Steven you need to explain the difference between "free market" capitalism to what we have now which is "crony capitalism". If the western world went back to that we would be much better. ( it will never happen since people and elites wont ever give back the power)

5 seconds in and we're at a trash argument. try looking up what "socialism" means before you just start whining that the soviet union and maoist china ought to count as at least imperfect versions of it. they're the opposite of it (all vanguardist movements inevitably produce the opposite of socialism).

@@anarchodave7997 thank fuck, somebody actually read a book here. Good on ya big cheese.

For the longest time I thought destiny was a socialist and I've been pleasantly surprised how my view of you is more moderate. I think he's slightly left of a moderate democrat, slightly right of a market socialist. I make no bones about my support of capitalism and am not willing to entertain an opinion that can't refute the market efficiency principle.

@@AroundTheBest slightly left of a moderate democrat is still a right wing nutter.. your lack of awareness is profound

If you can't admit the glaring oversights in economics (all forms) maybe ethics isn't that important? Or it is and greed is intoxicating? Either way we forgot about that whole concept of sustainability.

Socialism cannot just overtake a capitalist system. It has to happen in a brand new country or it will never work.

​@@promethiac2641yup

Yea it’s idealized because market socialism hasn’t been tried yet Lmao only state socialism has been tried. How can we argue for real market socialism when market socialism hasn’t existed

@@pognarchy yeah but nobody knows the history and that fact that thats not even existed in the real world yet.. all they can do to cuck themselves for the sake of the zuck or bezos is cry about how living paycheck to paycheck for 80% of americans in the wealthiest nation in history is low key giga poggers

Stun* Or you can use other terms like running out the clock.

Always better off not pretending to know something you don't know. Bro just wants us all to have better lives, what a king.

Destiny never admits he doesn’t know something, that’s how you know he doesn’t engage honestly, it’s impossible for him to always know everything

@@StillElias like when JP says 'well its not entirely obvious to me'

@@NickGhale pretty sure destiny does

Socialists from the Marxist school follow this prediction from over a century ago about how workers will seize the means of production. But the world has changed so much, and they still follow this old model that's never even been proven. It's like a religion. Capitalism slowly raises the standard of living for a many people as possible; Marxism brings the whole society down to the level of the people who have it the worst

One is a tool, the other an ideology. One has a specific systems, the other has only empathy.

@@KneGros-nc1ss Is it even empathy, most socialist I know are leaning towards narcissism.

@@KneGros-nc1ss Both are ideologies. There's no 100% capitalism nor 100% socialism.

​@@feizo That's true but capitalism can lead to social programs whereas socialist destroys and hose same social programs with time because it is not sustainable.

He was pretty good. I think he's right in some ways, wrong in others. He's right in that I think it's reasonable to imagine that socialism or something like it will organically evolve out of capitalism, long after we and our great-great-great grand-bibbies are dead. Where he loses me is when he starts talking about non-organic ways of hurrying that along.

He's not searching for truth. If that was the case, he'd dive deeper into the historical and socieconomical context of socialism and try to seek truth as to why it has always failed to be applied ethically to function properly. He's doing what every socialist is doing which is throw a bunch of ad hocs thinking their criticism of capitalism justifies their own hypothetical application of socialism in the real world which fails to address why it would do better than the current system. He should have provided a better case as to why we should experiment with it without risking other people's livelihood.

They why can't he live in reality?

Yeah, but he's there to argue a position. In a debate setting "I don't know" is about the worst response ever. You have to come up with something to defend the opinion you're representing. I don't think those watching understand the role of a debater. They are an argument, not a person open to being won over (even if they personally are convinced of the other side's correctness.)

@@fewfwefwe4626tru but “idk” is a start and it’s a whole lot more than everyone else who shit out their mouth for 2 hrs clearly not knowing wtf they’re talking about

Yeah but it was a pretty basic question he should have known the answer to. But the reason he didn’t have an answer is because there is no answer.

Why argue for either side when you can do both? Socialism is like kickstarter for starving families... We have kickstarters for video games without crying about it. Where is your heart? lol

Socialist guy is dreaming of the day Star Trek becomes reality. But until a replicator that will create anything we want out of thin air becomes a real thing then capitalism is better.

does he know.

This the same guy who says nobody represents the left and the left are the "good guys"

He’s such a lovable nerd

Bat crap😂😂😂😂

Bat crap 😅

The best of the worst What an honor!

He has something likable, but he's verrrry naive in a sense that he claims that all the bad examples are not "true socialism", but then he judges all of capitalism when you could also argue we've never tried true unchecked capitalism. Gov' interference, crony capitalism, and mixed economies w/social programs (aka socialist policies.) is not "true capitalism", but because it is more capitalist than socialist, he considers it straight capitalism. This is where his whole paradigm is both flawed and unfair, but aside from that I agree with you. He also started out very nervous, which is fine, but man, he just emanates that academic, theoretical vibe... he talks about enormous shifts and tasks like they will just simply "happen". Thats kinda easy to say, and how is someone supposed to really respond to that..."no it wont"? lol.

