No, you are the one confused. The question presented to the Union is 'does socialism work'. There are two axis on the political compass. I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist. An apparent contradiction, given your argument.

I think socialism confuses security with slavery. There can be no equality (as a goal) when some have the power of the state in their hands and the others not

@@AdamantSeraph True, but one could just as easily suggest: "I think capitalism confuses efficiency with slavery." As in all things in life, balance.

@@_SimpleSam I think a more nuanced appreciation of the political compass is required as well as how the political, economic and social spheres interact. I would call it a political circle. Socialism vs Capitalism, Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism.

@@albal156 Agreed.

Agreed. She mentioned things she was right to think are good, but seemed to think socialism is necessary in bringing them about. I’m not saying socialism is incompatible with them, but they are certainly achievable in a capitalist system

Well socialism isn't nearly as old as many democracies, including the United States version.

she doesn't "seem to suggest" that democracy is a "socialist invention".... please link me to the minute and second she says anything remotely connecting any of those dots!

She is clearly a complete woke idiot.

She isn't there for a debate, she is there to complain about her history and oppression in another land that tried to implement socialism in response to slavery. It has nothing to do with capitalism and socialism. It has everything to do with a dream that doesn't exist, that never has existed, and that is purely theory, and furthermore, that wherever it has existed, it has lead DIRECTLY to the life she claims to have escaped, i.e. slavery. She doesn't explain how socialism works, she explains about how democracy works and how private enterprise lead to the freedom of the nation where she lives. It is a complete farce.

***** I agree with your comments about the working day, I live in Ireland and the norm now seems to be sixty to eighty hours a week, much of it unpaid or workers are contracted into some salary deal. I would also agree that the unions have been destroyed in this country.

You conveniently forget about how the British model, for most of its history, was built on imperialism.

Caught that slip up too. They cant say that though, so they have to use euphemisms.

SMH She can’t even go 10 minutes without being deceptive.

You do realize that an economy can be planned centrally by a democratic government, right?

Want to make democratic choices everyday? Encourage healthy markets with lots of competition.

@@robgraham2351 Because that has worked so well in USA, right? Big Pharma consults its customers before setting the prices. Facebook asks its consumers whether it can sell their data to Russian bots. Hospitals leave it up to patients whether or not they want to pay thousands of dollars for ambulance service.

This is the main debate that no one wants to have. Capitalism, as defined by the Left, is a banking system controlling money with no value in cohorts with a state regulating everything. Socialism defined by the Left is kindness where all share everything and a benevolent state which represents us all deals out the wealth created by individuals fairly. (Sorry, I can't sugar coat shit and make it convincing) Nowhere is a debate between individual, profit for profit trade of resources and commodities based only on the terms of the individual traders vs. all profit, wealth, resources and commodities either controlled or owned by a collective and administered by the state. Where we are now of course is that we are permitted to keep a portion of what we earn doing what we are permitted to do to earn it. Some call it the Leftist dialectic. Left is socialism and rights is conservatism moving towards fascism. This is possibly the Left's greatest lie. The further we move left, the more collectivist we become, and the greater the totalitarian state we evolve into. The further right we go, the greater individualism and freedom, leading towards anarchy. There should be just enough government to prevent the use of force and coercion between individuals, and that's it.

I agree. I find that a lot of people have a misunderstanding when it comes to Socialism and Capitalism, or Collectivism and Individualism. The misunderstanding comes from the notion that any given system is responsible for the moral values of the individuals. People attach moral responsibilities to so called "society". It's not their fault they rioted, it's what "society" did to them. Over and over I find that same underlying theme behind these sort of debates. The problem is that if you are going to argue on a moral or ethical basis, then you must apply that argument equally to all social systems. For example, Socialists will argue that people are susceptible to corruption and are greedy individuals seeking only their self-interest. It's not that the society made them that way. The argument is that if left to the free market, individuals will make a huge amount of wealth off "the backs of others" and run huge monopolies cutting of their competition and price fixing their products thereby not making it available to the poor. But if that is a valid argument when we look at individuals under Capitalism, why is it not a valid argument when we look at individuals under Socialism? You have to treat the two the same. Socialism is a system which involves a lot more people to run it than Capitalism does. Given that 'people's morals are corrupt' from the socialists argument, who's to say that corrupt people won't be running the socialist system too? Are there some sort of angels who will be sent from above who will see to it that everyone is equal? INCLUDING the angels themselves? Ask a Socialist; "who will it be that will oversee?"! It is paradoxical to argue equality by force! That is to say that if you want to force equality on everyone then surely, the person enforcing it must be part of everyone too otherwise he is not equal to everyone else! He has all the power. In fact the sort of system which concentrates a lot power over a lot of people favors more so the individual who is willing to abuse that sort of power than the individual who is good intention-ed. Absolute power corrupts absolutely! Capitalism doesn't promise to deliver anything for free, or to create some sort of ideal society where by every person is equal in the monetary sense. But it does promise to not concentrate absolute forceful power into a small group of people or one enforcer!

