborigines who don't have any technology. And it's done this consistently. It is the most successful system that we have in human history. And, but the reason we don't, we can't expect any communist or socialist who actually start their own companies is because there is a fundamental issue with communism socialism, which is the lack of the most important resource for any economy, confidence. Confidence is the ability to get to the majority of the populace to trust in the system and play the economic games. Most laws and economic policies have little to no direct impact. What they accomplish is indirect in that they cause people to act differently through the law, which was never going to be able to force them to. The presence of the law encourages people to choose to act differently without it realistically being able to be enforced. As an example, you can think of like tax evasion. Some people think that most tax evasion, you need like some offshore account that only rich people can take advantage of it. But in reality, anyone can evade taxes. A lot of cash transactions can't be traced by the government. So most people can just not report any cash based funds and evade taxes pretty easily, which is why you were required to do your own taxes because most people report more and pay more in taxes than the government knows about. So if they just calculated it for you and sent you a bill, they would make less money. So the honest people end up paying more because they actually report their money. It's quite an unfair system. But in reality, the IRS can't really do much about it. Even if they had adequate funding, which they don't, they would never be able to actually account for most people's tax evasion and they'd only be able to catch the minority of people who are committing the crime. Most political and economic systems are like this. It's mostly smoke and mirrors to encourage people to act in a way which is beneficial without actually having the ability to enforce the policies directly much like running a red light. How many people who run red lights are actually ticketed like 0.001%. How many times do you think you could run a red light without being caught? Probably a lot, you probably have. But the presence of stoplights, the law and the minority of people who are ticketed for breaking it encourages enough people to obey the law to create a safe and stable driving experience for the majority of people. Most political and economic policies are like this, smoke and mirrors. Why do we have money? Confidence that someone can take your cash and trade it for an equal thing. Why is religion so popular? Because it provides people with confidence. Why do people, why does advertising which is just pretty and has absolutely nothing to do with the product work so well? Confidence. Why do politicians who are completely useless idiots and will do nothing and get the majority of votes? They inspire confidence. The fundamental problem with communisms that doesn't create or provide this confidence nearly as much as capitalism. For example, imagine a communist poker game where you leave the game with as much money as you entered. How many people are gonna play this game? Nobody. Imagine a communist lottery where if everyone buys a ticket, they win a dollar back. So buy a ticket for a dollar, get a dollar back. How many people would pay the lottery? Nobody. The reason people play the lottery in poker is because they want to win big and take everyone else's money. That's why poker and lotteries are billion dollar industries. Of course, there are extreme examples of communists that don't usually advocate for like 100% equity in everything. These are extreme examples. But this kind of confidence that results, this is the kind of confidence or the lack of confidence that results from communists like playing a poker game or you walk away with exactly as much as you walked in. This is why people prefer companies that are capitalist because you have a chance to win big. People are inspired by these win big opportunities and the ones with the biggest possible wins are the ones that get the most traffic even though they have the lowest win rate, like the lottery that's super powerball with the $22 million win rate or prize gets a lot more tickets sold than the one that's like $100 or a million dollars. This is confidence. Confidence is the fact that people are stupid. By design from evolution, we have thousands of fallacies, biases, misconceptions, illusions, delusions and each of these drive the way we think in how we make decisions. Religion, lotteries, capitalism, people will happily follow stupid ideas and completely reject objectively better rational decisions en masse. In order to make successful political economic systems, you need to accommodate these stupid biases ingrained in human form from evolution and socialism and communism don't do that. For example, imagine every casino was a communist casino in the world and one day somebody decided to build one capitalist casino, what's going to happen? Everyone is gonna start flooding into the capitalist casino and losing all their money with a few big winners and those few big winners will act as inspirational stories for everyone else causing people to be motivated to go to that casino because they feel like that could be me. At the same time, the casino is going to start making mad profits and be able to pay their employees better wages than the communist casinos. And then the second place, third place, fourth place prizes are going to begin to increase because you have access to money until even a minor win at the capitalist casino is going to put you ahead of the major winners of the communist casinos. And this capitalist casino is going to continue to grow at an exponential rate until there are more winners in that than all other communist casinos combined. Now, there will also be a significant more losers in the capitalist casino because it's not a fair system but the employees will be paid more, everyone has a higher standard of living and there is an evolutionary reason for why this is the case. In order to innovate and grow, you need to fail many, many times in order to resolve, to discover the new successful thing. Most things end up failing, like Thomas Edison's 2000 ways to not make a light bulb and he needed one way for it to work. There's, this is the evolutionary purpose of men and why they have such a much larger spectrum of intelligence of more smart and more stupid people because the evolutionary design to be expendable and try a bunch of random crap, which mostly kills them, but then there is that one lucky guy who gets some huge discovery pushing humanity forward. This is what's the most successful evolutionary pattern throughout human history, which caused us to have this ingrained fallacy of go for the big win, even if the chances are stupid low because it was so successful evolutionarily. The golden idol of world capitalism is a statue of liberty that inspires and draws people even if they are more likely to fail, which consequently builds the economy, innovation and growth which communism can't compete with. Because capitalism plays to our basic human desires and instincts, which inspires confidence, this is why communism is doomed to fail. When given the option between going for the big win or mediocre life, people are gonna go for the big win. And because of this, more money and more resources will go to the capitalist government allowing it to provide better jobs, better standard of living, more innovation, more technology and everything people want in a society. Is capitalism a moral? Yes, but it works and produces better standards of living. You just look at the amenities of poor households today. This was from 2005, 92% have a microwave, 81% have an air conditioning, 75% have a car, 70% have a VCR, 64% have a DVD player. You can just go on and on and on. The standard of living today due to capitalism has been significantly increased even though it is in unfair immoral and inequity between the amount of money people have, the standard of life today is significantly better thanks to capitalism. So the question is, would you rather be in a society with slavery where most of the slaves have TVs and air conditioners or would you rather be in a society where everyone is equally starving? I choose the TV and the compulsory employment. I will conclude there. You gotta thank you very much, Tom Jump for that opening statement and wanna let you know folks, every first time here at Modern Day Debate we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from, thrilled to have you here. And with that, we're gonna kick it over to Infrared who by the way, I wanna give serious credit to. We are so thankful Infrared pushed through it. He got everything to work and so we really do appreciate that Infrared that you were here tonight even though it's been, you pushed through it and the floor is all yours. Can you hear me? Yes. So I agree to an extent that any debate as to the question of communism is already off the bat going to be misleading. There can't really be a debate about communism but that's not because some obligation is imposed upon communists to go and prove it instead of debating it. Rather to even debate this question of communism, one has already conceded the terms to the communists that there is a common social sphere in which we expect the minimum of adequately providing for people's standard of living, attending to their needs, attending to their wants. In other words, treating it as a system that can be swapped out for other systems in order to fulfill more or less the same goal which is to lead to more or less the common prosperity of a given people. So when one treats communism as if it's just a system that can be swapped out with another system called capitalism and another system, this very way of politicizing the economy toward the fulfillment of common and social ends is already in a sense, inevitably be going to be a communist paradigm. We have to remember that capitalism did not arise as a system to fulfill a specific type of ends but as a kind of spontaneous amalgamation of different enterprises who are pursuing the very selfish ends of just acquiring profit. And by selfish I don't mean in the sense of the fulfillment of individual interests. I mean selfish in the sense of the mere propagation of money for money's own sake. Through past the 19th century, this specific type of economic order, if you can even call it that, I would call it an economic disorder, fundamentally collapsed in the 1929 stock market crash. And afterwards capitalism has been maintained and it's been on its lifeline because the government has treated the economy as a facet of politics. And politics we should remember doesn't just involve governing people and ruling over people by force, but also ensuring that the material premises of being able to govern are attended to, in this case, the economy. After the stock market, sorry, after the global collapse of capitalism in 1929, various capitalist governments, which were under the control of the ruling financial and industrial oligarchies, found it necessary to fix the economy, satisfy the population or risk being overthrown in a violent revolution. So already socialism, in a sense, has already prevailed and won as the dominant mode of production at the most essential and fundamental level. Our political superstructure and our ideology has not awakened to this fact, but what has driven our economy since then is not some kind of spontaneous amalgamation of competitive markets and different enterprises that are arising spontaneously and organically, but a heavy-handed form of state intervention in the economy, together with corporations, which are fundamentally have become an arm of some kind of central-state planning in order to ensure that the economy can maintain its vitality and can survive. Now, this view of communism as merely a system and different form of social organization at the level of the factory floor or even at the level of a mere community as compared to so-called capitalism is very convenient for people who want to create vacuums with which we can test theories and systems, right? But we have to take into account that our very subjective positedness before these kinds of vacuums can't be taken for granted. The very idea of being a social engineer elevated over all of social reality and economic reality with which we can just experimentally play and insert and remove specific types of systems within vacuums sealed context, this very type of subject is part of a community and is part of themselves, part of a society. Hence why Marx and Engels would insist that the utopian forms of experimentation which would fulfill the standard of success or failure offered by my opponent. They critiqued these utopian communities not because they weren't successful. Actually, it's interesting because in the Americas the utopian social communities were so successful that they did spread like, what is it? Spread like mushrooms. They were emulated and replicated because they proved to be so successful even in competing on the capitalist market. But Marx and Engels critiqued them because they did not actually address the economy at the most fundamental level of our common sociality, which is mediated through the state. The means of production can't be isolated in some kind of vacuum. The means of production are the fundamental means by which a given society reproduces its existence. And in the age of capitalism, this is necessarily global at scale, but as far as politics is concerned, it's national at scale, compared to the sphere of the state. But the more fundamental point here that I'm trying to make is that this is why communism and socialism is inexorably political. It is tied to the fundamental transformation of society at the level of the state. It's not reducible, obviously, to the state and the state's interventions in the economy, but in order for it to be sufficiently the commons that's in question or our common social sphere, the only thing that unites us at this level is the state. So to treat communism as just some specific form of experimental social organization is beyond the point. Under a communist society, there may exist various different forms of social engineering experiments, of how to organize people into different systems. Actually, China is a famous example of a country that did experiment with different forms of social organization as did the Soviet Union in its early days in the 1920s. It's not this which defines a country or an economy as communist. It's the government's relationship to the economy, specifically in the form of a fundamental ownership of the means of production. And in China, this takes the form of land, which is the most fundamental means of production. Thereby ensuing that the means of production are to be used to fulfill expressly social ends and social purposes. In other words, the economy is rigged for the people. Now, the specifics of how that system is going to work can vary. Obviously China is a radically different type of economy than the Soviet Union and the States in the 20th century. But that's also because they belong to different historical periods. In 20th century communism, the reason why the economy and the organization of the economy was so heavily tied to the law, as my opponent was talking about, wasn't because this was the kind of final form of communism, but because these were agrarian countries that required the baseline necessity of creating a primary level of industrialization. And one, moreover, that was independent from the West and therefore was unable to tap in to the inequalities and the concentration of capital that countries can otherwise take advantage of and kind of exploit in order to build up their own means of production. So it was required almost from scratch and from ground zero to separate the vast majority of the peasantry that resided in these communist states from their original means of production in order to undergo a process of rapid industrialization, thereby modernizing the economy and providing the people a baseline and primary standard of living. Now, before you can go compete on markets and do all the things this gentleman is talking about, you need to