He had an uncanny ability to predict trends, and catch on before most of the world. He did the same with university and the rise of political correctness, in a 1994 discussion on feminism. He also did it with Iraq, saying in 2005 and 2007 that it would "fall into the hands of the scum of the earth" if the US begins to withdraw.

yea that's correct - although to be fair Hitchens on recent Iraq conflicts are some of his weakest moments. I think some of his thoughts on the matter hurt his reputation. In any case you are right... some incredibly perceptive insights here.

+Pat H Well I know a lot of people take that view, and it definitely put him on the bad side of a lot of folks ( not that he would have cared in the slightest :p ). After watching/reading just about every debate/article he's done on the subject, I have not been able to formulate strong counter-arguments. Nor have I seen anyone else begin to attempt to address the substance of his claims.

@@MorphingReality Exactly, the more I expose myself to understanding the Iraq war, the stranger it becomes to see so many people adamantly demonise the war as though it were Vietnam. They rarely ever explain why it was so terrible and irredeemable, and when they do, their claims are usually false (like with casualty counts).

​@@EpicMRPancake Let me help you understand why people found the Iraq war to be a crime for which Bush, Hillary and every politician who supported it should be hanged: It unnecessarily murdered between 460,000 (if you trust the US army about the numbers (which would be idiotic because you would not do it for the Nazis or the Soviets)) or around 2 million if you trust other sources. It's a war riddled with so many war crimes (some of which we have prove for). And a funny addition to that is that now we have open persecution against the people who showed us the war crimes. They talk about torturing them on prime tv because I guess the general public in the US is as murderous as the administration, From outside the US looks like the evil empire as much as it could. It's getting so insane that now I actually find people on the internet who say "what was so bad about the Iraq war". We saw US soldiers murdering fathers in front of their sons. Civilians. And we watched how the soldiers just continued with their life without ANYTHING resembling justice. We saw soldiers enthusiastically counting their kills as if they are in Counter Strike (while slaughtering civilians), no repercussions for that either.

Give me 5 years or so :)

@@MorphingReality Are you studying to be someone like Hitchens?

@@bunderbah To an extent, I wouldn't want to try to mimic/copy him or his prose though. Studying to become a proficient writer and orator.. yes To be a journalist.. not so much There are big differences between us, Hitch wasn't making the kind of videos I am. I don't have his memory recall, so I'd probably be less useful in a debate. Overall, yes, someone worth emulating.

@@MorphingReality What I meant by 'someone like Hitchens' was that a knowledgeable and articulate thinker. I am studying for that too. I am 22 and my aim is to be like that when I am 35. I think you don't need a great memory for that. Years of dedicated study would do.

@@bunderbah Fellow individuals wanting to be like Hitch. We gotta start up a club. Best of luck to you guys.

It may surprise you to learn that words unlinked by syntax do not have a determinate meaning, and that, the Reader's Digest and People magazines notwithstanding, there is no sanction from heaven directing that a man's last words summarize his views or communicate his ultimate insight into reality.

@@plekkchand There is no sanction from heaven period. Luckily we've got Hitchens life-long critique of these matters.

plekkchand You seem not to know how natural languages operate

Kinda ironic cause only socialism has fallen so much.