"capitalism has only existed for 200-300 years". Bruh that's a gross concept error

thats gotta kick chat dgg lmaoo

@@garywebb2432 dgg chat always unhinged

It's a Livestream chat for a political streamer. Expecting it to be rational and even handed is peak delusion

Disagreed. He lied like 30 times in the first 10 mins of his speech.

@@uUuWolf16uUu not knowing, and lying is different. Lying is when you know the truth, and you spread misinformation, spreading misinformation because you don't know shit is ingenuity.

@@renbowo if those were really a lack of knowledge, then he should have never entered this debate. Dude literally said that co ops perform better than capitalist corporations. Hint: there is like 1 co op in the top 1% of companies. And that one is not even really a co op.

@@uUuWolf16uUu This entirely depends on how you and he define 'performs better'. If you're defining it as total market value, and he defines it as providing the most benefits to employees while remaining profitable you're using two completely different definitions and each thinking they're correct.

@@uUuWolf16uUu how do you even determine top 1% of companies? some of the largest, most well-known companies generate less profit than a lemonade stand.

That's exactly my experience with socialists. Both sisters and their circles are all socialist and its kind of their whole lives and all they ever talk about, ever inch of there lives is through a socialist lense.

He does seem like a good dude I hope he makes a full recovery

@@zeno4538 basically it's a cult.

@Tespri yes and they all get together and have meetings every thursday where they literally all reinforce each other's beliefs and basically circle jerk. I've been as a "guest" at a few churches before and the vibe is the same. They also talk about max and lenon as profits. The talk about socialism as the solution to everything and capitolism like a benevolent evil. The route cause to every single issue. I'm not even joking. Socialism gives them a social circle, purpose, community, and something to blame every issue on and fight against. It's for these reasons I've never been able to change their minds even if they don't have a counter argument to my points.

@Tespri part of the reason I'm leaving Sydney is because I'm tired of being surrounded by die hard socialists. It truly is where independent flexible free thought goes to die.

He didn’t really defend or define anything he just talks in broad terms and says it will happen organically over time and makes a bunch of vague assumptions.

He was cool. Still absolutely wrong. I'll still like him until he tries to take my stuff.

@@coreyleavell6921 That is an insanely reasonable position.

He doesn't even sound socialist :D

@@GBValode so just curious but in a socialist society what happens if all the white people vote to enslave all the black people? You believe in democracy right?

Lol

And we can’t have that!

Destiny being a black women, makes sense she has a womens name

Cheesin Heckin Awesome 😂

Under Kollektiv Ownership, Destiny is OUR girls name.

This was literally one million times more valuable than the trump biden debate

​@@andrewferguson6901wdym we learned a lot from that debate. We learned that Joe is sleepy and Trump is a meanie.

@@tongpoo8985 you only learned that this week?

@@andrewferguson6901 oh I thought you meant the debate between trump and Biden

Coming from a socialist country, I have no respect for people with a missing understanding of the dynamics of groups with power monopoly. It will ALWAYS end in dictatorship. Always! Also, what is the problem of the European concept of social market economy. It is already the answer.

Agreed that it was good to steelman, but to me at least his arguments still fell pretty short for socialism imo

He was completely unreasonable against Chud 😂

I too give him credit for bluntly saying "I don't know" but I honest to God hope Destiny doesn't debate socialists. It's just pointless.

He is a commie. So no.

Which is also surprising as that is usually Destiny's thing: win. Im basing this off of him saying so directly, not to bad mouth him

@@avastone5539 im 90% jekyll

I think it was India

That’s a cute story, but with shovels you get jobs and a canal. A spoon gets you jobs but no canal.

@@TonyCox1351 Spoons give you canal too.

@@TonyCox1351 Bro, India really had an employment program where they made people dig up dry wellls for no reason, just for employment.

​@TonyCox1351 this may be a little besides the point but, there used to be 100% employment in East Germany. Literally no one was unemployed, even if it was pushing a broom for 8 hours, one day out of every month. Did they achieve a goal of eradicating unemployment? Sure but did they really?