kind of have the baseline of medicine and ability to kind of have a base standard of living. Clothe yourself, feed yourself, do all these kinds of things. And it was a turbulent and rocky road, but more or less the communist states were far more successful in being able to do this as far as the relevant countries were concerned that are comparable to them than the capitalist ones. One only needs to take the example of China as opposed to India throughout the 20th century. There's not even a competition or a comparison. And it's true that if the communist movement is going to be successful in a sense, does just have to happen. Marx famously recalled that communism is not an ideal with which we want to conform society, but the real movement that sublates or transcends the present state of things. And that's precisely what communism is. It's a real movement that is in a sense already set in motion and his victory is in a sense historically inevitable. It's just that politics is also the decisive site with which this communist transformation is going to take place. It's not specifically going to be different forms of organization for different enterprises to start up businesses. It's going to be a movement that is social in scale and addresses the real comments of a given society. Specifically in the United States, we are witnessing a transition into a completely different type of economy. The forces of production have transformed so fundamentally that millions and tens of millions of people are at risk of losing their jobs and their livelihoods. My view is that communists are the best equipped in being able to address this common social crisis as they did in the transition from feudalism to capitals. Now, one last quick thing is this stuff about casinos. I didn't really get to everything else. That's not specifically because of the dream of the reward. It has something to do with the relationship between systems and their contingency, right? Systems, for example, are produced in the midst of chaos and then there lies a certain complacency when one just relegates back to norms and systems and so on and so on. But there is room for communists to appreciate the reality of the creative power of chaos. I mean, Marx himself talked about this. China does this far better than the United States, which is a very bureaucratic country with a lot of red tape and China undergoes regularly structural reforms which do risk systems that are already in place in the midst of chaos. Now I wanted to talk also about this issue of trust and confidence, its relationship to the norms of civil society and so on and communists. I don't think I'll have enough, but we might be able to get into it afterwards so that there you go. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening statement, infrared. And wanna let you know folks, hey, if you have not heard, if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers and your ears, we are absolutely thrilled for the first ever modern day debate con coming up in one month from today. And you can see at the bottom right of your screen some of the events that we are hosting there in person. And I've gotta tell you that not only that, but both T-Jump and Infrared have been invited and have accepted their invites. It is going to be amazing. So wanna encourage you if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button for those juicy debates as those will be uploaded to the channel. With that, thank you very much gentlemen. The floor is all yours for open conversation. Yeah, I got a question. Let's see, unmute myself. He mentioned that you can't debate communism because if you debate communism, you've already conceded to communist terminology. It seems like he's defining communism was like any kind of government designed to help people. Is that right? It's more so to do with treating the economy as a common political site of common prosperity and welfare and so on, which the government in some capacity insures fulfills some manner of social lens. So this is not so much the essence of communism as it is something that was not a feature of 19th century classical liberal capitalism. So any government which recognizes the economy in fact, people's lives is communists? No, a government which treats the economy as a facet of politics actively. It doesn't just recognize the economy needs should help people, but it ensures the economy does so. So it sounds like what you're saying is that any government who recognizes that if they manage the economy that that can have impacts on people's lives make it better or worse is communist. And that they do this. They treat the macro economy as a political category and a category of political planning, yes. So as far as I know, literally every government has always done that throughout the history of time. Do you have like a reference of any kind of academic economist book that gives this definition? Cause as far as I know, like, how would you do this? With the emergence of 19th century liberal capitalism, it is true that beforehand, the, for example, England had laws that specifically in the form and this was in the form of the ownership of land and the agrarian economy in order to kind of, ensure some level of social reality to the economy. But with the outgrowth of capitalism specifically 19th century industrial capitalism, you had a fundamental social crisis and an asocial system that was arising, which had no regard for people's livelihoods. It had no regard for any type of common prosperity. And it did not proceed along this precedent path. I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I know. Yeah. What I'm talking about, if you have a minimum of education, right, is what I'm talking about is the basic reality of proletarianization where people were up from their land. Different questions. Different questions. And deliverance into sitting, right? With absolutely no social- Would you mind letting me finish the question first before interrupting? You said that in the like, I think 19th century was the first time that government was starting to be formed that just didn't care about anybody's economic status or something like that? No, it's the first time an economy started to arise that completely had no regard, that was not somehow integrated into the level of the government or the policy. So it's that the economy, it's that the forces of production outpaced the relations of production and Marxist terms. So as far as I know, throughout all of history, that's always been the case. Throughout every economy, the economy has always been in some case independent and in some case dependent on the government. And the 16th century and the 15th century, the 14th century, we can go through literally any kind of society ever. And there's always been facets that are controlled. Well, capitalism has been an outlier in the history of humanity. Well, my question here is that it seems to be the case that you've simply defined any government that interferes with economies as communism and that doesn't seem to be- No, I haven't. A communism only arises to face the unprecedented challenge capitalism has given to humanity. Now, governments may have appeared to directly interfere in the economy for purposes of social ends. Retrospectively, we can see that, but it was not explicit. There was no notion of a just abstract common sociality. This always took the form of some kind of common religious or monarchical or so on and so on or a dynastic type of community. It was never about, for example, the commons and the abstract. And what makes communism different from these previous modes of production, whether the Asiatic mode of production or feudalism and so on and so on or slave societies, is that communism inherits from capitalism the constant revolutionizing of the forces of production. So communism integrates this type of chaotic uplifting and uprooting of traditional ways of life in the economic ways of life, I should say. Cultures is a different story, but these economic ways of life, so-called the progress of science, this is another word for that, right? So that's what makes the conversation different. But if you're basically saying that, are you implying that in a way, communism does return to the norm of humanity for most of its history, I would say absolutely. And Marx actually said as much. I mean, when Marx talked about the way in which capitalism through the land enclosures uprooted the peasants from their traditional ways of life and their traditional common social bonds and its radical alienation that was produced by capitalism, he was recognizing that capitalism didn't tell fundamental loss of a otherwise implicit sense of community belonging and sociality. Marx rejected the reactionary socialists and that was a thing, the feudal socialists, the reactionary socialists who merely wanted to turn back the wheels of time and return to the previous state of affairs, Marx said, no, something has been irreversibly changed. But for him, communism itself was going to outmote capitalism in the same way capitalism did the previous mode of production. Okay, so I have no idea anything you just said. So Mike, the first thing you brought up in your opening statement was, is that you can't debate communism because if you debate communism, you're already agreeing to the definitions of the communists and the definition that you are. You are conceding the terms of debate. The terms, what do you mean? The term of a debate being what system is better equipped to fulfill the common social ends of a society, right? I mean, you're not really coming at this by saying, oh, a communist society simply is impossible and that we have to make do with this NRT of production that is capitalism. You're saying capitalism is a better system. It's a better system to improve our common livelihoods and ensure some kind of common prosperity. Well, that's not a capitalist intention, right? A capitalist merely wants to make money for money's own sake. So you're basically saying capitalism accidentally fulfills all of the ends that the socialists and communists wanted in the past. Now you can go with that argument. It would for me be quite easy to dispel and dispatch, but- Sure, let's go with that argument. You can't really say you don't know what I mean. Well, I didn't understand the words that you said, but let's go with that argument. So let's say that capitalism achieves more of the life standards that communism wants than communism does. I believe that is accurately the case. Why would you disagree? I would disagree because if the so-called capitalist system is a form of the anarchy of production, then this specific outcome that you're talking about, which was some level of common wealth and common prosperity is an accidental result. Science begins when instead of relying upon accidents and things that are just like a byproduct that's not explicitly for the goal, science begins when we distill the essence of how things work and apply them. And in that case, one is entering into communism. So all it takes is a financial crisis like 2008 or some meaningless contingency to completely separate this cause from the outcome, right? The purpose of capitalism is not to ensure people's living standards and common prosperity. So things happen in capitalism, which lead to people losing those things and capitalism can still survive because capitalism's survivability doesn't depend on fulfilling common and social ends. It survives on the basis of producing profit for profit's own sake. So yeah, it seems like your argument is that the purpose of capitalism is not to improve lives, it only does it accidentally, therefore capitalism isn't as good. Is that all right? Sorry, what was the last part? Therefore capitalism isn't as good, something like that. It's not just that it's not as good, it's that the reasoning you're giving for why capitalism is superior is not itself inherent in capitalism. It's just an accidental byproduct. Okay, so if I happen to accidentally save a billion lives, is that better than deliberately saving 10 lives? Well, let's put it this way. Let's say you accidentally saved 10 billion lives while you were on your way to the store to go get a banana, something stupid like that, right? Sure. Science begins when in order to continue to save people's lives, you distill the essence of how it is you've saved those lives because you can really go to the store and get a banana without saving anyone's life. You could still fulfill the goal of getting what you wanted from the store without doing that. And just in the same way, you can pursue profit for profit's own sake and make that be the driving force of your economy, which it hasn't been, by the way, in Western countries since 2008. You can make that, or you can at least accept that as the driving force of the economy, but that won't ensure that in the face of economic crisis and transformations in the forces of production, like we're witnessing right now, that it's going to lead to the common prosperity at the well-being of the people. Sure, so I think I understand your argument here that capitalism does happen to have a better outcome, but that outcome isn't because of capitalism itself. And so scientifically- I haven't exceeded that. I'm not actually willing to concede capitalism has a better outcome. I'm just saying I can accept that there are cases in which the capitalist mode of production has increased the overall wealth and living standards of the society. But actually compared to communist societies, I would not concede that capitalist countries are superior. Okay, we'll get to that in a minute. So your argument is that capitalism does improve things, but it doesn't improve things because it's the goal of capitalism. And so we need to find what the core reason of why it's improving things is and try to focus on that core reason. Is that about right? Precisely. All right, so the core reason is evolutionary. I gave that in my opening. The reason capitalism works is the same reason the lottery works or casinos work. People need confidence or a belief that they can win the million dollars to be interested in investing their time into doing something. So the reason this is, again, it's not, you mentioned at the very end of your opening that this was societal or some kind of social norm. It's not a social norm. This is a biological norm. It's a biological fact due to evolution. So how is it that we have something called human history but we have more or less the same biology over the span of let's say tens of thousands of years? We have different modes of production but we have the same biology. How can you attribute biology as the cause of capitalism when capitalism has only emerged within the past few centuries? Is our biology radically altered? No, capitalism is what all society started as 200,000 years ago. It was essentially, I have stuck to take you. Well done. That sounds a little absurd to me. Do you have any evidence that capitalism is what we started out with? Yes, it's how trade started. So I have a product you want to- So are you recording capitalism with bartering because capitalism is a system in which all forms of economic intercourse revolve around the production of profit. So bartering doesn't actually do that. I'm talking about the profit here thing. So the reason people wanted to attack tribe B is because they wanted profit. They wanted more land. They wanted more fertile stuff. That's the one in profits. That's not known. The reason people would attack tribe A or tribe B isn't just because they wanted more for more zone sake. You have to situate it in its historical context. But regardless, even that specific form of profit which is measured in physical and tangible things would not be capitalist because capitalist profit is in the form of money. And that's why in capitalism we have generalized commodity production. And it's why Marxists talk about how before capitalism the circuit was commodity, money and commodity, right? You end with the commodity. So capitalism means to and ends but facilitate the accumulation of goods. In capitalism, commodities means to and end to facilitate more profits. No, capitalism is an economic and political system where the means of production trade is owned by private entities. That's all it is. That's