​@@gabbar51ngh Let's be clear here, if you were as much of an intellectual as Hitchens was, you would have first looked at the scientific research being done, or at least you would actually have read some Marx first. Intellectuals like Orwell, Hitchens, Einstein, Tesla, etc were all Socialists because they studied it (actually looked shit up for themselves)!! “The real purpose of Socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development.” - Albert Einstein As for myself, I can only be considered a Socialist if you want to have the debate "capitalism vs Socialism". Plenty of scientific research is presently indicating that ANY monetariless system would be a big step up from capitalism. There is no money in reality, or it actually would be growing from trees! The delusion that plagues humanity is MONEY~! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pp1mjL2GtNLHeZc.html “We have a finite environment - the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist.” - Sir David Attenborough The issue is money itself; every economic system with a monetary system has been shown to fail (as per your comment made 5aral). A monetary system in its basic form, means that money is power, and the individual ending up with the most money/power ends up making, or better put, rewriting the laws of that era. However back to Marx's Socialism specifically, if you have actually ever read/studied Marx, in his time Communism/Socialism had always meant primarily ... 1) No monetary system 2) No government 3) The method of production being held by the community (by the people as a whole). All the so-called evidence that capitalists wish to put forward as failed Communist/Socialist states, all have had ... 1) A monetary system 2) A government 3) The method of production being held by the state, or by an elite rich group. What I don't understand is you don't have to hold a high school diploma, as I think even a child can see where this argument becomes highly embellished, right? If you'd like to educate yourself further on the subject, I suggest actually reading up on why Trotsky was assassinated by Stalin. !spoiler alert! it was for dominance and power over the people by the state. What many do not know is that Lenin changed the meaning of Socialism well after Marx's death. Marx must be rolling in his grave with all the brainwashing/disinformation that has been propagated in his name! Ok so that's what I have to say about Socialism. If you want to call me a Socialist, then Im a Trotsky Socialist (or Community-based Socialist), and not a Stalin Socialist (or State-based Socialist). However here's the kicker, I don't consider myself to be a Socialist! Much the same as Hitchens would say too I expect, Community-based Socialism is maybe third on my list ... Here is a list, in order of economic systems I would choose over capitalism -> 1) Science Many argue that Science itself, cannot be used as an economic system. I call bullshit! Science, and not capitalism btw, makes buildings taller, cars go faster, and lengthens our lives! Of those who say Science cannot be used as an economic system, NO ONE to date has been able to even attempt to establish why they believe this is impossible. However when capitalists talk about maintaining a future of capitalism, THEY WANT TO USE SCIENCE TO GET US THERE! LMFAO~! 2) Resource Based Economy If Science cannot be used as an economic system, then I'll advocate for the system with the most Science, which is presently a RBE. Do you know of groups like The Venus Project or Zeitgeist Movement for example? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/laubgM2F073PYWg.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bN53rK6m3q3MkXk.html 3) Community-based, monetariless, democratic, Communism/Socialism as per Marx and Trotsky (which is why Hitchens indicated that he is a Trotskyist too) -> kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r6d_itKHnsWWg4U.html Notice, of all 3 systems I've listed above, none have been tried and tested so far.

Not sure, the closest I can get is this, which might mean it was only recorded for audio. www.alternativeradio.org/products/hitc-dsod001

Thanks!

Politically Skeptical kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zrqcgpd5uqrKiJs.html I think this is the full debate.

Well said :)

Demi gods? Demi gods!!! Hahahagaga, you mean demagogue you moron Hahahaha

Demi god like Kratos HAHAHAHA

Isn't dad of war a stoic now

he doesnt even know what reason is, he is all over the place

Interesting take, glad you enjoy Hitch, check out the channel for more :)

@@MorphingReality thanks man. I like what you're about. Been reading through some of the community articles and get the feeling you're pretty much on the same page as far as searching for the truth goes.

This is the "human nature" argument again, as if we weren't originally hunter gatherer tribes with communal ownership for the vast majority of our history and as if we are not a social species developed for mutual aid, and as if the only alternative to feudalism and laissez-faire capitalism is a goddamn Stalinist dictatorship. Google Murray Bookchin. Google Peter Kropotkin.

@@TheTheThe_ I'm genuinely intrigued. Could you break that down a bit for me?

Tl;dr: Capitalism fails to interface with human collaboration and concept of fairness.

Wouldn't consider myself a conservative, though I do appreciate the writing of Burke, and I dabble in uploading Victor Davis Hanson and a few other conservative-ish figures.

Morphing Reality It’s great to explore other points of view. As a leftist myself, I always try to steel man my own views and listen to the smartest voices on the right as opposed to the jokes (and yeah, we have those on the left too) But Hitchens was an intellectual of the highest class. It’s sad we no longer have him.