bojji01 Great point! One of the biggest lies of socialists is their accusations of inherent selfish greed in humans. Humans will always engage in profit for profit trade of commodities and resources. But we can do this in other ways that can involve investing in others, such as family. Under socialism, the wealth you create is harvested to a degree that someone else decides, where it goes into a big trough where everyone has a right to put their hands into. A large and powerful administration is required to regulate that, and keep it 'fair'. So who gets how much of what depends on elections, and how loud and persuasive your lobby group is. If that isn't exploiting masses for wealth you didn't earn, I don't know what is.

It continues to morals : security vs freedom. Check out the Exodus from the bible.

You are chosen to work for the greater good so the poor and the average will be better off when the government subsidies them. The central idea behind socialism, if not unique to socialism, is the mass redistribution.

bobbygnosis "We're an anarcho syndaclist commune blah blah blah ..."

Lee Cooper I would never join such a group. Not even in jest.

+bobbygnosis The CIA destabilization of the country and it's government were most interesting, will definitely be looking into that.

bobbygnosis Tell me something, do know what happened at Ludlow, Colorado? What was the Memorial Day Massacre? What happened on August 13, 1917 in Spain? Care to tell me?

Skiiiiippppp

lmfao she was welcomed to the most prestigious debating society and helped convince the house against the motion

But finding the other bits is like research...and that's ACADEMIC!

I'm glad to say these 8 presentations have been so organized, so it appears someone listened.

@@CurtHowland It would be good if you just had 1 presentation with all the speakers in turn. That would be helpful. It's been 5 years - I'm guessing our good capitalist folks at the Oxford Union will eventually get around to it.

what do we mean by state, its us ,the people-> means of production comes to the people/masses at the end. Hope u know where all means goes in capitalism...

Don't assume, just because I speak against socialism, that I'm a capitalist. I'm not. The days of capitalism are almost over. And don't make the assumption that because "the people" gain control over production that the people get to own it too. They don't.

+Edward Smith lol how do you own something when some else made it. capitalism does that you know when investment is being taken place almost all the profit goes towards them.

see El Socialista Dinero's comment for the answer to your question.

The state is not "us" you brainwashed sheep, jeebus

Because that is who the left behaves. It is all about feelings, never about facts and evidences and above all, it's all about the "me/my/mine". Socialists are usually people with strong narcissistic psychological traces.

+Bru.MR socialism isnt perfect...neither is capitalism. what evidence do need for that??

@R. Gives NoFucks are you trying to ask a question or make a statement or just talk shit?

Watch the other speeches. They are similar in argument use.

Michael DiSciullo I think it is the conservatives who argue with emotion and complete disregard for the debate. She referenced Therlidge, where coal miners were really slaves. Here, how did the Crash of 1929 work out? The Great War? The Third Reich? Finally the Crash of 2008? By those incidents, you and your conservatives, I shall use the word fascists you destroyed our labor unions, completely destroyed public education, destroyed or social insurance, you wage a war on colleges and universities. Everything that was good in the 20th Century, you destroyed. Good job! Listening to Ben Shapiro shit I see. Too bad Chris Hitchens is not around to shut his ass up as he did with D'Souza and Dennis Prager. Prager messed with the wrong tiger

Exactly! They might be members of the bourgeoisie wanting to maintain their greed or just members of the proletariat happy being slaves to capitalists.

She got elected to the Scottish Parliament last month so that's pretty good.

@@leboyneski5464, oh nice.

Socialism 187 tries 0 success care to try again?

+Jack Riordan I don't understand your comment? Are you saying Socialism has failed? Because this video lists off the successes achieved around about 2:55. Now no doubt both Capitalism and Socialism have both had their shares of failures, but Modern Day Capitalism is simply bigger, not better.

+Beach Zack Successes like the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea Oh wait, hundreds of millions of people died in those countries.