😂😂

Research for the debate iceberg

​@@juice.giygasan iceberg of debate topics that have come and gone in the online space would actually be based af

This is by far my favorite comment and I felt the same way through the entire video it’s like OK so this guy has absolutely no idea how any of the mechanisms or modes of motivation are that would ever solve any of the problems that Socialism says that it might solve in a capitalist society. He has absolutely no clue what it would look like or how it would work or how these types of motivations word manifest themselves. He has absolutely no idea what any of it would look like in any facet of any sort of economy ever and has no idea how to get any of them actually going in the direction that he wants to, but Socialism is totally better because

He also says it would be good to "force" socialism, a system that he claims will organically evolve it if the current system. I can't give credit to anyone actually debating something they know nothing about and can't explain without contradicting themselves. Debates are for ideas that can be articulated, I wouldn't have a problem with this guy expressing his hopes and dreams for humanity, but he's arguing that he and other ideologues would be morally right to use "force" on their neighbors in order to change the way things work.

You can say the same or similar about capitalism too. You always assume that capitalism leads to innovation, it leads to meritocracy blah blah but in reality it either doesn’t or leads to bad outcomes Socialism isn’t perfect, anyone who’s good faith will concede that, but it’s better than capitalism. The question comes down to which system is more likely to generate better outcomes overall and capitalism is definitely the worse of the two

​@@pognarchy"It either doesn't or leads to bad outcomes" is just ahistorical lol Just need to look at the tremendous growth of the past 300 years and universal improvement of QoL. Capitalism with its flaws has this wealth of evidence, socialism doesn't, the "reality" of it doesn't exist.

​@@pognarchyI feel like I'm cheating because the video we're watching is proof enough. But you're just wrong. Late stage capitalism has been led by bad policy and people with power not working with the rules; IE monopolies. This can be fixed with a reset and good policy that's better enforced. Since we have a great idea of what late stage capitalism looks like, tell me in good faith what late stage socialism looks like? If not evolved into communism or worse.

​@@pognarchyCapitalism works with selfish and selfless individuals. Socialism can only work if there are selfless individuals. That's why the implementation of socialism so far in history often becomes tyrannical right away. Always requires authoritarianism to barely function by forcing people to be a certain way when they won't all the time.

The problem with capitalism is the abyss. It rewards the worst behaviors and locks us in to servitude unless you sell out and become a shark. No you don't need planned obsolescence and oligopolies to run a country.

Waiting for someone to write his name. Leo...?

Why does money lose its value under socialism? You seem to be describing a system with no inequality of income, but the labor theory of value doesn't remove that inequality, it changes how those incentives are determined and how resources are distributed.

@@humanmerelybeing1966if the 10’s of thousands of people working in the energy sector are engaging in profit sharing then there will be a vast amount of people with LOTS of money and if that is seen in other industries then the value of money will decrease and there would be high levels of inflation. That would need to be supplemented by heavy government regulation and well done you just made the precursor to every other socialist authoritarian government. If the energy sector has profit sharing why tf would you work for a small business, etc. it won’t work that way

​@@user-bg6qr9mh3i Socialism and profit sharing aren't the same thing.

@@WhatsTheTakeaway also opens the door to a new position

@@WhatsTheTakeaway it’s also the pathway to an informed opinion. You have to admit you’re wrong in order to learn what’s right

@@WhatsTheTakeaway You don't need to know every single possible rhetorical position of whatever group you are a part of. That is absurd, especially when someone produces a novel idea to counter it where then you haven't taken to the time to think it through properly. YOU do not know everything in all of your views either. Its much better for him to be honest and say he hasn't thought about it, than to lie, obsfuscate, ignore, goalpost shift, etc. And not thinking through every single detail of your belief does not indicate their belief is wrong or "failed". Someone can believe in heliocentric round earth, then when a person produces some random thing like olber's paradox, which you may not have researched before hand, that is then twisted into flat earth geocentric evidence, you are caught off guard. But, because you didn't HAPPEN to think about olber's paradox as a counter, then you have no counter for it. But it doesn't mean the earth is now flat and the position is automatically failed. That's an incredibly simplistic way to view debates and discussions, and is responsible for a lot of what is wrong in america with the us vs them mentality.

@@WhatsTheTakeaway Thats just called not having a point. Not knowing an aspect or counterargument to a hypothetical/counter is not the same as having no argument to begin with. Don't be silly

nobody cares

​@@coreyander286Leo doesn't claim Vaush as a thought leader or a representative of the left.

​@@coreyander286I think it's an even split. But I can see more people getting radicalized into tankies

Nor would they allow him to be alive because he is a counter revolutionary.

What is ml? Militant leftist?

I'm suspicious that the real reason is just because they privately back socialism.

Stream chats are really the peak of reactionary ignorance, even for people like Destiny. Sad to see.

They always point to Mondragon, but it still has an overarching corporate structure. And one of the primary reasons that Norway's Statoil was successful during the economic/oil downturn in 07/08, unlike Venezuela, is that they have a corporate structure and diversified holdings.

He probably worked at an ESOP or something similar. Not all "coops" are created equal.

@@aimless_aimer7936sounds like an excuse. We have to take reality as evidence in the debate. If worker coops can still be shit, then we can’t hold them up as a good standard when the corporation is so flexible and adept at getting results.