all it means. So if you own stuff and you want to trade with tribe B- First of all, that is so wrong on multiple accounts. First of all, it's literally the definition or dictionary it developed. I don't care what your dictionary says. Let's analyze history. Developed forms of private property as they've existed specifically in the West through the development of feudalism and so on. That was actually more or less unique to the West. That's why Marx and Engels talked about the Asiatic mode of production which did not have a clear system of private property, all property was owned by the Sultan or the emperor more or less. Now people could use, it's a complicated system but private property only explicitly develops as a legal category in the most advanced form in Europe and in the West, leading to liberal capitalism that we see in the beginning of the 17th or the 19th century. So if you're just gonna disagree with it then. If you're saying capitalism is just private property then there's a multiple issues with that. First of all, private property has had an ambiguous status and existence throughout the duration of civilization. I could grant you that private property maybe in some form has always existed throughout every civilization. Although what exactly is private in the Western since I wouldn't say so. But my life can see that to you but you can't really call that capitalism because at that point there is no way for us to make intelligible the clearly different system that has arisen in the past few centuries from for example, ancient Sumeria or the Indus River Valley civilization. It's like, you're gonna say that these are all capitalist then so what changed in the past few hundred years if we've always been capitalist societies? No, no, so the argument I'm making here is- And would you also say that- One second, I do want to, I'm gonna have to break it into two minute or maybe three minute segments just to be sure that we're getting- No, that's stupid, I hate that. So it's fine, interrupting is good. But so if you want to disagree with the definition of capitalism that's literally in every economics textbook that's on you, not my debate. You can debate all economists on that one. But what my question was is- I will, bring the economists. I mean, I'm good at debates. We can do that later. So- I just want to ask you, is this a new system that we're witnessing for the past few hundred years? Or are you saying this is all over the same? It's a new variation on human nature which has existed hundreds of thousands of years ago. So if we look- So- I'm about to answer, I'm about to answer. So if we look back at early societies like just hunter gatherer societies where people made an object and they wanted to trade it to a different object, did they own the object they made? Or was it owned by the city? It was owned in common by the tribe itself. So was that really private? Yes, so literally the individual who made the thing owned the thing and they could use it No, there was no individual property rights. I'm sorry, do you- Hunter gatherer societies had no individual property rights at all. Oh my God. So you've studied every single hunter gatherer society from 150,000 years ago? In the main hunter gatherer societies owned their property in common. Where is your evidence for this? Which of the hunter gatherer societies 150,000 years ago followed this thing that makes- You can make factually contestable claims and so can I. And when you say, where's your evidence? I'm on my fucking phone first of all, what do you want me to produce to you? Like, do you want me to just put something out of my hand? What do you mean, where's your evidence? You're making a factually contestable claim. I'm making a factually contestable claim. So where do you want to go from here? It was not meant to be taken literally. It's making fun of how stupid your claim is by saying that people didn't own their own property The main consensus is that in most hunter gatherer societies things were owned in common. Again, that's the consensus long after apologize. No, if you made an object, you could own the object and not give it to somebody. You're not obligated to give it to somebody else what they wanted to use it. You could still keep it. You're not obligated to give it to somebody but you don't have any rights. You don't have any legally identifiable rights to- Legally doesn't matter here. Do you have the spear? And if somebody takes it, can you stab them? Yes. That's a really primitive and crude way of looking how these societies were there. That's how ownership works. There were norms, there were norms in place that were based on the family and communal structure of the hunter gatherer society as to what would be done with these products. And people by the individual subject of the Western society did not even exist. People did things for their families, for their tribe and for their communal society. So they did it for themselves. If you made something to trade, you weren't just doing it so you can fucking make a dollar to go get bubblegum at 7-Eleven. You were doing it specifically for your tribe, for your family- No, that's wrong. So that's evolutionarily we can prove that wrong. Evolutionarily, we know for a fact how the brain works and how evolutionary development- You don't know a goddamn thing about how the brain works. Don't start with this idea. Stop interrupting. Stop interrupting. Gentlemen, just to hear both of you- You don't even know we're talking about- Gentlemen, everybody's excited to hear both of you. And so just to hear both of you, we just wanna be sure that there's not too much overlap. So as I was saying, we know for a fact every single biologist who's ever studied biology and isn't a dumbass knows for a fact that yes, selfishness is a very, very important part, integral part of people's interactions. Do they- There is no need to- Wait, don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt. Go ahead and finish your- Wait, that's the plan. I plan to finish it. Thank you, thank you, Captain Obvious. We know for a fact, biology people do things for selfish reasons. There are in fact mental conditions that people only do things for selfish reasons. It's called psychopathy and many other kinds of conditions. We know for a fact this is a thing. People do many selfish things. Do they do things for family? Occasionally yes. The predominant motivation for most people is self-worth, individualism. We know this because if you are dying and your kid is dying and most like chimpanzees in early human societies, you survive- You're wasting time. It's a complete waste of time. So your ignorance in biology here is not my problem and this didn't have to- No, no, you are saying something that's not relevant. There is no need to consult biology to accept a bare-faced fact. There's nothing to do with bi- I'm getting it. Shut the fuck up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your stupid- All right, gentlemen. Just to be sure that we hear both of you- All right, we have to go into two-minute intervals. Could you mute him? Could you mute him, please? So we can finish? Gentlemen, we do have to go into two-minute intervals just to be sure. Could you mute him so I can finish? But that's why I like it so much. Okay. Waste of time. It's a waste of fucking time. I will not accept a driver for two minutes. And what we're going to do is when we do these two-minute segments, I just want to be sure that we don't interrupt each other. And even if you think it's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, either side. When he had two minutes, you spoke for two minutes. It's what I learned. Well, what we could do is- I'm just saying you're listening to him waste my time for well over two minutes. So it's my turn. No, no, I was not finished with my point. I had not gotten two minutes. I'm gonna, Tom, I'll give you 30 seconds to wrap up your point. And then we've- Yeah, 30 seconds. So as I was saying, we can know the biology and the reason this is important because the point we were talking about was biologically, people are designed to prefer capitalistic systems. This is the thing that works with biology. It works with our human nature. That's what you asked before. That was the whole point. Yes, we know for a fact. This is biologically driven. Go ahead. Got you, starting for two minutes. Okay, finally. So for fuck's sake, when I talked about, first of all, there's two facets of this. The first facet, when I talked about how the reason for the system has to fulfill social ends and distill the essence of the reason, I wasn't talking about the causal reason that you're making up and pulling out of your fucking ass and you're saying, oh, the reason for capitalism is biology. That wasn't my point. My point was the reason for the system existing was not for social purposes. Now, if you want to say the causal reason for the purpose is something inherent to our biology, that's an entirely separate argument. But if your goal is to ensure the maximal common prosperity, the reason has to be for that. That was my fucking argument. You instead decided to go on a stupid spiel about biology. So I'll say this, consulting biology and moreover, even more pathetically psychology, which is even, it's status as a science is contested regularly. Consulting those things to address social and common and political problems is just about the most stupid fucking thing you can do because our range of knowledge about those things is so insufficient and so limited, you cannot hold transforming or changing a society to the standard of very incomplete, imperfect and primitive, I would say, sciences, right? But regardless, you don't need to address biology to know that most people are selfish. We just know that people are born as individuals. So obviously they're going to make it their primary focus to attend to their own needs. I'm not saying people do everything for others. I'm saying the reasons why they do things in the first place has a communal rationality and that doesn't mean they're doing it only for the commune. It means, for example, that fulfilling their own ends, their own selfish ends is something that is situated in the context of their status in a society and in the community. So for instance, when you're talking about people and- Unless you guys want it, we could do three minutes, but otherwise that was two minutes. Two is good. He's going to bring up way too many points. Yeah, he sounds like a Hegelian with all the gibberish. He's saying that has absolutely no bearing on reality. So what he started with was he said that in the beginning, we need to assess the fact that capitalism has a better impact. Capitalism itself isn't the reason. So I addressed what is the reason? The reason is biology. The reason some political systems work and some don't is because they are consistent with our biological drives. If it is inconsistent with our biological drives and motivations, it will fail, which is why a communist casino will not work, but a capitalist casino will work, even though you're more likely to lose. People want the big win. So because of their biological biases, they're going to try and gamble to win. If you have a system that is aligned with our biological preconditions, it will succeed. If you have one that is not, it will fail. That is the underlying reason why capitalism works. Secondly, the axonal result thing is just an appeal to consequence fallacy or appeal to purpose fallacy. It doesn't make a difference if the result was accidental or not. Science has many axonal results which happen to be the greatest discoveries of all mankind. The fact that it was accidental is irrelevant. All that matters is does it work and why it works? Does capitalism work? Yes, why does it work in aligns with our biology as I brought up in the opening? And he said, the most stupid thing you can do is base society on how people act in psychology, that any rational human being knows that you have to base it off psychology. That's kind of the point. If you're not basing off psychology, you're just making shit up, duh. And he said that whenever people in a society do something, they do it because of their status in society. When someone hungry and they steal food or they kill their neighbor or they rape someone, is that because of their status in society? What a stupid thing to say. Like obviously that's wrong. All right, I'll yield on to let him go on whatever gibberish he says. Yeah, my actual point wasn't that there, I didn't have time to explain the relationship between individual motivations and their social reality, but my point is insofar as production is socially mediated in these hunter-gathered societies, which it is the reasons why people do things, for example, to feed your family, to feed your community. And that can be a selfish motive because it's going to elevate your own status and it's going to fulfill your own individual status. So that has nothing to do with the question why do people rape and why do people kill. I didn't say that all the reasons people do things in every society is for communal or whatever purposes. I was talking specifically about the economic forms of intercourse in hunter-gatherer societies. Now you're talking about how any reasonable person would see psychology. Why don't I just spit it out through that psychology is 100% complete, stupid bullshit and if we had no psychologist in our society, there'd be no net difference. Second of all, you're talking about how the reason for capitalism's prosperity being better, something that was never conceded to you and to begin with, by the way, is because of biology that has nothing to do with the point. If it's not because of capitalism, then capitalism can lead to outcomes that are incompatible with the goal. If the reasoning you're giving for capitalism being better is that it fulfills a certain goal, which is common prosperity, that reason is not inherent in capitalism. You again do not understand the basic fucking point because you can't use basic logic. Biology and the rest of that shit has nothing to do with it. Talking about it is a waste of time. If the reason you're giving for capitalism being better is that it increases our social outcome, that reason is not inherent in the capitalist system. That's why we have capitalist crisis, mass unemployment, people being laid off their fucking jobs and having their livelihoods destroyed while people are, the stock market is still in the fucking green. And time, go ahead, Tom. All right, so clearly this Ignoramus doesn't understand how an appeal to consequence fallacy works. Like the fact that capitalism, whether it has an ingrained purpose of actually making society better is irrelevant. If it happens to work and it works better objectively, whether or not it was designed to do that is irrelevant. I think it's a genetic fallacy appeal to its origin or something. There are many scientific discoveries that are made purely by chance, not because they were designed that way. There was no intentionality in making these things. Penicillin, Viagra, plastic, microwaves, Vaseline, strikeable match, gunpowder, corn flakes, and aesthetics, all of these were just by chance by scientists messing around with stuff as an accident of some other thing they were doing. The fact that it's an accident that capitalism happens to have the most best effects for people's lives doesn't matter at all. It's just an appeal to like, probably an appeal to genetic fallacy. I'm gonna go with the genetic fallacy. When he's just saying, oh, well, because its intention wasn't to help people, then it doesn't matter if it happens to help more people, which is clearly batshit. Clearly he doesn't understand basic philosophical argumentation here. The most, again, saying that all of the world would be better without psychology, how dumb do you have to be? There's been tons and tons of amazing discoveries in psychology, like Oliver Sacks, B.S. Ramachandran. Tons of psychologists made great discoveries that have benefited the world significantly. He just seems to be ignorant of basic science. I'm like, wow. I'll conclude there for now. Kick it over to you, infrared. Yeah, I don't really give a shit about your dumb soy reddit fallacy, fucking logic board, dumb shit. Let's get into the