Well said :)

@ZaBoo1990 Sadly, the dumb sheep of both sides are the loudest. Its like an eternal meat grinder, the comment sections. Sea of toxic waste, usually. They rarely reach in the obscure sources of debate, though, like this video. Yeah, this seems like a kind of sanctuary.

@@MrGrass97 Thats interesting. What are (in your opinion) the smartest people on both sides? Lets say not politicians but commentators and thinkers, preferably.

he certainly was not right about iraq and especially afghanistan. he was nothing short of delusional on those matters.

@@Laight4work 3 weeks after the war he was saying that people better buckle up because its going to be a many year conflict. His insights were correct, although if he had known about the corruption in GWBs white house I imagine he would've restated his position slightly.

@@Laight4work *Can you provide three examples of Hitchens being delusional on the liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan?*

@@MattSingh1 No they can't. They don't understand how his reason for both those countries losing their sovereignty were totally reasonable and spot on. Also I'll never understand how people think Iraq is worse off now, it being a relatively free democracy compared to the brutal psychopathic dictatorship it once was.

My head exploded when he mentioned the trump part 🤯

This is the longest on YT that I know of kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zrqcgpd5uqrKiJs.html

@@MorphingReality Thank you! I'll take it over nothing. What a great opening statement from Hitch. Brilliant stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Historical materialism (Marx's conception of history) asserts that economic development is the main driver of historical change. (Edit: this got a bit long, there's a barebones few lines at the end if you don't want to read it all :) I personally am somewhat skeptical of the theory, but I can try to explain it and how it relates to Hitch's point. The conflict between relations and forces of productions is a bit hard to parse. Relations are the social relations people need to engage in to continue existing in the economic system, and the forces or modes of production are the means by which work is achieved, typically human labor plus tools, infrastructure etc.. The theory states that the kind of work that is available, the way land is distributed, etc.. affects the relations one requires to survive. So, in feudal times, the main work available was farming, and the land was distributed by titles usually granted by monarchs to other nobles, hence the serf needs to engage with their lord to continue participating in the economic system. Changes to the forces or mode of production, like new job opportunities in factories that can be built by anyone with the capital to do so, present on their own an independent challenge to the given status quo, in that case capitalism challenging feudalism. This changes the relations because the boss to employee relation is different than the lord to serf one, the employee generally has more rights, opportunities, and bargaining power, hence conditions improve over time. (Edit: As is often the case when discussing Marx, this is a rather large simplification) As far as I can tell, the way Hitch phrases his point about the USSR is as follows: The USSR itself developed new modes of production by industrializing and making use of new technologies and other factors, in doing so, it created a challenge to itself. Now I have to speculate to continue Hitch's approach. The USSR gave people just enough education, land, free time etc.. while repressing some of the tendencies that education/land/time lead to, like people wanting to absorb 'western' music/film/art, wear different clothing brands, have a free press and elections etc.. such that black and grey markets developed, such that political dissent grew largely unchecked (because at the surface level people still did their work and spent their wages, and weren't really allowed to voice their concerns in the public sphere, most of this dissent grew in ostensible secret). One could argue this is why the USSR relied so heavily on regular people informing on each other but that is another topic. In short, the USSR created the conditions for its own transcendence, acting as a kind of intermediary stage between feudalism and capitalism, that is what he means in saying that the conflict between relations and forces of production led to the 'greatest political change in the post-war period'. Hope this helps, and sorry for replying two months late :)

@@MorphingReality wow…unbelievably kind of you. I read every word. Seriously, thank you.

ThNk you for taking the time to write this out, I learned quite a bit from this. The plight of the common human needs to be taken much more seriously at the fundamental level or things will get very ugly and very soon/fast. We cannot simply ignore the majority of the human race and expect things to continue within this endless growth format those above us want us to have. This is not something that can be avoided no matter how bad people want to

@@mookiestewart3776 You are welcome. Not everyone has the patience to reach through long posts, but I agree that there is a real need for serious discussion and debate regarding systemic problems and their solutions.

@william henderson Which is what brought me to agree that the systemic reforms advocated by Henry George provide the right incentives to produce (and keep what one produces) and the means of preventing successful free rider rent-seeking.