+sellery1803 All ideologies taken to the extreme results in bad outcomes. For Fascism, one regime convinced a whole nation to do terrible things. In Democracy, a whole group of people voted one person to death because he held a different opinion to the crowd (points if people know who that was). No system is perfect, but claiming small elements working together like the NHS within a democratic system is a failure just becuase some people in another country took it too far just doesn't stand as an arguement

Beach Zack They followed the ideology exactly and it failed. People died from famine, the government in place was corrupt and oppressive, and there was not enough goods to go around. It's not that some certain groups didn't implement the ideology right, it's that the ideology itself is a complete failure.

What does this have to do with socialism, and how does this help, at all, the case for capitalism, which limits freedom substantially for billions of people?

@@RigelOrionBeta " Some areas and some people can get rich first, lead and help other regions and people, and gradually achieve common prosperity. " Deng Xiaoping, a guy who realised capitalism is a must to get rich quickly, implemented reforms to do so amd you see that idea bloom into the second largest economy today that has increased a single persons wealth 10 fold in the last 30 years

Why should you have to put one before the other? They're not mutually exclusive.

@@kenm.4132 It turns out they ARE, did you miss the twentieth century?

@@blove142 yeah I did. I wasn’t born

good comment

This is wise

Good luck getting transparency from the state. I never have and I work in it. Smoke and mirrors.

Yes Liberals around the time of ww1 already started those things that she claimed was down to socialism. Socialism is the state owned means of production but she doesn't even try to defend it.

You misunderstood basic political philosophy then, phones are Personal property. Private property refers to the means of production. British political illiteracy is killing intellect lol

@@zigwinger2915 Hahaha, that's one of the stupidest comments I have ever encountered. Congratulations!! Now would you kindly explain the difference as you see it. I own a business. Is it personal property or private property? If I take on an employee to sweep the floor, does the status change?

@@Iain1962 a mobile phone is personal property, a house is personal property. In the socialist sense it doesn't become private until you make a cash extracting institution out of it. I.e being a landlord instead of a homeowner. Not sure what businessman would employ someone to sweep the floor, a business is always private property lol, if you're the only person working in a business that means the worker (you) owns the means of production, once you hire a certain amount of employees you begin to inflict a neo feudal dynamic which is economically dumb (see studies on worker co ops vs private firms) and morally problematic. To answer your question directly, a firm with 2 workers is private property as is any firm, but as long as workers rights are being respected and the worker isn't completely powerless then its fine, once you get over 15 or so employees however, I don't believe in private ownership atall- its weird how we are completely disgusted by political dictatorships and go to war to stop them but poke fun at the moral consistency of people like me who hate both political and economic dictatorship.

@@zigwinger2915 Fascinating. Never mind you will realise that's all bullshit eventually. This is the problem with socialism it completely denies reality, human nature and common sense to create a fictional utopia where every socialist believes they will be in charge and be benevolent, whereas the reality is they would be little more than chattel bossed about by even more tyrannical leaders than you get with democracy...Because you do realise the first thing a socialist regime does is remove the opposition, then it goes for its own useful idiots (you) and leaves the sheep.. But to return to your own version of this insanity. Why for example fifteen? Why not 14 or 27? You do realise that the result would be millions of companies with 14 employees? People aren't as stupid as you think... Why is it so unimaginable to employ someone to sweep the floor you have a lack of understanding of the enormous possible businesses. I whittle wooden spoons. Without my whittling skill there is no job for the sweeper. Anyway it's been hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment.

I don't think that happened Iain.

The answer is because socialism is a religious creed. It is like showing a Muslim some inconsistency in the Quran: that would never change his mind. Socialists do not care that dozens of socialist experiments have taken place: East/West Germany, North/South Korea etc. and that in each case people fled - and it was never to the socialist part. They *believe* and that is all that matters.

This is literally baffling

what are you talking about? the speaker before her stated a lot of figures and facts. and the speaker right after her went on a patriotic speech about how capitalism is so close to ango culture. it's very clear that feeling aren't intrinsic to pro-socialist debates. also, if you really want to read something in favour of socialism and that blatantly throws statistics, you can easily read das kapital.

maybe the government that is democratically controlled by the people not instead of a few shareholders that determine the actions of the entire company..