meat of the game and see what you actually fucking said. Scientists find out that you can discover things accidentally all the time. Fine, even if I were to concede that to you, that has nothing to do with the point that there is a discontinuity between the reason for why capitalism, the procedural reason for capitalism, and the outcome. If you are saying that the outcome is what matters primarily, and that is the reason for its superiority, the fact that that is not inherent to capitalism doesn't mean that I'm saying capitalism didn't produce that outcome, which is wealth and a good standard of living. And that's something we have to debate, by the way, because it's not something I even conceded. But granted, even if I did, if that is the reason for why it is better, just use basic logic, then if that is not inherent in capitalism, then there will inevitably arise just based on fucking chance itself, just based on chaos and randomness itself, that there will be a disjuncture. You can still accumulate profit for a profit's own sake, the stock markets will be in green, but the outcome that you're giving for why capitalism is better won't be produced. That's my point. It has nothing to do with this dumb Reddit soy, whatever fallacy you're talking about, because that would be an argument that it couldn't have produced that outcome. Well, I'm not saying it can't produce that outcome, I'm just saying it's not essential to what capitalism is. And by the way you're saying capitalism just works, I can test that. How did capitalism work in 1929? How did it work in 73? How does it work in 2008, something we still haven't even recovered from? Our economy is not even based on capitalist profits anymore. It's based on quantitative easing and the printing of money and government credit. Just we're seeing an implosion of the global capitalist system as we speak. How the fuck can you say that it's just working? It's simply and pathetically not. Finally, as regards this question of psychology, psychologists can give us nice insights that are nice to think about, but they have no practical utility and no practical value whatsoever. So I repeat and I reiterate, if there were no psychologists on earth or in history, there would be no net difference as far as the meat and potatoes of our daily lives is concerned. Time. Tom? Yeah, so the dumb soy Reddit fallacy is the fact that he doesn't understand that because something happens to be a side effect doesn't mean it's not the absolute best at that side effect. He seems to think that it must be innate, ingrained into the purpose of the design in order to make it the best at something. No, that's why I listed all of those different scientific things people have discovered. Penicillin is like the best antibacterial ever discovered and it was never designed to be an antibacterial. The fact that something can happen by chance doesn't mean it's not the absolute best at the thing because saying that it's not ingrained into the purpose doesn't mean it's still not the best thing ever designed ever. Basic logic here. Yes, capitalism is working. You know how I know that? Because more people are alive and have food and technology than ever before in human history. Capitalism is the dominating thing everywhere. It's a mixed economy. Capitalism plus socialism. But capitalism is the thing. Yes, it works. Saying it doesn't work is like saying Boeing 747s don't work. Yes, they do. They flying right there. It's doing the thing. You lose. Again, his basic ignorance of basic psychology is absolutely pathetic. There's so much work that's been done in psychology that has a significant impact on our everyday lives. Like understanding the car crash experiment and how multiple different angles of people looking at car crashes have different conclusions and how bad testimony is and why it isn't accepted in court and how it overthrew a bunch of false convictions because we learned how bad testimony was or how understanding how recognition works in children and how they learn from growing up and how that helps us to better teach them so that they can learn faster and better and have different cognitive disabilities that like autism and synesthesia and all these different things which are learned by psychology to help improve people's lives. Yeah, psychology has had a huge impact. You're just basically ignorant of pretty much everything in science. I will conclude there. Yeah, psychology has absolutely zero impact. All those things you're talking about the courts, the courts treat seriously and they don't treat seriously is completely arbitrary and it always has been. So don't use the fucking court fallacies, in example, regarding how to raise children and psychology teaches us how to raise children better. Hold on, pardon me, I'll give you the time back. I'm going to pause it. But just for both of you, in terms of psychology at some point, hopefully we get back to some of the more direct arguments for and against communism capitalism. Yeah, I'll just wrap it up with this. Whatever you're talking about is, psychology is good at raising children and treating people's desire to be happy. Yeah, but the communal societies that have predominated, whether feudalism or even slave societies, whatever you want to call it, the four capitalism, all of these traditional societies were far better. Traditional villages in the countryside in random third world countries are better at fucking raising children than what psychologists are going to fucking tell you for anything, right? So that's Lindy, that's been tried and tested. It's worked for hundreds and thousands of years even. So yeah, psychologists haven't proven their worth in that regard either. But finally, regarding this being of like, oh, with the discovery of penicillin, we can find that it's the best at producing that result. But that is what we are debating about. Capitalism is not essentially the best at producing the result. Maybe it has produced that result. Maybe it has it. I'm arguing right now specifically it hasn't and it's failing at doing that. And we'll get into that debate in a second. But it is not essential to the capitalist system that the living standard, that this byproduct will happen. It is essential to the procedure that's replicated afterwards in these accidental scientific discoveries you're talking about it, that they do produce this outcome. Now that may not be the reason for their creation of the procedure, but that has nothing to do with my argument in the first place. I'm not arguing that because capitalism wasn't designed to make people's standard of living better, that this is why it inevitably leads to this contradiction I'm talking about. What you have yet to address even once, by the way, in the form of the various capitalist crisis and the current crisis that we're facing, all I was talking about is how it is inessential to capitalism. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that the capitalist type of system we have, which is basically Europe, America, and other countries that are under the fucking tyranny of the IMF and its policies, the burden of view is to prove that this is the essentially best way. And you're saying all capitalism works, people are being fed, and people are living and surviving. Well, is capitalism essential to that? Because the capitalist system, the fundamental basis of that financially is collapsing right now as we speak to the next segment. Go ahead, Tom, two minutes. Yeah, it's definitely not. Like saying that because there are problems with capitalism, therefore it's not working. It's like saying LeBron James missed a few times, therefore he sucks at basketball. Like clearly, the fact that it works in most cases and that we see the standard of living increasing for everyone everywhere by a significant margin kind of outweighs the little weaknesses it has here and there. All the economic crisis is like take the one in 2008. What did it do to like world hunger? Not much. We still all got food. Still lived. It got better. Capitalism works. There was a problem which happens to every system and then it overcame that problem and not millions of people died. What happens in communism? Mass starvation of millions of people die. So capitalism wins on that one. The fact that it has challenges doesn't mean it doesn't work. All systems have challenges, not an actual criticism. Next, you said that communism is inevitable. Well, that's quite strange since everyone's going away from it at a quite fast rate. It seems like capitalism is inevitable because it exists. Again, the way to actually do this debate is go make a company. Go do it. If you think you're political and your economic system will work, go start a company. Get off your butt, off your Twitch channel, go start a company. That's what I'm doing. I'm starting a company because I actually understand economics and philosophy and psychology and fallacies and everything that you don't. I actually know how to make this work in practice instead of just talk about it with a beard. I will conclude there. Yeah, the first thing you said was something more or less along the lines of capitalism is continuing to work because it's alleviated so many people out of poverty and it's solving global hunger. The overwhelming majority of poverty alleviation that's attributed to capitalism within the last few decades has come from China. And it's specifically because China's not a capitalist economy that we see such a rapid alleviation of people from poverty. Now, if you ask Chinese Marxist why in other countries this standard of living seems to be going up, not as nowhere near at the rapid pace as China's growth, but people are getting more access to food and health here. I know all these things are debated heavily. So I'll just concede it, which is a really big advantage to you that I'm just conceding that because it is something debated. But the reason for that isn't because of capitalism, it's because the forces of production overall are being developed and generated. But we're seeing a lot of countries reaching an upper limit in being able to develop their own forces of production because the capitalist path isn't cutting it. For you to underplay and downplay the global capitalist crisis that we're now witnessing, simply because of this stupid Steven Pinker bullshit idea that, well, everything's been pretty good so far and that this is like LeBron's success, you underestimate the extent to which all of these processes that ensure people can feed themselves and clothe themselves and so on and so on are dependent on extremely like esoteric financial abstractions like derivatives and securities and the global capitalist financial system, which when it finally does completely implode or at least implodes to such an extent that it leads to a fundamental political economic crisis, all of those things will suddenly become vulnerable, right? Because the economy is not based on ensuring those type of things in the first place. Now, finally, you say, why don't you just go start? Oh, you mentioned the communist countries links with famine and whatever. Listen, in the history of the development of capitalist economies, you take all of the worst famines in the communist states combined and it is nowhere near the extent to which the emergence of capitalism fundamentally led to the famine, death, genocide, completely eradication of whole peoples in the form of colonialism, slavery, and so on and so on. The famines in India under British colonial rule, the Irish potato famine, all of these type of different things scratching the surface, wiped out way more people as a proportion of their population in the communist states. The communist states merely had the burden of not having colonies overseas with which to fucking, with which to burden with the inevitable disruptions in the form of the agricultural production that capitalist modernization leads to. So don't give me this shit. I think that was time. That's time. We've got to kick it over. I think that was time. We've got to kick it over to Tom. Go ahead, Tom. So yeah, apparently he's using China as his shining example of communism. Yes, we love those camps where they just put anyone who they disagree with and then harvest their organs. Communism is great. Love the Chinese communism. Phenomenal, phenomenal example of communism. Yes, clearly there are economic crises coming on in the debt crisis, which is, oh, guess what? Also a thing in China. China's in more debt. Congratulations, son. Your own system has the same problem. Secondly, most of these can be solved with different kind of economic policies. The fact that they collapse doesn't necessarily mean that the entire economy is going to collapse. Like the banking collapse, it did happen. Many banks went down and the economy debt, but then it recovered. It wasn't like an entire collapse, unlike what happens in communist countries where everyone dies. So yes, he mentioned the rapid alleviation of poverty. Apparently he doesn't know how statistic work. If you have the most people in poverty living off a dollar a day and you increase them to $2 a day, then yes, you've alleviated a significant amount more poverty than people who make $20 an hour. It's going to be harder to alleviate poverty in that country because the standard of living is significantly higher. So yes, China is alleviating poverty because they have the most people in poverty other than like India. So that's an example against your case in why China and communism is crap, not why it's good. All right, back to the argument. He said communism is the best to a clip to a solved unemployment. Well, then why does China have so many unemployed people? Why does every communist country have so many unemployed people if it's the best to employed? I'm still waiting for him to start his own company. Like I'm going to do it. I'm working on it. I've done it. I'm actually doing these things. Does he have any plans? Can he try this for us? I'd like to point and laugh when his company collapses because it's a crap idea. That would be incredibly interesting. And he mentioned something about systems and contingency is the reason that casinos work, not because people want to win money, that is just so stupid. The reason casinos work is because people want to win money. That's the point. And he said something that China does something better than the U.S. I'd like to know what that is. It'd be very interesting. Harvesting organs, they do that a lot better than America. Prisoning organs. You're basically throwing a bunch of shit at the wall, waiting for something to stick, a thousand different things. I'll go one by one. The camps think complete bullshit. Oregon harvesting complete bullshit for long gone propaganda. Now you're also talking about China also having a lot of debt. Yeah, there doesn't change the fucking fact that when you have things like the Evergrande collapse in China, it doesn't lead to the destruction of the entire economy and the Chinese government doesn't bail those companies out. It's the free market in practice. Now you're saying that China only can attribute its success and property alleviation to the fact that China was the poorest country in the world. No, it fucking wasn't. India was always poorer than China. It still is. The countries in Africa were always way poorer than China. They still are. The same goes for Latin America and actually most of the world. China's not even a third world country anymore. It's now a middle ranking country according to most categories. So no, for you to underplay China's poverty alleviation, why can't India do the same fucking thing? India has such an extreme level of poverty that it would make any, it would make the fucking amount of poverty that existed in China pale in comparison. It was so bad for India in the 20th century that even during the Great Leap Forward famine in China, there were more deaths as a proportion per capita of the population due to malnutrition in India than there was in China during its fucking famine. So don't sit here and try to underplay China's success in poverty alleviation. Finally, you're saying things like, I don't remember all the dumb shit you said. You said something about how we're just trying to do better than America. I don't know developing its forces of