@Lazarus True. The differences were differences of degree, but the differences were significant. It is much easier for those who hold power to separate themselves from their subjects when a castle is built with high walls and a thick gate manned by armed guards.

PaxAmericana The enlightenment didn’t really have anything to do with capitalism. The enlightenment just as the previous era of intellectualism before it- the Renaissance came about because of war, famine and pre-capitalistic trade routes which carried plagues. These things decimated populations and allowed people to have more wealth and ultimately free time, to discover different developments in art, literature, music etc.They themselves were also not of a capitalistic nature and really strived not out of profit or money but out of curiosity, enjoyment and sense of trying to advance human kind. The capitalistic system which developed later was as a result of the bourgeois revolutions in the 18th, and 19th century which simply took away the ultimate power from the kings and nobles and instead rested it in the elected bourgeois representatives and emerging banking system along with the factory owners and others to subjugate the working class in a different way. It was also brought about under the colonial period which really only served to harm the world and enrich a few.

Capitalism has manifested itself before in one form or another, limited by the circumstances of governance and such. The more people are free, the more capitalism you see emerging naturally. Put simply, the guy that breeds cows doesn't know anything about breeding rabbits, but he likes rabbit stew so he has to ask the rabbits guy for rabbits. But the rabbit guy won't just hand over his rabbits; if he's gonna have to put more effort into breeding more rabbits for the cow guy, he's gonna want some compensation. Soon enough they're producing food for the whole town, someone else is producing tools, etc, and so the separation of tasks gets people trading. But it's also a bit unwieldy to exchange 0.25 cow for 3.65 rabbits, so they also need a form of currency. And so there's capitalism. It just comes naturally. In small tribes it usually doesn't seem to take place, as everything is practically communal, almost like one big family. In feudalism, peasants don't really have much wealth, or liberty, so the vast majority of people aren't gonna be trading much. I'm not sure how the economy went during the roman empire, but off the top of my mind it seemed pretty much capitalist. Same for some middle eastern times, where commerce was a thing.

Christophe Hitchens is pretty great philosopher and good at debating against religious peeps. Same way as Dawkins does. But Hitchens would lose terribly to Milton Friedman who Literally Started his own branch of economics and won a Nobel prize. Socialism isn't even taken seriously by any economic school of thought. even Keynesians hate outright socialists.

How do you tell if it's a bot? Besides zero information on their page..

They don’t coexist. It’s a fight to the death, in the context of a human history wherein no system has stood for an eternity,

I don't think any of this is relevant to Hitch's case, except to the extent that he makes the point that capitalism isn't synonymous with free markets, I'd add that it seems to develop away from them in every practical historical case we have, with govts help. This is a keystone issue with most libertarian approaches, they don't recognize the revolving door between the private and public sector, or to the extent they do, they claim it isn't inevitable. Every nation state including all the ones that incorporate some degree of capitalism have taxed people, if you want to build a nation state that functions without taxation, I'll be looking eagerly from the sidelines. Capitalism doesn't make everyone richer, and has made many people significantly poorer, not just financially.