@@LolLol-ok4lr one big gangster instead of 10 small gangsters, as someone who has lived in a state that was socialist for almost 60 years and has recently turned into a mixed economy based on capitalism, I'd suggest socialism works only in super rich well developed countries with less corruption that have resources to implement it, and the shortest way to get to that status of being super rich is by being capitalist biggest example : china

@@waitwhat3547 yeah...except china starting to have a wealth gap, it's social programs are going to shit aswell, avg income for each citizen is not comparable to that of many European countries even though they GDP is high, mixed economics systems are still far away from full on capitalism, and I do agree, no matter what socialism or capitalism if the government is corrupt then there is no point if the government is not democratic and clean (mostly) from corruption.

shame that's not how economics works, eh.

We do not live in a capitalist society in the west. So you cannot claim 'capitalism does not work'. We only have pockets of capitalism in a system which is fundamentally coercive and violent. Wherever the free market is allowed to thrive we see the greatest function, prosperity, cooperation, wealth generation, happiness and innovation (think the software and tech industries)...... wherever the state point its guns is where we see the greatest dysfunction, lack of innovation, inefficiency, stagnation, dis-ease, expense, waste, and misery (think state schooling or the violently monopolised economy). Socialism works great until the debts become unsustainable... then the true cost of all of that 'free stuff' is revealed, as society literally falls apart and all hell breaks loose as the middle class lose their promised retirement funds and the dependent class begin to starve... Government cannot 'provide' anything because government does not generate any wealth, it only steals wealth by force and redistributes it ...... mostly in the direction of bigger government, bailouts for corporations who have partnered with government (ie fascism) and more wars of empire. These are just some of the *practical* arguments against socialism. The *moral* argument is that it's wrong to point guns at people and steal half their earnings each week. Therefore, logically, it must also be wrong to get a third party (a street gang, mafia or government) to point those guns at other people ON YOUR BEHALF, as your elected representatives. If you're not willing (morally speaking) to come to my house and demand half of my earnings at gunpoint to pay for thing that YOU want and which I object to, then you don't really support socialism. Socialism is not an abstract concept - it's violence. Violence is real. If I don;t fund your social programs I will be kidnapped and put inside a cage. If I resist this aggression I will be shot.

theawecabinet Nah, capitalism as we have today is violence.. as we so obviously can see everywhere.

kaxitaksi Capitalism cannot be violence because capitalism means voluntary transactions in a free market. The violence that you see in society is statism, not capitalism. To say capitalism is violence is like saying lovemaking is rape. If it's rape then it's obviously not lovemaking, and if it's violence it's obviously not capitalism.

theawecabinet But thats my whole point, there is no voluntarism or any free market. Never has been never will be. The only thing most people on this planet can "volunteer" to is slave labour and if thats not violence I don't know what is and trust me, I have tried to "volunteer" in the so called free market all my life but for me, all the doors are closed.

theawecabinet On the other hand there has never been any real socialism or communism either other than the socialism offered to the big corps in US and Europe in form of those insane and absolute crazy bank bailouts.

U do know that socialism and the free market are two seperate things right?

How the fuck does the ownership of business by the people rather than a small group of rich shareholders require us to have less freedom over the aspects of our life? How does allowing rich people to tell us what we need to do at our workplace, without allowing us any say, give us greater freedom? In capitalism, a business is basically a small dictatorship. There's no freedom there.

@@RigelOrionBeta preach,comrade.

@@RigelOrionBeta Because the owners of said businesses would have to give up the reins to the State. They'd lose the freedom to chose how they do business and at what scale. Just because you're not a business owner and would personally have nothing to lose doesn't mean that no one else would. I thought socialism was all about thinking of everyone else and putting one's self in other people's shoes? Oh and by the way, there's no such thing as "the people". You speak as if "the people" would be this single entity making all the perfectly sound, informed and wise decisions needed daily for society to run smoothly, but the truth is that power would fall into the elected officials, which of course would end up being the very same "small group of rich shareholders" you wanted to escape from initially... except now you've given them total and absolute control of the army/police, national resources and national health services.

@@CosmicTeapot how are the people who are employed not have a stake in this ???, They are the bloody workers, when shit hits the fan they get unemployed so the stake holder or shareholder doesn't lose profits ??. Another thing about "the people" in your 2nd argument and it's exactly that they don't elect these people into offices but they are appointed by the shareholders who are clueless to what happens in the factory and what the real work is, not to mention the worker conditions and how to improve it.... The Shareholders are not the only ones who are lose , the workers lose MORE if they business goes under and they can turn homeless, and finally please do not treat the people who work as idiots and stupid people, they are the ones working the job and they know it better than the shareholders do, we don't bring an economist to give you a surgery same way we don't give tell a surgeon to predict the next economic recession......