production, building national infrastructure, poverty alleviation, and ensuring a baseline standard of living, building cities. I mean, what do you want? There's literally a million different things China's better at doing. Finally, on this question of unemployment, sorry to burst your fucking bubble, but the unemployment rates in communist states have always been lower than in capitalist countries. Not even pro-liberal capitalist economists would deny this. This is a really stupid angle to come with when it comes to that. And I don't remember the other shit. Oh yeah, there's stuff about starting a company. You haven't yet to address my initial rebuttal to that claim, which is that you will create a vacuum-sealed environment with which to test these types of theories. I argued this in the very beginning of our debate about how communism and socialism is necessarily national and political and scale. You didn't address the fucking argument. So shut the fuck up about me. Wait, what's the argument? Because I did vacuum-sealed something. What's the argument? You're saying that communism is just a different form of social organization that you can implement in a vacuum-sealed like environment of a company or a business. That's not what communism is. Simple as that. I don't care if boss and all these other types of people are saying it's just workers managing the means of production. Every communist theorist has recognized that communism is political and scale and encompasses the entirety of the economy and not isolated units or businesses. It's a really odd argument you're making. Wait, I'm not understanding. So like if China is a country, it supposedly implements communism by your standards. So isn't that an isolated system? It's not isolated. How is it isolated? Well, this is why I'm not understanding. Like, can a country adopt communism while other places don't have it? Is socialism in another country possible? Yes, of course it's possible. Okay. But the difference is it's not vacuum-sealed because China's growth and rise has already fundamentally changed our global economy right now. We just haven't really awakened to it. Yeah, China has what kept our global economy chugging after 2008. So you can't implement communism in like a country or a business. You can do it that way. It'll have impacts on other countries. No, not the theoretical basis for socialism in one country is about the level of the state. So politics is about states. There's no such thing as a global politics, maybe beyond geopolitics, but we don't have a global state. So yes, communist politics is going to be at the level of the state. So it's not a vacuum-sealed. But that's not a vacuum-sealed isolated environment. So if you owned a company, you could treat it as if you were the president and give it the same kind of communist policies you think would be good. Oh, you couldn't. You couldn't because communism encompasses the whole of a polity. A polity is not just a business top-down. It's civil society, the state, the origins of the state and civil society in a form of corporates, as Edgar would call it, I guess. A polity is national in scale, or at least even civilizational in scale, if you want to call it that. It encompasses the relation between citizen and state. Unless the company is going to encompass every facet of life politically, and it's actually going to be a political power, a sovereign political power, it's not going to apply. Communism is at the level of sovereign polity. It's not at the level of local businesses. So it seems like you're just basically ignorant of how politics works. Like a country and a business are essentially the same things, the relationship between the president. Wait, wait, wait. Two minutes. I'm still in my two minutes. Eighth country. I'm in my two minutes. Eighth country and a business. I'm in my two minutes. So you can have a company, and you can treat it as if it's your own country. You have the country of the company, and you can treat it how you want, and you have to interact with other companies and other states and whatever. You're going to have to treat them like they exist, just like China has to treat America like it exists. So you can treat a company just like you could a country, pretend it's your own little country, and treat it that way. It's not very hard. If you do, it'll fail because it's a crap system, and you'll learn real quick why it's a crap system. But that's the point here is that you can do nothing. By your own admission, you can do nothing, except just whine on Twitch about how you want global politics to change. I can actually do something. I can start a company like, hey, look, here's my economic policy, and it works. And I can act as someone to inspire others, and they can like, oh, I'm going to start a company and use that, oh, that political system too, because it works, and I can do it. But yours is just crap because no one can do it. It requires global change. But doesn't that give you some indication that your system is kind of bull crap that it requires an entire global change to implement, and you can't do it on an individual level? Why do you think that if it can be done on an individual level, a system may be more prolific than one that must take global stances? Do you think that might be a bit of a problem for your silly system? No, it's not a problem at all. The only problem here is you're deranged LARP fantasies about replicating a state and a country at the level of a company. That is 100% LARP, and don't get me wrong, LARPing looks a lot of like it's fun. You probably look like you know a lot about LARPing and stuff. You look like a guy with LARP. But anyway, you're treating it as a LARP. You're doing what those dumb people who try to find islands in the middle of the Mediterranean do, which is I want to create my own state. Listen, unless you have political sovereignty on bond of violence in a monopoly on violence, those kinds of things, you do not have a state or a country. When you have a cult, which is not even a country, but so much as a cult, that it claims to have this level of sovereignty, it is such a threat to the state, to the U.S. federal government even, that it finds excuses like in WACCO to go and raid and whatever that shit. That is how important political sovereignty over the citizens of your country is for a state. So no, a business is not just different from a country in terms of the quantitative scale. It is a qualitatively different thing. Now it does involve the mobilization and command of bodies from a central command. That's not the essence of politics. That's LARP, right? Just how LARPers want to reenact the glorious fights of the Middle Ages on a battle who are musing a sword and are wearing the outfit, what's different? What's different is the fact is that your individual experience of something is not the same as the actual material reality of that thing. A country isn't the same as a business. You can't replicate it at an individual scale like how you're saying, because what communism is addressing is our common sociality in the first place. It's addressing the common, something beyond our individuality. That's why communism has always been radically opposed to Western liberal individualism. It's addressing something beyond us, but which at the same time conditions us, right? So what you're saying is, why can't you do, isn't it a problem? It's not a fucking problem. It's an issue of politics. Communism, for monks, he called it the riddle of history itself. He said it is the real movement already in motion. All communism more or less means is that the economy is tending toward not only an increased level of socialization, but an increasing conditioning of the purpose and rationality of the mode of production for the fulfillment of social and common aims of humanity. There you go. All right. So I'm ready to just give a closing statement, go to Q&A. I think I've destroyed this guy enough. So just basic facts. It's really hard to make a successful political model that can accommodate people's feelings enough to motivate them to participate in the economic game and give them confidence. Most political systems fail. I mean, most people lose confidence and start breaking the rules such as high rates of theft or crime or whatever else. And the economy becomes unstable. Like the Bolsheviks making their own economy and Russia not liking that because they need theirs to work. Like if you have a crap economy, like any communist economy, it's going to lose confidence and people are going to start making their own economies like Hong Kong or Taiwan. They're going to leave because yours is shit. And so in order to make a successful system and by successful I mean most people not dying of starvation or crime or poverty like in China and having crappy poor living standards like in China. To make a society where people are not dying is very hard. This is why conservatives have a valid point that society we build works. The society we have built works very well and keeps most people alive in good condition by historical standards. All historical standards. And making changes puts that at risk. Most changes will have some negative effect and will fail. Research and development is the most expensive part of any company. Failure is the common thing, not success. So we have to change things slowly. The only way that a communist system could work is if we had AI overlords who governed everything and humans were not in control. Until then it's a crap system you have to accommodate humans' fields and it's not going to work. You got it in Fred? We'll give you your closing as well. Yeah. So you didn't really understand the point about the casino and the system and the contingency and the reason is basically this. When you have any given system, when you have any given set of norms and laws and structures, whatever you want to call that, what that has originated from can't entirely be accounted by the system itself. So systems will have blind spots in which the contingent chaos of the external and outward reality out of which the system has been born and molded from, that will be a source of novelty and innovation. So when you're talking about gambling you are betting on what you don't know. You're betting on what can't be certain about. And that's what's going to yield more results because the material source of wealth, for example in the form of nature, the form of external reality of natural resources and the reality of science and technological innovation, we don't know all of those things, right? So we are going to produce more novel results and innovative results and more wealth. When we take risks, when we take risks that come at the expense of the systems that are already tried and true. But what we are seeing in today's global economy is rather curious in that regard because we're seeing in capitalist countries stagnating establishments pegged to rentier monopolists who have fundamentally stifled any semblance of a free market, stagnating bureaucracies, salaried parasites that are living off of the labor of the majority of the population and producing no wealth in terms. The complete safe spacing, if you will, of the entirety of the economy, there's no longer any room for large systemic wide risk, right? So you have a very much socialistic and a colloquial bad sense of the term, according to right wingers. Economy that's emerging in the capitalist West and it's adjacent countries. Well, in communist China, you have a paradigm of constant and never ending structural reform. Clamp down on the monopolies and help the little guy. That is a fundamental systemic risk because monopolies have the precedent of working already while the little guy and the promotion of small to mid-tier companies isn't something that you don't know what they're going to do or what. So all of that has, here's room for communists to integrate that dialectic between systems and chaos. So it's completely beyond the point. I don't have time to address the other shit you were saying, but about Taiwan and Hong Kong being isolated systems, which is not fucking true and betrays a complete lack of any understanding of the Q and A. Don't worry, you'll have a chance to address some of those because I'm sure a lot of it will come up, but do what I'll let you know, folks, a couple of things. As we had mentioned, we are 100% pumped that both of these gentlemen, both Tom right up there and infrared will be at the modern day debate, debate con conference in Dallas in a month. And we are absolutely pumped, my dear friends, that we were doing a crowd fund in order to cover the cost of the speaker's flights as well as the venue and hotel nights for the speakers. And so what we are doing right now is throwing in basically the Indiegogo link. We encourage you, help us make this event possible as we are absolutely pumped for it. It's going to be juicy and I'm throwing that link into the live chat right now. But in the meantime, jumping into the Q and A, thanks for your question. Coming in from Bubble Gum Guns says this is literally average capitalism fan versus communism enjoyer. Is this some sort of slaying insult? He's saying we're both pettants and we don't know enough about what we're talking about. Like he's saying we're not experts on the topic. Thank you, Thomas. So sorry, infrared space. All right, next one. Ann Prine, Ann Primblady69 says, T-Jump, does Neo China arrive from the future? What? Does arrive from what? Doesn't even make any sense. This does Neo China arrive from the future. So to arrive from the future would mean you'd have to start in the future and go back in time. The question literally does not make sense. This one coming in for a moment. Mango Tea says, T-Jump, let's be honest, all these economic models came from demonically possessed individuals. The West are filled with demonically possessed people. Yep, I mean most of them. I actually unironically kind of agree with that. Well, yeah, most of society is based on religion, religious-based ideas like Islam and Christianity. So I can get behind that. This one coming in from Nance says, is this the P-hole guy? I would beat Tom Jump on this. P-hole. What have you been talking about your P-hole on stream, Tom? What's going on here? I don't know what that means. Next up, M.B. Kahn says, T-Jump should stick to debating Flat Earthers. He's out of his depth here. Next up, S.J. Thomason, a longtime friend of the channel. And of T-Jump says, if I work hard, should I expect to be paid well? Of course, this is the communist problem. And Fred will give you a chance to respond. It has nothing to do with communism. Even in the Soviet Union, which is an example of an economy doomed to stagnate because of its systemic rigidness and so on. You had differentials and compensation based on the extent to which people worked. But I think with the example of China, I just think this is an obsolete argument. Like, it's not an issue at all. You got it, Ant. Thank you very much for your question. Coming in from ASEAN says, I do think it's normal of us to want a social contract theory of government to help foster our own desires without fear of others. Sure. That's what governments do. This one coming in from ASEAN as well says, how do you promote a supposedly science-based economic model, like communism, by denying science? Free markets win again. Again. Yeah. So when Marx and Marxist use the term science, they were referring to a specific kind of esoteric German sense of the word from German philosophy. As far as this Reddit science, which is really just a form of religious exaltation of the current network of research papers and institutions and establishments of universities in America and in Europe, I do say proudly, say fuck science. I am a Lysenkoist. I don't care about science difficulties. All scientists can fuck my nuts. You know what I mean? So there you go. A Lysenkoist, really? Really? Of course. RT96 says Wiki slash Category, Soviet Psychologists, fake in all caps. He just said he was a Lysenkoist, which is like literally a proven false method of biology. Nothing has been proven false. MangoT says, infrared, do you believe capitalism turns the populace into independent and strong people, whereas communism turns the populace into slaves and dependence? The opposite