@@aimless_aimer7936 Successful co-ops are those that operate under a capitalist framework.

​@@Xplora213most start ups fail therefore if capitalist companies can still be sh*t we can't hold them up as a good standard

another funny anecdote: when you wonder why everybody was standing in line to see an empty shelf but nobody said anything, everybody knew that half of the people present were informants for the government. the moment you complain you land on a list. it doesn't matter if the complain was valid. if you were on this list your whole family couldn't travel, you could not exchange money and you were 1 complaint away from being tortured. nobody told you but you knew.

@@SabracadabrO yeah, its like: you don't even know where to start to explain really how sh*tty it was to live under socialism. instead of black and white TV i would say it was like living in darkness with no ray of light. its unimaginable for me now, how do you explain that to milennials that think free speech is fascism? you need so much context to really explain how bleak it was.

@@SabracadabrO im not so sure about that. the olympics were just another way to use propaganda and nationalism to show the "superiority" of socialism. by any means necessary: State prescribed Doping, concealing men so they can compete against women, only letting people into the stands that were faithful to the party line... even the Olympics were a big eye opener for me. yes, the end of socialism and the warsaw pact was inevitable. but there is a reason it worked as long as it has. some people profited greatly from it while most suffered. but most people were afraid of repercussions because every opinion, every action caused a reaction. when "they" told me something i would believe it because not believeing it had repercussions and they came in stages. shameful? absolutely. but i had no option, i couldn't trust my own family to rat me out. its a very powerful system in itself.

But but but, that was not "real" socialism. Greetings from Slovakia, where we had to experience much of the same. Thank you but never again.

@@MrHellweasel im always glad when i hear that. that means they don't even know the horrors of socialism and i wouldn't wish my worst enemy to live under its rules. the blissful ignorance of an idealistic worldview that is not mainstream and the right to express your opinion. something that was unthinkable. never again, absolutely.

Right, because the underlying belief of socialists is that the only reason why people like money is because capitalism forces them to. When in reality, as the gentlemen from the audience asked around 1:18:00 or so, the desire for resources, even in abundance, is human nature. A socialistic system won’t magically make people only want what they need as opposed to taking anything they can get their grubby little hands on. Capitalism naturally evolved because it’s best suited to match the pursuit of resources. If socialism were to take hold, the pursuit of resources would remain the exact same, but the ability to do so would be hindered.

Appealing to human nature isn’t super effective imo but humans also have altruistic tendencies it’s not exclusively greed. It’s not an unreasonable opinion to hold to think that workers would vote for things that benefit society long term, especially in a more cooperative society by and large.

​@@samuelbailey2000i mean, we could just look at the places that have moved in a more socialist direction and see what the outcomes were, and inevitably (see: every single time), greed and corruption actually seemed to exacerbate, not disappear. I know the western socialists response is typically to think "BUT IF I was the one leading the socialist revolution, we'd do it properly!!" but that's pretty short sighted. Especially since most western socialists emotional dislike for capitalism springs from a hate and jealousy of the rich, not a love for the poor. (Not saying youre like this, but many definitely are). The experiment has been run, unfortunately

@@martymcfly88mph35 Right, but the system he was advocating for didn’t include a revolution or a vanguard. I don’t think the argument holds up when the people we’re talking about aren’t holding more power than the people next to them. I do think that greed is more inevitable when small groups of people take control of the government for some sort of greater good. But that is not the argument. The point is that assuming workers would be willing to vote for things for the betterment of society on average. Which could be wrong, but I don’t think is an unreasonable or damaging assumption to make.

@@samuelbailey2000 You still see greed happen when ballot measures are put out and people vote to expand spending even when the state or city does not have the funds for it. The size of the group does not change the jealousy or greed. If all the coops were paid the same, why would one coop not vote to work less hours? If the coops are not paid the same, then why would the people that wanted more try to go to a different coop or start a different one? I would argue history showcases humans tend to be greedy and jealous, and I think the reason why capitalism works as a system of economic organization is because it harnesses those aspects of human nature to further efficient production. If humans were not greedy or jealous, then capitalism would not be as effective at running markets as other systems of economic organization. If human nature was as this large assumption stated, I think capitalism would not exist and I would use the success of capitalism to reject that assumption.

Exactly and then eventually it would end up like an HOA, where there is a couple of hard-core prominent and influential people, dictating the rules and regulations over the entire system over all of the employees who supposedly have an equal and fair say, but like you said in a union a lot of people don’t care and don’t show up to the meetings so the people that do it will dictate policy just like in a capitalist system a CEO, CFO, and other executive titles would do. They would be a select few people at the top making decisions for everyone else and I feel like 50 or 100 years down the socialist economic ladder. You would see the exact same problems that capitalism has because humans inevitably will make decisions that are better for them and worse for others.