@@MorphingReality I'm not an anarchist, I'm a liberal, so I believe in taxation, I believe in feudalism, you need protection rackets and they need a monopoly on legal violence within a geographical area. Historically all countries were mercantilist until the enlightenment when the socialism versus capitalism debate started. So when the private becomes public, that's bad because it undermines meritocracy right? If we can agree that meritocracy is a good thing then this argument isn't that big of a deal. There was a time in the United states when the government did not have enough power for corporations to bother vying for it. In that time monopolies were created usually because somebody invented something that was a game changer. The government granted itself more and more power and now corporations compete to get leverage over the government just as much as they do over the free market. You could say it's not really free at that point. The whole time this happened there were legal avenues to prevent the government from doing this. People vote for people who do the best job of lying to them because they don't know what's going on, so they give themselves more power and now the constitution doesn't mean anything. You could limit democracy as much as possible but then the power goes to the military or a monarch. I think that would be slightly better but it's still susceptible to slipping away from constitution boundaries. So just like every other form of government, there is not 1 example of liberalism that has lasted forever. My disagreement is I'm not just going to accept that I should therefore just give the government power to then loan to corporations for money, or even worse act as a protector of the lower class, who have nothing to trade, so in practice it's always turned out to be pretend. Like I said, socialist governments also become corrupt and ultimately devolve or evolve and then collapse, I just think it's obvious that governments that have the stated goal of liberalism do much better for people in the meantime. It's kind of like saying murder is inevitable so you might as well be a murderer, or you can accept that the right thing to do is to try to stop murderers even if there will always be more and you can never end the murder. Also yes capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty. That seems self evident. In a capitalist system poor people get the rich people's hand me downs, rich people buy things until they're cheap. In a socialist system you have way less rich people so that process takes much longer. Notice how in Cuba all the cars are from the 1950s. They don't have any rich people who can buy things until it's cheap. Market forces are what put a television and radio and microwave and refrigerator in every persons home. The poorest people in America have those things because at this point basic versions of them are so cheap the richer people will just throw them away to get a new one. Rich people drag poor people up behind them. If an individual has become poorer that's not really evidence of anything. There's just too many variables that you're incapable of controlling for you to say that it's evidence capitalism isn't working. Poverty isn't objective, it's compared to what's around you, so in that sense yes, capitalism doesn't make poor people richer, because as I said, it will make rich people rich faster. I live just above the poverty line in America, I don't worry about what other people have, I'm thankful for what I have, and I hate it when the government controls the rent or raises the minimum wage so now I'm back at the minimum again. It's arbitrary, the cost will be passed along elsewhere. New buildings for all income levels will stop being constructed and businesses will stop hiring. When you said it makes people poorer not just financially, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like outside of work? If people valued their time more than the money they're trading it for, then they wouldn't make the trade. I'm not sure what you mean by that

@@kylebrink9347 When you said 'take rich people's money at gunpoint' I assumed you were talking about taxes. I think meritocracy is generally neat, but I don't think something becoming public defeats meritocracy. Public libraries can still choose their books meritocratically. The US govt always had power, private sector didn't have to compete for it because voting was heavily restricted and all politicians endorsed continuing the plutocracy, the latter endures to today. I don't think its accurate to say the lower classes have nothing to trade, and that becomes less arguable as you look through history. The crime analogy doesn't graft because its much easier to reduce crime than to change a plutocracy. It doesn't lift everyone, it harms and maims and kills a lot of people to do whatever lifting it can achieve. By non financial I mean bad incentives leading to bad outcomes like dwindling attention spans, lowest common denominator entertainment and art, a 50% obesity rate, loneliness and alienation, among other things. New buildings for low incomes are almost never on the menu by design. And Cubans have old cars largely because of embargos that went both ways. Its cool that you appreciate what you've got.