is true. We see as the result of the capitalist economy an increasingly overly socialized populace of soy drinking, safe space riddled, politically correct, completely lack of manhood. You don't have any strong individuals in our increasingly capitalist society, Amazon, all this big text. Where are the strong and independent individuals? We have none. We have city-dwelling snowflakes that are ruling over us and ruling over the American people moreover in the United States. This is the result of capitalism, whereas communism, by attending to our common social needs and questions, does lead to strong and independent individuals. I mean, what do you think is more strong? A Starbucks drinking soy boy in the United States, or, for example, a Soviet farmer who's hunting with a pack of wolves in the forest or something. I mean, just really use common sense. Like, Xi Jinping, you think he's a manly man? Of course. This one coming in from RT96. Oh, got that one. Mango Tea says, infrared, why are communists always angry? Forgive your mother and become a man and start your own business and benefit from capitalism. Amazing. I just want to tell that dude to suck my nuts. Second of all, I'm angry because I've been spending five hours today trying to fix my internet, so I'm on my phone right now, actually. I wasn't able to stream today. So, yeah, I am angry. They told me the estimated time that they were going to fix it was 8.30 p.m., 30 minutes before the show. Turns out they lied and they pushed back the date. So, yeah, I am angry, but you're saying why are communists always so angry and shit? Because you're fucking annoying, dude. Why don't you be a little bit more pleasant? I'm talking to the chatter specifically. People like you, be more pleasant than you won't give me a reason to be angry. You got it. I do want to give credit. I want to give huge credit. No, I'm dead serious. That infrared seriously, especially while I was badgering and with emails while he was trying to set up. I'm so sorry. It really do. We appreciate you persevering and being here. So, we really do. Seriously, I'm dead serious about that. So, Mango Tea says... Oh, that's Mark Reid. Says, Inferred, why do you trash psychologists when they help people with mental health issues? Do you think that mentally disturbed people would be better off without psychologists existing or without professional help? No, I'm not downplaying that therapists help people. Therapists do help people. They help people work through their problems. It's usually by fostering interpersonal relationships. And I'm not saying you won't learn anything from psychology as a therapist. I'm just saying, when you try to apply that to a social scale and have policies that apply to all of us, that's where things get fucked up, right? If you're talking about getting advice from someone who's studying, maybe some things will work. Maybe they won't work. I'm not against it. I'm not against that kind of thing. But making policies based on this are very, very inconsistent, whatever. It's not an airtight discipline, right? So, whenever I see people talk about communism or capitalism, I make references to biology or psychology. It's just especially psychology. It's laughable, right? This psychology is only going to apply it's utility at an individual or somewhat small interpersonal level. The minute you try to apply it to a scale larger than that, you're going to have absurdities and stupidity. You've got this one coming in from Sphinxer of Doom says, 1929 was due to regulations disallowing banks to diversify and the ensuing smooth holly tariff. 2008 was due to subsidized risk by government backed Fannie and Freddie Mac, i.e. government distorting signals. 2008, I will give you some. But 1929, you're completely off the mark and wrong about that. Regardless, even if I were to conceive both of those things, why does capitalism lead to this monopoly kind of ruling socialism for the rich where the economy becomes rigged to protect the monopolies in the ruling class? And why is it that you need communist heavy-handed states to crack down on monopolies and to help the little guy and foster the free market like we see in China? It's a paradox worth consideration. You got it, Anne. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Long Nights YouTube and says, T-Jump actually put Trump. I don't know if that was a Freudian slip or they're typing or what they say. T-Jump, do you think trickle-down economics worked? Sort of. Like trickle-down economics works in the fact that technologies are produced and then sold at lower prices. And those technologies trickle down. The money doesn't. So if your goal with trickle-down economics is to have income or wealth equality, no, it doesn't work. But mostly the goal of trickle-down economics is to get an increased trickle-down standard of living, which in that sense, it has worked. So it kind of depends on what your goal is. It's definitely not a moral system. There's better ways to do it. But in a sense, it's worked. You got it, Anne. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Spinger of Doom says, China's reduction in poverty is due to it becoming less communistic and more capitalistic, opening markets up to competition. This is not true. The communist Soviet model system that existed in the 20th century wasn't more or less communist. It just had more direct involvement by the state and the economy. That's not really the essence of what communism is. The essence of communism is a state, is a policy, and is an economy that is rigged toward ensuing the common prosperity of the people, which the Chinese system has done actually better than it did. I mean, it served different. It was two stages of its existence. The old Soviet-inspired model did what it was meant to do, which was create a national industrial system, create a primary basis of the economy. And then beyond that, they did have more allowances for markets and private exchange and all these kinds of things. But as we can see, this is perfectly compatible with China's unique form of socialism. So it's not that it became more capitalist. It's that it opened itself to the global economy, and it also took advantage of the independent form of capital accumulation, primitive capital accumulation that was a result of the Great League Forward. This one coming in from Mango Tease is infrared. Do you believe the reason capitalism is quote, failing is because the young generation are brainwashed with the poor communist mindset? No, this is not a communist mindset. It's a mindset that corresponds to the fact that the people controlling our lives and raising our children now, it's all coming from these stagnant, overly socialized monopolies. The big tech companies are a good example. The financial institutions are a good example. The corporations are a good example. And they want to save their position. It seems like communism to you because the free market is being stifled, but it's not. It's a capitalist ruling class trying to protect its power at all costs. It has nothing to do with communism, is what I'd say. You got it. This one coming in from, do you appreciate that Mango Tease is infrared? You realize capitalism is in alignment with the laws of nature. The strong have the food and the rest need to find their own food or work. Yes, nature is immoral. I don't see anything capitalist about that. You can have a communist society where people have to work to get what they need. We have enough wealth so that people, even in a capitalist country, we have enough wealth so people don't have to starve. I mean, if you're, if you need food, you can get food for free even in America, right? Level of starvation. But you know, I get what you're saying. This level of competition or whatever you're talking about exists in communist states. It exists in China. It's always existed and even existed in the Soviet Union. So yes, the strong will do better than the people who are not strong. And I agree that's not something communism is going to eliminate. You have to understand it's not a question of the individual versus the society. Society is controlling us either way. Look at our, look at how much we're controlled by big tech and the monopolies. It's a question of is this going to serve the people and the health and well-being of the people or is it going to serve a tiny minority of elites? So that's the choice you're basically. You got it, Anne. This one from Turbo says, infrared, by the way, have to give you a quick debate challenge from someone after this question. But Turbo says, infrared, is Taiwan not part of China or are you based? Taiwan is 100% part of China. That Taiwan is called formally, by its own government, the Republic of China. And the minute that, you know, Taiwan separatism has been suppressed for decades. They recently opened up because of American influence. But if they do try to secede from China and claim that Taiwan is an independent country, China will respond swiftly to that fact. I mean, regardless of whether you like communism or not, both the nationalist government, Republican government in Taiwan and the communist government in China, both came to an agreement that we will not separate. We will not cut China into, these are both China. They just disagree about who should be in charge. You got it. And speak of the devil. Infrared, your brother Dylan Burns is interested in a debate with you in person at debate con on this very question. Yeah, well, I'll be there. So, you know, is he an end? Are you interested? Whoever, yeah, whoever I have to debate, I'll debate. I'm going to be there. So, you know, I'll debate anyone. Isn't Dylan a communist? I thought he was. We're in a handicap. Next up, this is coming in from a picture of Doofz as slavery isn't unique to capitalism. The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by government disallowing exports slash imports. Something occurring with capitalism existing does not equal that it's due to capitalism. Okay, well, this is the kind of it's not real capitalism type of thing. And look, I'm kind of sympathetic because I see libertarians as utopian socialists. You guys think, you guys critique the system and you critique people of power. You just don't recognize that the cause and the effect aren't separate. The reason why capitalism leads to this form of state, you know, subsidies and rigging of the restrictions and all this kind of stuff is because it's inherent to the system itself. You can't separate the two, right? But regardless, my point was, I mean, if you're just going to say that all of the instances of barbarity and starvation and slaughter and genocide and famine in the history of capitalism is because of the state and not capitalism, the question stands, is there a single example of a country or a civilization that is purely just capitalist and has none of the bad socialism that you're attributing it to? There's none because the two are inexorably linked. The state ensures that the ruling class maintains its power. And capitalism is inexorably tied to the power of the states and always has been. You got it, Ann. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Ozzie and says, I must have missed that one. Spincter of Doom says, communism is by definition stateless. It can't be national in scale. The ultimate consequences that the real movement that is communism will have for society is the dissolution of the state and the dissolution of money and all these kinds of things. But that is like the ultimate consequence it will have for society. That doesn't mean communism can't be national in scale. You're just thinking communism is like an ideal, to quote Marx, with which society conforms itself to when it's not. So if you're going to say eventually a communist society will lead to the dissolution of the state and will become global in scale, that can be entertained. That's a prediction. But if you can't say a country is not communist because it still has a state or it still has money or it still has commodities and stone because communism is a process, not an end goal. And Marx literally said as much. You got it, Ann. Thank you very much for this question. Coming in from Mark Reid says, come on, T-Jump. Starting a private company to prove communism is like having sex to prove chastity. Or says, come on, T-Jump. You can make better arguments than that. Well, since we're in a country that allows you to make private companies, you can make a private company and then make it like a co-op. So you can make it a publicly owned thing. So there are many co-ops in America, like REI co-op, especially in Minnesota. So it doesn't need to be a privately owned company. You can make it a publicly owned company or a co-op. And that's perfectly fine. So it's not, that's a perfectly valid argument there. Next one, Sphinxer of Doom says, I got here late, but it appears neither interlocutor understands what capitalism or communism actually is. Ooh, sounds like that's a challenge. I gotta tell you, Sphinxer of Doom, I'm not affirming his derogatory comment toward you guys and stuff. And I will say that he's a quality debater. So if you guys would enjoy that, he's talking some real smack. He also says, infrared seems to have confused the rise of the welfare state and the 20th century creating sheep versus capitalism. There is a reason capitalism has led to this so-called welfare state you're talking about. And the reason is simply because there is no such thing as a pure capitalist free market system. It's a pipe dream and it's a form of utopianism. That's why I say that free markets, libertarians, to me, are the same as utopian soldiers. I sympathize with them. They have the right problem, but not the right solution. You got it, Juicy. Ann, thank you very much for this one. Coming in from SJ. Thomasin says, infrared are the Chinese people happy about the concentration camp for the Uyghurs? Listen, if you want to keep repeating CIA narratives unquestioningly without doing any research or studying the problem, I don't know how much I can do for you within the allotted time span to dispel this myth. I recommend you educate yourself on the so-called camps and the so-called Uyghur genocide, which I don't even think the mainstream media is really admitting it's the same form. The AP Press recently released an article that conveniently is talking about how, wow, it seems like in Xinjiang that the genocide's over and they're relaxing all control and you're seeing people on the streets. Because they can't maintain this narrative they've been trying to peddle for the past few years and it's completely collapsed. So this is the wrong time to bring that shit up. I wanted to mention, on the question of are the Chinese people happy with their system and with their government, yes, I mean, compared to the United States or even any European country, Chinese satisfaction with their system and the party and their government just blows all the capitalist countries out of the water. You got it, Dan. Thank you very much for your question, Sphinx, you're a doom. Strikes Back says government interference isn't capitalism. Capitalism is inexorably tied to government interference. There has never been a capitalist society that did not involve government interference. So it's the myth of a pure capitalist economy. It's never existed anywhere on earth at any time. You got it, Dan. This one coming in from Jay Thomason. Oh, we got that one. And Mango Tea says, Infrared, you are right. Capitalism is great at the beginning, but the end result will always be a handful of wealthy controlling everything. I guess they agree with you. Tom, what are your thoughts? It starts that way. That's not how it ends. It's always been that way. There's always a distribution in wealth and the super rich and the super poor because biology. It's always, some people always have more resources than other people. And they use those resources to gain more resources. That's why evolution is a thing. This one coming in from S.J. Thomason says, Why is the world ignoring the atrocities of the Uyghurs going on now in concentration camps? The world isn't ignoring it. It's just that the West is trying to make some shit up and no one else is buying it because they have no reason to buy into it. I mean, all the Islamic countries visited Xinjiang and they didn't see anything. Many countries have been invited. The Europe has been invited. America has been invited. They don't want to come, right? So it's not the world's ignoring it. It's just that it's not happening. I recommend you actually talk to people living in China or people living in Xinjiang to get a balanced and fair perspective about the situation there. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from, do appreciate it. Ryan Lyon says, Infrared, why don't you live in China if it is that much better? To me, the idea of choosing what country you live in based on preferences is like choosing your mother based on your preferences. You don't choose your mother. You don't choose your parents. In the same way, you don't choose your homeland. You don't choose the soil that you were born into that you were raised into. And I am an American. I was born in America. And this is my country. I am of no use to the Chinese. I am of no use to Russians or Cubans or any other type of people. I am an American. Even if I think China's system is better, that doesn't mean I don't want what's best for my own country. I am an American, you know? So it's a meaning. It's a stupid question. This one coming in from Sphinxter of Doom says saying capitalism is inexorably linked to government interference doesn't mean they're interchangeable or that every element of one can be attributed to the other as well. Well, for you to try to isolate capitalism as its own essence separate from that, I just question, where does that exist? Everywhere we see that what we call capitalism exists. It is tied to the state interference in the government. So I have yet to be confronted with an example of capitalism that is not inexorably tied to state interference. Before there were any governments would be the answer to that. That's when Guy With Biggest I forgot. Capitalism is when people were trading beads and stuff, right? Yes, because when you have pure capitalism it's just Guy With Biggest. That's the most dumb shit I've ever heard in my life but continue. Yeah, you appreciate and treat it. Do appreciate all of your questions folks and want to remind you our guests are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more from T-Jump, if you want to hear more from infrared you can find their links in the description box right now. What are you waiting for? And that includes if you're listening via the podcast you can find both Tom's and infrared's links in the description box at the podcast. We highly encourage you check them out. You can hear more capitalism communism type debates at their channels. We really do appreciate these guys. And so thanks T-Jump and infrared. It has been a true pleasure to have you. Thanks James for hosting. It's appreciated. Thank you, Hawes for joining. Appreciate the opportunity. And I do have a question. Have you seen China uncensored the YouTube channel? Yeah, it's a misinformation YouTube channel that's been debunked many times. You got it. But we want to say I'll be back in just a moment folks to give you updates about this upcoming epic conference modern day debates first ever debate con in Dallas, Texas in January. You don't want to miss it folks. Tickets are going to be on sale soon. More info about that as we are pumped that both T-Jump and infrared have agreed to join us for that conference for some juicy live debates in person. And with that, thanks so much everybody. We will be back in just a moment or I'll be back in just a moment with updates on that. So stick around. So is that all? Amazing. My dear friends, we are pumped to have you with us. What a juicy one. What a slobber knocker. Want to say hello to you there in the old chat. Tarek Hank here as well as Voidling and Person plus comrade Mark Zallow and randomized Solas, I see you there. Jared A. Thanks for being with us and thanks so much for being a member and rest huge. Thanks for coming by as well as American Futurist and what WTFHAH pumped you are here. Ray F. Glad you came by as well as King of PVP pumped you're with us and MethosMethous Hetzenauer pumped you came by. Harold Sullivan we're glad you're here as well as Feathers and or is it Fethiers plus Fantasy Vimean skirt. Glad you are with us and Ray F. pumped you're here. R. My dear friend R. I see you there in the old live chat. 0918. Thanks for coming by. Poppy. Am I saying this right? Poppy Chulo. Thanks for dropping in as well as Love Tornado. Good to see you again. Michael Stein pumped you were with us as well as Arab 1264. Thanks for dropping in and King Klebold we're glad you're here. Michael thanks for dropping in and Michael Lyon we're glad you were with us as well as Darg and 373-562-438 we are pumped you are with us for real. Mel's 1917 glad you were with us and Cam pumped you were with us as well. Wet bread on concrete. We're happy you're here. 101 Rockhound pumped to have you with us and Bands aw bandit pumped you were with us and Mark Thompson glad you were here says pumped for debate con me as well Mark I am absolutely thrilled and pumped to give you guys updates on this as well as hey you thought tonight was a slobber knocker if you thought hey that was an intense one that was high energy whole baby it is going to be even more intense at the upcoming conference in particular want to show you this at the bottom right of your screen my dear friends as you can see see right here Elijah Schaefer and destiny will collide first time in person it is going to be a juicy one as they debate whether or not religion and government can overlap you don't want to miss that one that is one of the bigger debates we are having however arguably there are even bigger ones at modern day debates upcoming conference debate con and I've got to tell you several things first my dear friends we are absolutely thrilled for this conference you might be thinking James are you are you for real about this yes we are 100% for real we are bringing in a number of influencers there's going to be a religion debates day on Saturday January 15th and then on Sunday January 16th it is going to be all political debates including the one that you see on the bottom right of your screen however that's not all my dear friends let me give you a taste of what else to expect on the religion day for example on the bottom right of your screen David Wood Act 17 apologetics takes on Nadir Ahmed and whether or not the Quran is true regarding science it's going to be a juicy one but hold that's not all we are unveiling it for the first time tonight my dear friends I want you to check out at the bottom right of your screen right now this juicy panel is going to be epic as T Jump will be on it as well as the talented and congenial Ariel Scarcella as well as Dylan Burns and Xander Hall it is going to be a great panel discussing questions such as whether or not there are two or more genders as well as whether or not the political left is progressing or regressing oh it's going to be controversial it's going to be fun and I've got to tell you for us to make this happen we are flying in all of the speakers and unless of course they live in Dallas which if you do and not only that well we're covering their hotel because hey these are busy people and for them it's like well they're like well you know I'd love to come but you know I was like can you can you take care of my travel we're taking care of their travel and we're covering obviously since we're hosting the event the cost of the venue now you might be thinking like oh it's like piece of cake well we believe we can reach our goal for the crowdfund and we believe we can also reach the total budget goal basically we're roughly and it's difficult to know for sure but we've got a good estimate that it's going to be about no joke I'm not exaggerating $20,000 to make this event happen this is big time and so we're absolutely pumped about it I've got to tell you though for us to make this event work we have created a crowdfund to help cover the cost of the venue and so I want to tell you my dear friends this is going to be amazing and I put this link in the description or I should say in the live chat right now so the crowdfund link for modern day debates debate con debate conference that I just mentioned right now is both in the description and it's also pinned to the top of the chat at this moment you might be thinking gee it's like oh really what we're doing here is something big we are taking the next big step for modern day debate and I've got to tell you it is going to be huge it is going to be monstrous we are absolutely thrilled for it and I've got to tell you this we are asking for your support of this giant project and you might be thinking Jay is like I don't know how do I support it how does this work well Indiegogo is a fantastic crowdfund website and as you can see at the far right of your screen we are already 11% of the way toward our goal we are absolutely thrilled we have made all of our crowdfund goals in the past the last one was 3500 we are determined we are going to make this goal and I've got to tell you there are awesome perks if you happen to throw in for this crowdfund now you might be thinking James I don't know man it just seems tiring I'm man I don't know if I've got the time to do that do I have to create an account on Indiegogo no you don't you can actually sign in through Facebook so if you click on that link that's in the description and also pinned at the top of the chat you can actually sign into Indiegogo just using your Facebook profile and you can make a contribution that way and I'm telling you you absolutely want to because not all of the the debates will be streamed live for the public some will but not all and so if you'd like to watch these juicy debates live I've got to tell you my dear friends throw into this crowdfund as it absolutely does help make this event happen we need that support because if this event goes to the point of where we're like oh my gosh we uh financially we're in a tough spot we won't be able to do the conferences anymore so if you're like hey this sounds like fun I can throw in nine bucks and then I get to watch all of the debates live from home in the comfort of your own home enjoying if you're like me ice cream enjoying ice cream while watching the debates all of them live throw into this crowdfund I want to encourage you to do that we really do appreciate that support and we are pumped that we had a strong start I am absolutely thrilled 11% is a fantastic first several days so for real that is awesome and if you are like hey man I'm pumped to see Haas there or I'm pumped to see T-Jump there I want to help support the cost of their travel well that's exactly what this is being used for is it's basically being used to cover the costs for people's travel cover the venue costs and so that really does help us and we are absolutely excited my dear friends you don't want to miss out on this it is going to be big time it is going to be something new something juicy and something big that frankly we haven't seen it done before but we believe that modern day debate has the ability to do this and one thing is and yes absolutely thanks for your question Jared A says can we catch it on Patreon instead if you're a Patreon supporter or a member of the channel you are already covered so you will already get to see the debates live every single one of them because we want to say thank you for your support of the channel and so that's something that already if you are a member or a Patreon supporter we are just thankful seriously we are so thankful that we're saying hey it's already covered you don't have to throw into the crowd fun to watch it live we appreciate your support and so I've got to tell you it is a piece of cake you can create an account so fast if you are like ah I don't have Facebook no problem creating an account is like that it is so fast and you can I think you can also create like a what is it called like an Apple account something like that where you can sign in but I've got to tell you there are a lot of easy ways to jump in on this and like I said in order for us to do this because we want to do another one in May of 2022 so four months after this first one our goal is to do a second one and that's again assuming that this one goes okay so that we hopefully break even that's our goal if we don't it's like well if we have extra you may be thinking well James if there is extra funds where do they go they'll stick in the modern day debate debate con fund and only be used for the future conference so sideshow bob is where basically we're working on getting there to be like kind of a public account so people can see like where the funds actually are and that they actually are as promised used for conferences only so if you put into the crowd fund or if you buy a ticket as tickets will be on sale soon we just want to make sure that when we do release the tickets as basically so people that can buy them that all the debates are shown and you might be thinking James like tell me more about these debates like what what events are there I'm kind of curious well let me show you we have been working on setting up new events non-stop and you might be thinking like I don't know James really have you though for example this is one that we are putting up tonight namely this juicy panel whether or not there are more than one gender as well as whether or not the left is progressing or regressing you don't want to miss it my dear friends this panel is going to be epic and it's just one of several panels that we were going to have during this conference so I got to tell you you guys I am absolutely pumped for it and like I said that meter on the right continue to keep an eye on it as we continue to raise funds for this event and I'm telling you we are absolutely excited about it and we want to treat the speakers well as we do appreciate that they're giving up their time some of them are giving up a ton of time and that they're willing to fly there and so Haas for example we are pumped to have Haas come and that's why we are wanting to cover his flights we are wanting to cover his hotel and that's something that we've already promised and so the idea is in order for us to do that we do appreciate your support as this is like I said it's a big leap it's a leap that we are taking as a channel because we said hey many hands make light work if everybody throws in nine bucks oh it's a piece of cake folks for real we can do big things so if you want to see bigger batter more epic debates in person this is the way for us to do it so I don't want to say I do appreciate you guys so much and I do want to say thank you Leo T.J. for being with us I see you there in the old chat and Eric Majestic pumped that you are here as well as Ball Diablo and Bayes MX thanks for coming by Darren Yvonne Brown we are glad you are here and Jared A. thanks for your support seriously Michael Stein we are pumped you are with us and Mark Reed thanks for dropping in as well as Mark Thompson says mid-January 15th and 16th that's right that is when it is so mid-January the 15th which is a Saturday is going to be when we have the religion debates and then the 16th which is a Sunday is when we are going to have the political debates so I am absolutely pumped for it believe me this is this is big stuff we are absolutely thrilled we think it's going to shake the foundations of the YouTube debate world as modern day debate is striving to lead the way on YouTube in terms of fulfilling the vision providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field on the big questions of life and we are excited about that vision we are excited to see people from different walks of life interacting and my dear friends it is going to be gigantic we are absolutely excited about it and we hope you are too so January 15th and 16th mid-January is when debate con is happening it's up to con Soundwave thanks for coming by we are pumped you are here I appreciate your all caps showing that passion in the whole live chat Michael Stein we are pumped you are with us 33% done pumped you are with us my dear friend and as I shown to have says yo James we got another mod ready for the wrench Adam Albillia thanks Adam for being a mod seriously we appreciate you going through