Cause the evil capitalists sabotage it to maintain their evil system.. At least, thats the answer I imagine hasan would give..

because co-ops are effective but the market volatility dissappears when the customers have one choice. its a monopoly and an unchanging revenue technically.

My guess is big corporations, through loopholes in our system, effectively being able to change legislation in their favor. Which makes it hard for different types of business to compete. I would need to find actual examples of this, but if true seems like a big flaw of capitalism that we should fix.

​@@ZEIT9393You could argue it exposes a flaw of co-ops and market socialism: It just cannot compete without a societywide shift away from existing systems (which is not something market socialists believe is necessary). There are principles that can be used and are compelling enough to have real world applications. Employees having a stake in the profits of the company will motivate them, just look at commission based jobs or at August's work ethic. But can such systems work at scale?

​@@ZEIT9393Even if I accept that Captialism stifles Socialist competition through pressure on representatives to pass legislative hurdles for running co-ops. It is still better than Socialists eliminating Capitalist competition through making Captialism illegal and punishable by re-education or death.

The world tends to crush silly ideas, which poindexter is full of.

​@shoobidyboop8634 Most kids are. That's the time of their life they should be experimenting, rather than being afraid of being wrong.

@@evelynashe8701 Which is why they're not entrusted with any responsibility at that age. They haven't lived enough even to realize socialism is a crock.

The thing about getting older, is you tend to stop viewing the world the way you want it to be, and start viewing it as it actually is. That's why people tend to get more conservative as they get older.

@@markzuckergecko621 People get more conservative with age, but people also get more wealthy with age on average, something that much more directly correlates with conservative party alignment. You're more likely to vote for lower taxes and benefits if the costs are coming out of your income rather than someone else's.

As a socialists I see the opposite. Trying to conceive a system that will perfectly solve all the issues and will have to be as complex as reality. Its also called utopistic a lot because trying to do so pushes people to arguing for perfect system. While the capitalist can just point at the system and say "it works" we cannot as there was never a global socialist economy. What kinds of effect it might have is literary impossible to conceive, but somehow that is what people ask of us. Show us your world before we can make it. This also often happens in broad general discussions and not in actual conversations as you can simple ask what people accept. Is the capitalist arguing for the exact copy of the system in the USA? is the Socialist arguing for the copy of USSR? Most often they do not, making them both less dependent on the realities and more on theoretical explanations.

@@lexter8379 I think you just kinda proved his point, "there was never a global socialist economy" = that wasn't true socialism. The fact of the matter is we have seen the attempt to implement socialism and each time it has ended up in disaster.

@@Banisowicz What? That is a fact. Even if you say that everything ever called socialism was socialism, it was never global as is capitalism now. Also, my point was about how I feel from the opposite side and not much else. Also "trying to implement socialism" is pretty vague. To be more precise it would be something like this. "One of the socialistic ideologies that tried to implement socialism was Marxist-Leninism and failed to do so and instead created a none socialistic different system that a lot of other state replicated," There is a common misconception that all the ML states wanted socialism, no they wanted ML system (which was not socialism by definition). They didn't care about some ideals or "we will make it work" they simply wanted a system that rapidly industrialize and defends them from capitalist exploitation. You can use this argument against people who want ML type system. But its not an argument against worker control.

dear reader please don't get tempted to answer this dude's drivel

​@@lexter8379Not real socialism. Yall just keep looping. Quick question chief, you're allowed to be in a worker owned co-op under capitalism. Are you in one?

Yup. You can always opt in to socialism in a capitalist society but can never opt in to capitalism in a socialist society.

⁠@@Dementia.Pugilistica This type of mirrored thinking is wrong. Capitalism has long benefited from socialist countries, and so have socialist countries with capitalist countries. There is not one can opt-in, and other doesn’t opt-in. Profit-incentive options have remained in-part with socialist countries, and you also have capitalists in socialist countries like China.

@mesh01550 of course you can opt in but not opt out of socialism. Socialism is controlled by the largest or most overarching jurisdiction that entities are required to follow. Socialist societies require the rules of socialism to be observed in all familial, commercial and communal structures, but under capitalism not all family, business and communal structures are required to be capitalistic. There is nothing preventing people in capitalist societies from pooling resources and running a community that has socialized prescriptions or internal rules, or a privatized company structure that runs like a defacto government within the constrains of the prevailing federal and lesser jurisdictional laws, or a family structure with social requirements to be part of the household. There are communes that do this all over the USA and Canada. There are CO-OPs. There are family structures that may follow a socialized form of internal government whereby parents decide to partition resources equivalently, decide tasks of the children according to top down decision-making, fund them the same, dissalow them from owning property, etc etc. The opposite is not be true because any of these smaller entities would be required under socialist guidelines to construct themselves under guidelines that are not encompassing of capitalist guidelines. I didn't make an argument that capitalist countries and socialist countries haven't benefited from or harmed each other and don't see how that's relevant to what I said. Profit-focused models of socialist countries may exist, but they exist to make profit for the state not the private individual or as pooled resources at best which has all the same issues pointed at capitalist greed perhaps more so because we are dealing with a collective greed, which are crucial non-equivalencies. China is a mixed economy and is not a good example of a socialist country as socialists argue for (idealized socialism). It is also markedly more corrupt than any western country...