@@MorphingReality I am talking about taxes. The question is what are they paying for? Is it subsidizing poverty? When you subsidize things you get more of it, that's a law of economics. That's why socialist policies never actually reduce poverty. The war on poverty that was started during the great depression in the United states has not made any progress. My problem is not that it makes no progress, I believe it actively stifles the market by redistributing money from people who actually have the potential to make progress in society. The government is nothing more than the military, that's what all the authority and legitimacy relies on, the fact that they are the best faction at murdering within a geographical area. Taxes should fund that and nothing else. Everything else is not the government's area of expertise, they contract out and they function as nothing more than a middle man siphoning money away. The government is the biggest drain on the economy. Government interference undermines meritocracy by guaranteeing wages and services. The quality check would otherwise be market forces but now the government has to do it for you, resulting in higher prices for the same service, quality control, which again they just contract out to people who actually specialize in the given occupation. That's talking about socialist policies, in a socialist economic system the government controls all the money so they dole it out or not regardless of the work being done. So the saying goes "the government pretends to pay us so we pretend to work". This is what happens when there are no free markets to compare things to. This is one of the fascists biggest grievances with communists, fascists go for quality whereas communists go for quantity, communists nationalize all industries so there is no quality control, and the fascists deride them for it, they only nationalize the industries they think really matter. I think my crime analogy stands because I think corruption is a crime. It's not a plutocracy because rich people don't run the government, they buy special favors and policies that favor their business from politicians. That's corruption. I think it's criminal and more clearly needs to be done to prevent it. I think the biggest obstacle to that is half the country that just wants the government to control more and more. It seems very ironic to me. Like a government that has more power will somehow be less corrupt? The problem with capitalism is its tendency towards corruption. You're right corruption is inevitable. I just don't understand how you can say that when it's relative to government involvement. The government's authority is based guns whereas the big businesses"power" often comes from legitimate merit, they compete with prices and wages and convenience relative to other businesses. The government competes with bullets. I believe in unions and boycotts when necessary. You can't boycott the government. That's the big problem here. I think you can deal with corruption, collusion between big business and governments that can actually coerce people. You deal with it the same way you deal with all other crime that will never go away. The lower class almost always has something to trade but it's very little compared to the upper class is my point. The government has nothing to gain personally by working on their behalf. That's why they don't, when they say they do it's a bad joke. People can only successfully advocate for themselves, which means they can only help other people if it helps them proportionally. I know that sounds harsh but evolutionary psychology is harsh. I want the best for humanity within the context of what's possible. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the government is even capable of lifting people out of poverty the way and expanding economy can. Economies flourish most when the government isn't involved. I think they should be ensuring honesty and nothing else, not even regulations let alone prices or wages. When there is money to be made renting to poor people, buildings will be built so somebody can make that money. It's all about the margins. If there is plenty of housing for the rich and none for the poor, then margins on the rich will go down. You rent smaller, cheaper spaces to much more poor people and if nobody else is doing it the margins will be higher. If the margins are higher then rich people will go into that business. When the government controls the rent, the margins stay low if they're even profitable at all anymore, so nobody goes into that business. It's that simple. People decide for themselves the price they put on their time. I don't work full time because I'm a musician and I'm just not a very good laborer, I'm in my head too much and it makes me miserable. I accept that I'm not going to be able to afford as many things or as nice of things, but that's how I value my time. People also decide for themselves the price they put on risk, whether it's the risk of losing their money or losing their life or threat of bodily harm. The government can't decide that price for people, unless they are mentally disabled I suppose. I agree that in a very capitalist, meritocratic society, consumers and producers are pitted against each other. It behooves the producers to keep the consumers stupid and docile, the consumers have the same incentive but they fail to utilize it nearly as much. Let's be honest, the producers tend to be much more intelligent people. If all the food and music and movies that are made are garbage, then don't buy it, and advocate for others to do the same. My problem here is that I see no evidence that the quality of thes things will improve with more government interference, or if they were successful, I think people should still have the freedom to indulge in those things if they really want. I think people should be allowed to eat McDonald's all day and watch stupid movies for the same reason I think they should be allowed to do heroin. If an individual has a problem then they need help and I don't think the government should just ban it for every person, some of whom may have some moderation. The problem really is that there's many stupid people,the government can't actually fix that.

@@kylebrink9347 Your replies are getting to be too long for me to be able to reasonably engage, please try to summarize. You're still making the faulty assumption that capitalism and free markets are synonymous. Norway's govt controls 60% of the economy, and it retains one of the highest economic freedom scores. Efforts to combat poverty have accomplished plenty. What happens when you don't have govt regulation is stuff like the Iroquois theatre fire. I think you should look to a refresher course in the Coal Wars and Banana Republics. You're incorrect about housing, land is finite, and developers will build whatever is most profitable, no amount of luxury condos existing is going to lower their margins such that low income housing becomes more profitable. I don't think govt is the solution, but it can ameliorate the downsides and give people the means to resist a coming techno feudalism. And people can effectively boycott and protest govt by many of the same levers that they can with the private sector.