the trouble of doing that I know it's a rigorous you could say rigorous rigorous process to become a moderator so thank you we really do appreciate that Adam and Ozzie says hey 15th is my birthday amazing well we're pumped for that Ozzie and seriously I am and it's going to be a lot of fun you guys I am excited though as modern day debate is on a continual march determined to make 60,000 subscribers by the end of the year my dear friends we are going there and it's thanks to you you have made this channel awesome thank you guys for your support seriously I appreciate you we all appreciate you I tell people the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel so we appreciate Oz we appreciate t-jump these guys are awesome and their links are in the description if you want to hear more of Oz infrared if you want to hear more of t-jump on these topics such as capitalism communism you can find their links and that includes if you're listening via the podcast I've got to tell you I'm encouraged people have told me they're like James I gotta be honest the podcast is really convenient and that for me is so encouraging I'm looking at it right now because you might be wondering you're like James I don't know is it that convenient yes let me show you if you have your phone right now which I know most of you actually watch on your phone YouTube rats you guys out in the creator studio they tell me that so basically I've got to tell you my dear friends pull out your favorite podcast app whatever that might be podcast addict for me because I'm hip I'm with it and you can look up modern a debate by just typing it in you can also if you're like I don't want to tell you I don't want to type it in if you look in the description box of this channel or I should say this episode this debate you can actually find modern a debates podcast links as well and I've got to tell you though some people have told me they're like oh it's nice it saves on my data I can just listen to the modern debate podcast now look at that right in the middle there it is see that the blue and the black based logo there amazing modern a debate is on your favorite podcast and I'm not joking because you're like well James I use kind of weird one I use apple no I'm kidding if you're like I use I heart radio that's a pretty small percent we're on there you're like James I use Stitcher and I don't know if you yeah we're on there James I I use dog catcher yeah that's a real one and we're on there my dear friends we are on every podcast you can think of I'm not joking overcast yep we're on there cast box yep we are on every podcast and want to say if you were listening via podcast you could find our guests infrared NT jump in the description box there as well and we really do it seriously I'm dead serious we appreciate these guests so much so 33% done said I voted for that logo thank you I remember you remember when you had the vote I appreciate that seriously and I'm sorry people have said James you've got to up you've got to update the merch we are several months behind on updating the t-shirts and the sweatshirts for modern day debate and I'm seriously sorry because people have said they're like James I actually I do want to buy it but you don't have it's like it's got the old logo which looks like something you made in word art James believe me we're going to update it soon for sure for the conference as well as we're going to have modern day debate t-shirts and I am so pumped though you guys I've got to tell you it is going to be something different we are taking the debate stream world somewhere new where it hasn't been before we are absolutely passionate about that goal and for I'm dead serious you guys when you see some of the debates that we release because we've released some good ones no doubt about it so for example the panel at the bottom right I've mentioned those four popular and talented streamers will be there but also likely that we're going to have a grudge match between Dylan Burns and infrared that is going to be a juicy one my dear friends it is going to be a really fun debate so we're absolutely excited about that but not only that we've got others I mentioned already but this is one of the ones that I'm just absolutely pumped about seriously this is going to be so fun you might be thinking James what's going to be fun Destiny and Elijah Schaefer first time that we're ever hosting Elijah Schaefer from slightly offensive the YouTube channel which is a highly popular YouTube channel just like Destiny's channel is highly popular it is going to be amazing you guys well you're absolutely pumped for that and so thank you guys so much for your support though of the Indiegogo crowd fund and I've got to tell you though it really is I am just so excited and thankful we have met every goal in the past because you might be like James I don't know if you're going to be able to make it in fact we just had another backer so thank you so much for becoming a new backer we're up to 622 right now so seriously thank you so much for backing this project I am really encouraged to see we have another backer as of right now and you guys I've got to update it you know if you've seen this before you know that we what we do is no let me let me fix this so if you see the meter at the right side of your screen and you're like oh James yeah I see the meter and it says goal 5000 and then it says you know 600 well we update that in live time so I'm updating it right now oh 622 actually so it's jumped up it is now up to 622 and so you'll see that update on screen in just a moment as my internet is very slow basically now it should no new page loaded this this website used to be a little more user friendly but don't worry I'm going to click out of their their little ad their precious little ad no wait two seconds I'm going to fix it amazing update and there it is okay so now you should be able to see on the right side of your screen it has jumped to 622 dollars so want to say thank you so much for joining the crowdfund and being a backer thanks for being a part of the modern day debate team and I want to tell you even if you're like James I actually can't put it into the crowdfund right now you are a part of the modern day debate family I'm serious whether you put it into the crowdfund or not whether or not you are whether or not you do super chats or remember or not if you are just hanging out here at modern day debate modern day debate watching welcome and you are a part of the community I'm very serious it makes it so much more fun when people are basically coming into this eclectic mix a melting pot as the old cliche goes this garden of different people from different walks of life at modern day debate and it is it is a truly eclectic group here and so I would say just by being here it seriously does make this a more fun experience and so we really do appreciate you whether you be politically right politically left atheist christian muslim you name it there is a place for you here at modern day debate you belong here and we are glad you are here and we want to say thank you for being with us and that goes for as well whether you be black or white gay or straight trans you name it my dear friends biden backer trump supporter no matter who you are no matter what walk of life you are from we're very serious about the idea of having people from all walks of life and not oh like you know we you know you see that before sometimes people are like oh yeah we welcome everybody and like well what about you know people of this political party not you know not them well I thought you welcomed everybody we really do for real whether you be republican democrat and now there's all sorts of strange creatures in terms of politically what people identify as we're pumped you are with us seriously and so gerrit a we are pumped you are with us though says my dog ain't loose I'm so glad to hear that gerrit and ryan lion says James equals amazing thanks ryan seriously that really encourages me I am I am thankful to see to hear that but yes my dear friends we are pumped in Ozzy and I am pumped about your upcoming birthday we are going to have tickets on sale and so if you are listening right now you might be thinking James I live not too far from Texas or Dallas in particular could I come well tickets are going to be sale on sale shortly and I would say that's another way in which we're basically making this event happen is that helps us cover the venue as well as the cost for the speakers and so my dear friends we are absolutely pumped to let you know that it's not going to be much longer we're hoping within a week that's the goal and maybe even by Sunday we are absolutely pumped for this you guys as we have so many new debates that are coming like coming together and I have I've also heard back from new people people were like oh I'm like oh man I'm surprised they responded like I'm super encouraged like it would be awesome if we had them and so seriously it is going to be a pumped up conference believe me but I've got to tell you my dear friends you might be thinking ah James James are you sure about this we are sure it's time to take risks it's time to take the streaming debate world to real life to a new place and these conferences is how we're going to do it and you know you you're like oh James but you've already done you know you've already done a debate where it was in person in fact you already did one time a day where you had two debates this is going to be five per day and it is going to knock your socks off we're serious about that Turbo says are you on the podcast Podbot I've never heard of that one are you making this up let me look this up Turbo I will punish you if you're making this up oh gosh dang it it is real okay we're working on it man for real let me put that in I'm not joking I'm putting it in my room of minders how can I get onto let's see get onto the real podcast Podbot hey I'm serious I'm dead serious I'm actually I really appreciate you telling me about that because I didn't even know what existed but my dear friends I've got to tell you big things are in store and I want to say you guys thank you so much though like I want to I want to keep thanking you because like I said you might be like well James like two seconds it's a deep burn okay you might be thinking James I'm new here well we hope that you know that we are pumped that you are here seriously you guys join us while we are small join us while we are a young channel as we have got big things in store and you guys I've got to tell you I am absolutely pumped this is going to be big and we're taking it to the next level and we are excited to do that with you as we strive to fulfill the vision and believe me it is important one that everybody has this neutral platform so that they can make their case on a level playing field that is what we're determined to do and it's also absolutely essential that different people from different walks of life continue to engage each other rather than become siloed off and isolated that is not a good thing we instead strive for the opposite namely that people are actually interacting and sharing ideas and you might be oh James people never changed your mind in debates I don't know I've actually had people telling me via email and I've also heard plenty of other cases in which not just for modern day debate but other debates people are actually learning new things through debates braid in fears thanks for coming by says I would really like to get on this channel and debate specific people on specific topics how do I do so if you email me at modernaydebate at gmail.com I can potentially get you in it helps a lot if you one have a topic in mind already and two if you can get someone I'm going to be completely frank if you can find someone who is a bigger content creator than modern day debate that helps a ton because when we host new people we're taking a risk we actually do in some debates actually have a net loss of subscribers and that's not good for us look that we won't we're not into that and so sometimes people are like well I'm new but you should host me anyway and they'll always tell us everybody will always say it'll be really good and you know it'll perform really well and I'm like that's not enough it's just not enough and so I would say if you can get someone like a bigger content creator out there to agree to debate you that's something where I'm like hey we'll book it just like that I'll give you a number of examples Brent and Langel has gotten a lot of big time people and he's like hey James I already reached out to them and they're willing to come on and debate can you host us and I'm like absolutely yeah like for sure and so I'm telling you it's absolutely possible and that makes it way easier thanks to your super chat from turbo says I made it up didn't know it was real super chat don't fund the event eh I've thought about that we did that for the last one where we it was like we tried to get it so that super chats could be like funneled into or toward the event but it's really hard to get it to actually like work and there's a couple of reasons one is that we don't like it through YouTube because a monitor was at Google takes 30% of a super chat and so for us I'm like well if they just put it into if people just put it into the crowdfund then Indiegogo takes 5% but that's way less than what you what Google takes which is 30% and then Nemo says have you invited Jesse Lee Peterson lately not lately it's been a while we have had him on before and it was a juicy debate with him and Professor Dave but it's been quite a while Ken Kenichi says how does he just keep talking into the camera like this thank you Ken I appreciate that thank you and then Adam Elbilius says try once to split the dono links in a survey like form healthy competition plus interesting info meters for atheists slash Christians percentage of goal relevant to debate topic hey that's actually a juicy idea I'm gonna write that down I'm not sure if we have the bandwidth to do it now but seriously I've written it down I've got it I just saved it and so that's something that we might actually do I appreciate you saying that and Michael Stein good to see you as well as Nemo and let's see in Dr. Nated Turtles says it's like communism is America without the freedom juicy I have no opinion but Ozzie and I'm so sorry I didn't read your super chat that said ask infrared how long two minutes are in communism I am so sorry is I was trying to speed through and one thing is I've got to I got to give it to infrared he worked really hard to get his internet to work and one thing I've got to say not to you Ozzie but to another fellow another fellow said man both debaters suck and I like an idiot sometimes I'm like Ron Burgundy and I just read whatever's in front of me those are the kind of super chats we're not looking for when people say both debaters sucked the reason is and don't worry Ozzie and yours yours wasn't like that so I'm not trying to say yours was I hope you know that but the reason is just that it's like and it's not exactly a substantive super chat question so that's something I do have to talk to that person about but C and M K says I live in Dallas where is the sign up info it is going to be available shortly I appreciate your patience as like I said we wanted to be sure that we knew all the debates were kind of committed to before we put tickets on sale and then Magic Panda says is the magic stone that turns the forgotten leftovers of opinions from the air rounding community into a inspiring brew of discovery that is tale of stone soup I appreciate you saying that is from is that from Alice in Wonderland and I gotta tell you though I've got a quick run because it's getting pretty late I can't believe it's already been two hours and 45 minutes but I do want to say seriously thanks everybody for your support thanks for your love we are pumped about the future seriously and that Indiegogo link again is linked in the description we're gonna put it in the description box every night and I encourage you join us in fulfilling this vision we love you guys thanks everybody we hope you keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and we will see you next time take care everybody amazing isn't that amazing