@@Dementia.Pugilisticain theory, yes you could opt out of socialism. In a socialist country you could theoretically have a commune that doesn’t pay into the system and doesn’t get paid out of it. Not saying it’s realistic, but none of socialism is realistic.

@@Dementia.Pugilistica Bravo!

Biggest crossroad in the socialism vs capitalism debate. Socialists think they are entitled to survival, even if that means someone else has to fund it. Complete insanity that so many people think that way.

One can believe capitalism is evil (I do), however you can acknowledge the scant good it has done while being horrible overall.

@surojexa7683 Despite capitalism many flaws, it is still a far superior system than socialism, communism, or fascism by a wide margin.

@@redluck3048 they all turn into the same thing.

How is me trading you 3 bananas for your 5 dollars "evil"? How is me paying you 150 dollars; a price we agreed upon with no outside coercion, to detail my car evil? Capitalism is neutral. Socialism is where the government starts coercing people.

So a delusional person right

Copium

Liberalism? Dude, the way left is going the next pendulum swing of the political compass will NOT stop at liberalism.

Actually liberalism is not bad .Left wing liberalism sucks.But your classical liberal of free speech and freedoms that make America great are not bad Dave Rubin is one such individuals.

​@@63Limarnah, some form of liberalism is probably king. Its a reasonable, pragmatic system that actually works.

Inshallah brother.

See, and that is another problem with Socio markets, and that is FA majority of that cooperative market are doing some thing that is detrimental to not only the market in existence, but the society as well absolutely nothing will change because majority rules, and if the majority are looking out for their own best interest which all of human history says that humans do then nothing will change, but in a capitalist top down authoritative company that society can choose to basically forced against the majority change

Not necessarily. I disagreed with him as well but you can have support for an idea where there are still things to be figured out. Not exactly the same but kind of like how I might support green energy even though it still has a lot of unknowns and needs more eyeballs/research/development before it’ll be ready for prime time.

@@Finallegend_right, but if the thing you don’t know is integral to the system itself, that’s a big problem. It would be like if I proposed a new classroom style where all of the students get to decide whatever they want to learn to ensure everyone is engaged with their learning, and someone asked me “what happens if they decide to not learn?” And your solution to that was “I don’t know”. That’s how I personally see how this conversation went. Not knowing every fine detail is expected, not being able to answer how the economy would function when two unions with competing ideas of fairness would interact is a big problem.

I think he means that if you put out things like universal healthcare and other socialist solutions - given democratic support - then the public will be less dogmatized against it and be open to more. That’s an organic rise. There are alot of Americans who are open to a Medicare for all for example, especially when it is broken down to them. Just like how the NHS cannot be removed, only improved bc the UK public wants it despite being staunchly anti socialist for decades.

@@TriggeringOpinionsandFacts I see no reason why universal healthcare would be considered socialism at all. In a capitalist society having clear and established rules that make markets predictable and making working in a capitalist society worthwhile is a very capitalist thing to do.

​@@CrestOfArtoriaswell it isnt but any actual socialist system would have nationalized healthcare. It's like saying that lettuce is not a burger but it's still a necessary part of building a burger if that makes sense

Socialism won't happen "organically", just like how democracy has never happened "organically"....it will require some sort of upheaval to overthrow the status quo.

I dont think you understand how human are dumb. You could see the gov as a organic system. More than the stupidity of masses.

Right!

👃👃👃👃👃

bruh we need timestamps; i need to know if these farts were capitalist fake news or socialist propaganda.

This is so true happens so much when I ask them just tell me how

😂😂😂😂

*tips fedora*

​@@seanhannitysninthDUIhell yea brother

I would argue that socialism, as debated in contexts like this, is largely an economic system but would require political movement. In other words, I think capitalism vs socialism is a more direct debate topic to what people actually care about as opposed to liberalism vs socialism.

Literally every ideology is guilty of this.