I find that an unlikely prospect, I hope he would have encouraged people to spoil their ballots en masse, but I can't say I know with much degree of certainty where he would have swung :)

I agree. He endorsed people like Obama, and Bernie was closer to Hitchens in terms of being on the left than Obama would be. He'd at lease prefer him to the other.

@Matt S You know Hitchens was a Socialist right???

@Matt S Now what on earth? That is so far from truth to not be even wrong. Hitchen is a known Trotskyist and Marxist. And Sandes' policy platform is purely social democratic, although his background is definetely that of democratic socialist. And you appear to be still one of the few people supporting the Iraq War, but history has shown you to be quite wrong on that, so I encourage you to read some. On the point of "whacky stances" on war, I would point to Hitchens' views on Iraq being that of humatarian, not of "pro-war" as you seem to mischaracterise them. On hindsight (and for any sight, for that matter) there was nothing humanitarian about Iraq as we have seen from gov. documents. I do not see your point on Israel since both have been supporters of Palestinian rights, nor do I see your point on Russia, on which both have said a whole lot and one can cherrypick quotes for ones preferred assessments of their views. The last paragraph I would just disregard for now for it doesn't say anything of substance but seems to be some sort of superficial "analysis" of his psyche or something. So I would like some more well researched points rather than these orchestrated attacks.

@Matt S Are you out of your mind? You're telling me Hitchens wouldn't support medicare for all? A $15 minimum wage? Hitchens would agree with sanders far more than any other candidate.

I feel nothing about it. Can barely hear it

@@radthadd oh no. That's a shame, there's a wonderful opportunity for you to change your mode of thinking

No different really, Hitchens had before stated that capitalism was revolutionary, it has done a great amount of things for the developed world. And his feelings on libertarianism was that it is ahistorical, which ironically, I feel is better reasoning for it then socialism, which has been seen to have far worse effects.

@@TheBalfrog well hitchens was of course paraphrasing Marx there, which is sort of my point.

read Thomas Sowell

That makes me sad for you

@@jpweezy1 what if his dad was a pos? You don’t know lol. Plus hitchens was awesome

I think he acknowledges the dynamism in this talk. Socialism lost viability for Hitch, so he abandoned it (I think he would rather say it abandoned him) and became an independent, but shedding one label doesn't necessitate adopting an inverse. He maintained a dislike for the state, bureaucracy, and exploitation by private or public sector.

@@MorphingReality He did seem to stop talking about economic and social issues later on in life and be known for his work on attacking religion. I think like many former radicals he lost that will for the old fight.

He called himself a social democratic for most of the last two decades. A lot of people don't know what that is. They often confuse it with democratic socialism, but that's understandable, since the two, while distinct, share similar positions on social issues.

@@eveningstarnm3107 I have seen a 1990s interview where he calls himself a democratic socialist.

On monopoly I'd recommend Peter Thiel's talk 'Competition is for losers' let me know what you think. Innovation is a good buffer against monopoly, but it isn't hard to see when that falters. Disney is a fairly clear example. The consolidation of corporate news is another. Internet and communication in general is another (granted gov't plays a role there). There are a lot of other examples that take some time to go through, I'll just use one. Cara Operations is a Canadian company with a significant stake in the restaurant industry, but until 2010 it also had the Canadian airline food market held, with around 90% of market share. In 2010 it sold that part of the business to gategroup, which had ~30% of airline food worldwide, including near monopolistic control in Canada, Switzerland, UK, Cambodia and a few countries. gategroup was recently acquired by HNA Group, a Chinese conglomerate which was ranked #170 in the global fortune 500 in 2017, with $50 billion in revenue last year. We went from a company dominating the Canadian market, sold to one dominating in multiple countries, sold to one in control over most of the world in that sector. If you look at the history of the top 100 companies on the fortune 500 (granted they change, though often through being acquired by others on the list), that seems to be the trend in many industries. On the Asian Tiger thing its a tough sell either way, I've debated people who claim that government intervention was the main force, I don't think it was, but there are plausible cases to be made on both sides, especially with Japan as even its constitution was originally drafted by US generals. On the free enterprise thing from a historical stance I think it isn't a very strong argument, but Hitch was using it to argue against the point that 'capitalism was the natural endgame'. There are precursors in Greece and Rome that exemplify relatively open trade anyway, so it isn't entirely correct. On the last point that is fairly easy, Marx argued that the state would 'wither away' as socialism becomes more desirable, I'm not sure whether that is correct, but that would be the basis I think.