As if we dont think during work either. Like the 98% of working class people from doctors to warehouse workers wakeup, turn on work consciousness, and then black out for 9-10 hours. Then when we get home, we switch on our other consciousness, get overwhelmed with life, and me no think no more, me go to sleep, and maybe me think on weekend. LOL He just cant assume people just reject your system, and are in no way shape or form interested in your pipe dream. Hasan and Vaush have both made similar statements of you just dont know any better, sometimes hoisted with the language of also just theyre too busy to think. Its condescending and idiotic. I dont work in a coal mine. Im listening to audible and podcast for 8 - 10 hours a day at work. Im fortunate, but its not some super upper working class job I have (Doctors for instance have for less time to just enjoy listening to frank sinatra at work than I do. lol). All I do is think think think think think. It drives me nuts. I wish i could activate a consciousness that just goes on autopilot, does everything right in life, and every 4 months i can pop back in and fuck around. LMAO

I mean there is truth to it. its not only the working class.

Honestly many of them don't,seems like you aren't working class.

@@jayargee492 anarchism and libertarianism are the exact opposite of this.

Exactly. He’s been getting a lot of praise for saying I don’t know (rightfully so), but it’s quite a problem if the advocates for socialism are unable to answer CORE economic questions such as “how would janitor unions advocate for themselves against the interest of other unions” to paraphrase. I’m glad he was honest, but to not have a solid answer to that question is quite worrying. Under capitalism it’s as simple as “pay what you’re willing to, and if both parties agree that’s that.” Socialism seems to want to add a layer of ‘fairness’ to this, but it’s utterly ineffective to attach an economic system to something so subjective.

Germany, as viewed through the lens of an American perspective, is a mixed capitalist economy just like America. The main difference is the amount of social programs, but when people refer to “socialism” here, they’re generally referring to eliminating private ownership, which Germany still has. In other words, both destiny and Leo would consider Germany a capitalistic country with social programs, not a capitalist/socialist duo economy.

Right, socialists argue that the only reason why people desire profit is because capitalism forces them to. But people have ALWAYS (and likely will always) wanted as many resources as possible. Socialism isn’t going to magically make everyone think “oh I’ll just take what I need, and more more thanks”.

This is pretty spot on, I’d add that adopting modern capital economic and finance methods of accounting doesn’t conflate to adopting capitalist methods of economic and financial accounting. It’s the conflation between the methods in which capital as a tool is utilized to procure more capital goods, expansion of capital and capital as a historical role in developing the economies of the world (generation of capital), and the established capitalist social-relation in proliferating value by various means of capital accumulation, and generalizing all capital outputs (i.e commodities, oil, gas, fuel, electric, energy etc) on the basis of the profit-incentive as the dominant social relationship that shifts the generation of capital, and the implication, being the generalization of the capitalist mode of production and all of capitalism’s proponents. The historical role of capital, in both China and Vietnam for e.g when their main objective in emancipating and liberating the social productive forces of the country, all contents and proponents are related to the scope of opening-up to all capital investments, independent enterprises that covers their profits and losses, and regulating the core rules of the market system by creating a vibrant-competitive playing field between multiple economic agents (state, cooperative, collective and private, foreign capital etc). All of their economic literature and contents are centred mainly on the positive utilization of capital (not utilizing capitalism, eventually bypassing capitalism), the existence and the acceptance in the historical stage of capital, created new creative ways of developing socialist society, without eliminating or limiting ways we can organize all capital by attempting to prematurely implement a ‘post-capital’ communist society in the lower and higher stages. Since a lot of socialist countries existed near the more peripheral regions by core capitalist countries of the world where uneven development contributed to the limitation of developing the capitalist mode of production and the continual peripheralization of semi-feudal regions of the world (colonized). Since, a lot of socialist countries that began the transition from semi-feudal society into socialist society like China, Vietnam, USSR, Laos etc, the issue relating to bypassing capitalism has remained a central feature of their economics. As capitalism has existed many more hundreds of year than socialism has, the existence of socialism being only over a hundred years it still has many more years in eventually surpassing the capitalist mode of production as a means in surpassing all capitalist metrics (in terms of productive forces, national stock and incomes, revenues etc), and human social development metrics (by creating more socially equitable and equal distributions of wealth and outcomes for everybody regarding healthcare, literacy, education, talents and opportunities etc). If the socialist mode of production can create more equitable results of social distribution and less economic inequality than the most social democratic capitalist countries with social welfare programs, then that will be the good start at then discussing whether or not- the socialist system can make the next historical leap towards a new qualitative social transformation beyond capitalism, and eventually capital? The worlds economic problems such as economic inequality and unequal wealth distributions, remains a natural development of the state of capital, and the proliferation of value and capital. Since the history of capitalism came birth from the primitive accumulations- and extraction of economic wealth from more resourceful countries. This basic premise in proliferating value for the sake of accumulating more value comes from peripheralizing of vast regions of the world, forced underdevelopment. The socialist countries like China and Vietnam where they were greatly impacted by colonial empires, like Britain and later the United Stares. They began their economic development very differently, in the sense that most of all of their economic development started from the backbones of their own exploitation first, and not building off the exploitation of everybody around you, first.

How dare you make me laugh at that.

Yea, I've been shutting socialists down with this for years. Climate change, for instance. What would stop a group of like 100 people from deciding that they could make money much quicker by ignoring the damage they're doing to the environment, and vote to do it? Honestly, the convo is starting to bore me, just because it often ends with "well, I'm not even really a socialist". Fucking lol.

​@accelerationquanta5816 We already have that. You missed the point of the question.

Because none of them wants to be the one who actually bothers enacting change. Now, there's arguments to be made about the fact that the model we have now will become untenable in the pong run, and will require some collectivization of resources. But the truth is, all these supposed socialists on the internet are the literal spawn if late stage capitalism in action. And by that I mean they are comfortable, middle class people who don't kniw what hunger looks like, who had all the privileges of high education, who know take their existential boredom of the modern age due to not having actually concrete problems to fix for themselves and take comfort and self satisfaction in criticizing systems built and sustained by others, without any intention of staking their own comforts and lifestyle on where their mouths are. They elevated it to an art. Just say "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" and then proceed to live exactly as you are now because apparently that doesn't make you a hypocrite. They don't want to enact socialism, they want ti have something to wail against, si they can feel like good people for fighting the good fight, but it has to be something big enough for them not to be held responsible to do anything themselves, like the economic system of the entire bloody world. They want someone else to come up with rhe way to do it, they want someone else to get their hands dirty in doing it, they want someone else to suffer the consequences and bear the burden of their idiot ideas, they want someone else to fix all the problems that they were too busy ideologuing to actually figure out would inevitably come up. The only socialist revolution any of them would actually enact is one where one day they're sitting comfortably at their desk living like capitalist pigs scrolling their phones made from slave labor, and the next day they walk out the door into a magically premade, already working utopia where every single problem of the human condition has been already fixed and where they can now take their place in the elite intellectual class that has brought on the revolution, where they can go on living the same privileges they already had before. That's what they want. Those that aren't just straight up grifting at least

That's because socialism can only exist by extracting resources that capitalism created.

Lol, I read this comment before even watching the video and now the whole time I’m just observing the difference in the size of their heads while they go at it. 🧐

Unions are only possible in a capitalist society

During the debate I asked a question (57:35): "Question for Destiny: why do you support unions if they are inherently anti-capitalist?" Destiny's answer was not clear from my perspective

@@alelzarterl212 yeah it’s interesting. If I was gonna steelman him I’d say that he sees the unions as not anti capitalism but as push back within the capitalist system. That might be unions but it also might be individual wage demands or entrepreneurs or collective bargaining via boardroom takeover etc etc. the trouble is the capitalism n it’s purest form doesn’t figure any push back. The push back comes from opposing ideologies so that I think you’re correct in questioning destiny’s seeming and uncharacteristic lack of nuance here. He seems to dismiss the socialist movements influence on unions and the fact, imho, that without socialism injected into the free market model you don’t get fair workers rights. The best example in history I can give is the British workers arc from 1860 to 1960. 1860 workers were seen as expendable and if they lost their lives they were relaxed by another desperate human being. Kids were used for jobs so dangerous that the result of an accident was being mashed and diced inside of a mechanical loom. By 1960 the input of socialism had almost reached a point where, men at least, had a healthy wage and their lives were generally held in a higher regard. This wasn’t solely socialist in its evolution but it was the biggest proportion of influence. Manchester (U.K.) science ad industry museum is such a great source of history for this. Combined with the slavery aspect you ca fail to come away realising that in human beings are left without regulation then they do the most heinous acts and that religion and capitalism can be the justification catalyst and the fuel to commit them.

@@schenksteven1that’s not true. Planned economies and communist economies can have unions. These types of economies have the same possibility of abusing workers rights. You can’t really have unions in a dictatorship if the dictator is a tyrant. “The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is the national trade union center of the People's Republic of China. It is the largest trade union in the world with 302 million members in 1,713,000 primary trade union organizations. The ACFTU is divided into 31 regional federations and 10 national industrial unions.”

@@Theactivepsychos Sorry, I should have been more precise... you are technically correct. What I should have said is that "unions that have any functional power are not possible in a marxist society." Obviously you can have groups called unions in a command economy, they just can't have any actual negotiating power, otherwise it's not a command economy, de facto.

That doesn’t make him correct

⁠@@stuckinthemud4352who claimed he was correct? Ignorant ass comment.

Two huge farts. One at 57.13, too. Dont know if it was destiny or not, but i can't believe no one reacted.

@@danielhamilton3496 as far as I'm concerned, Destiny is guilty until proven innocent

@kabine1 I have concussive evidence as of watching further. If you skip to just before 59.00 you will see the true perpetrator trying to cover his shame with a cough. Unfortunately, it's not destiny.