This is because there is no laissez faire capitalism anywhere. What happens now if (illegal) cartels are built? Are all companies allowed to merge? Nope. This is because we have a mixed system, in a laissez faire there is nothing to hinder one company to completely dominate on sector or even more than so. This is the role that a government has, to be the people's union. It can therefore also be used to block child labor and slavery, something which pure capitalism has no cure against, it's the simply the profits which ultimately matter and this is why it cannot be allowed to freely operate.

Spare us the libertarian propaganda please. Capitalism wouldn't exist without a state, it's the enforcement of monetary and legal standards that allows capitalism to exist and so yes, capitalism and monopoly are inherently linked, no amount of rationalizing will change that.

@@cigolsimons1768 If you could understand what "libertarians" are saying you might understand _"libertarian propaganda"_ isn't propaganda, it's actually arguments based on historical and factual observations, and it's not even libertarian ideology, it's just economics. Capitalism doesn't need a state to exist, it emerges naturally as people separate tasks and start trading by themselves. The only condition for capitalism is freedom, which is why it emerged as feudalism decayed. If there's not an authoritarian state dictating what and how people do things, and rationing what they own, etc, then people will work to produce what they need, and will start trading with each other, because the cow guy don't know about making fine tools, and needs to trade with the smithy, and people will develop a form of currency because it's unwieldy to exchange 0.15 cow for a a few tools. This isn't even rocket science, as Walter Williams said. *_"capitalism and monopoly are inherently linked, no amount of rationalizing will change that."_* While people like you have been insisting free markets create monopolies, states have monopolized power supplies, water supplies, post offices, taxis, railroads, buses, and favored favorite companies by bailing them out or subsidizing them or giving them tax breaks, or by thwarting startups through costly regulations and licensing, tariffs, bureaucracies, etc, etc, and by breaking other companies with the antitrust hammer. Shit, it's almost like it's glaringly right in front of everyone's nose that government creates monopolies. While people cry about anti-competitiveness, the only actual anti-competitiveness is coming from the state. *Free* competition is the antidote to monopoly. Well, if that isn't enough, try this lecture. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ndNoja2pxNqbf6M.html

@Straight White Male Standard economic theory? It's bogus. Perfect competition is fantasy. *_"obviously no economist believe that perfect competition exist in the real world it is a model exactly as you said. But the point of capitalism is competition therefore you cannot have pure capitalism it will always tend toward Monopoly it's very simple."_* Well you seem to believe it, as you're going off of it. *Free* competition is what prevents or destroys monopolies. Even state monopolies of the worse kind (where competition is actually prohibited) eventually get destroyed by competition, just like emails destroyed the post office and uber is destroying taxis. This is observable...

more like one of his best and most important talks :)

@@MorphingReality but boring!

@@mddistribution30 Perhaps, do you have an exciting economic debate in mind to contrast with? maybe its just a boring topic for you

@MorphingReality marx and Hegel have never been my forte but I've seen lots of different talks he's given where he's been more entertaining to listen to!

What the fuck does this even mean

Making general categorical statement with no evidence , facts or support is kind of narcissistic and dumb. Maybe not, but it is certainly without value and weakens the impression of the possible legitimacy of your claim.

I though I was the only one

Christopher* if you don't mind.

I love me some hitchens but this isn't his best.

Lol, that's his specialty. He'll wax poetically for 10 minutes about squalor around the world, laying the groundwork/background, then say, "Is this the best we can do? Is this the end of the road? Is this all she wrote? Is this really the summa? Well I think that's a fatuous idea." And the support for his idea is...where exactly in all of that? Even his "God debate" is weak, and it should be somewhat easy.

Gee wiz, that’s very convincing...