I missed that, mainly because her words didn't actually make a coherent idea, they just scattered across a lot of thoughts. Not to mention she took credit for freedoms gained through capitalistic free markets and self driven enterprise. She also makes a weird claim at 8:15 that barely anyone owns the land now because it is in the hands of so few. This is exactly what socialism will do! Just instead of corporations it will be govt.

Can socialism exist without government ownership?

Equs Narnd You dont think cinservative fascists have used force?

+RealityCheck6T9 That my friend is the art of Socialism!!

+19coyote80 and she said all her knowledge on the era comes from her first-hand memories? Many people alive never lived through the Thatcher government, but still know what she's about. And besides, many 4-7 year olds would surprise you with what they could do..

C'mon mate you know she is bullshitting.

Honestly socialism does work in some countries like in Scandinavian countries. However, you are completely right about needing capitalism to make it work. So many countries don't need to finance a real military defence because they know the US will step in should anyone invade. That is an artificial country. They hate to admit it, if they even do. Imagine if the US one day fell into the sea. Russia would immediately invade Europe and China the rest of Asia. Then it would be a world of pure suffering as they fought for the rest of the world. Not a US freak, just the logical facts. They do need real producers to keep the game going. In the US, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme which will eventually collapse as all the pensions which follow the same pattern. I so fear the US will fail monetarily and bring the rest of the world down with it. When such happens, where will such shrills as her be? Gone with her productive and clueless husband.

My opinion is mine; you have yours too but you have no right to call me an idiot. You're a classic keyboard warrior, and I'd happily chin you.

***** Competition is the nature of the fucking universe you moron. It's what pushes evolution. It's what pushes human innovation. It's why people are individuals. Competition *is* cooperative in the sense that it's our competitive nature to be better than one another that pushes us forward together.

***** We don't live in "the" jungle. So, yeah, continue your self-defeating nonsense. It saves me the effort.

***** History tells us that you're wrong.

She is.

0730Ender Christ she's a Labour MP!

ryan #harambe "NHS is one of the best healthcare systems in the world" sure the idea but private healthcare works so much better

@@anujankirupakaran5027 yea -for the rich

@@adriftinaboat3452 yea I agree no idk what I was thinking 6 years ago 💀

Yes, each in our individual freedom. Our government get more powerful each year, and with that the individual get crushed out of it’s freedom. The common good usually end up in concentration of power. If we don’t like 10 corporation owning everything, why can’t we see the problem of a state controlling everything. The state is the biggest corporation, the most corrupted, the less accountable, the one with monopoly on violence with the control over money, etc.

+Marcos Gonzalez dictatorship is not a socialist style of government. Socialism is not an argument for dictatorship nor is any socialist asking for that. Your confusing two separate issues here. Additionally Communist countries, the ones I suspect your referring to (USSR and it's sphere of influence) where more like state capitalism than socialist. There was no common ownership, the state simply replaced the elite, the people still never owned the means of production.

SoWeMeetAgain You somehow missed it. She refers to movements and events, eg, the Tolpuddle Martyrs that happened before women obtained the right to vote. The guy was saying that socialism started after the right to vote.

100pcRenewables mmmh no he was saying that a lot of the things socialists claim for themselves was actually not done by them but eg proto-libertarians

SoWeMeetAgain Wow! Where did you get that from? He makes no reference to any kind of proto-libertarian but simply states that people got welfare and the right to vote "long before socialism was dreamt up and became a party here". Her answer is that groups such as the Levellers and the Diggers from the English Civil War who believed in common ownership, the Tolpuddle Martyrs who were sent to Australia because they tried to set up a trade union, the Chartists, etc show that the socialist meme has been around for a very long time.

100pcRenewables so there was a socialist party there then and he is wrong?

There was socialist thinking - proto-socialists. He's suggesting that welfare and the right to vote had nothing to do with socialism. There may not have been a socialist party but socialist ideas had been "dreamt up".

It worked well? With massive shortages, a police state, zero freedom, millions dead and a crippled economy? Oh, how memories are short.

Depends how you want to measure it. State communism modernised Russia in one generation, not that I'd support it or want to live there but that's a fact. Capitalism took much longer and had just as many, if not more victims

Yeah but once SHE is elected as the Dear Leader, things will be run "a different way." What she should have been saying is I need a chance, not socialism needs a chance.

Socialism=/= Communism. Much the same way Fascism=/=Captialism

Louis S Ye cos last time I checked Communism, Fascism AND Nacism were variations of socialism

Capitalism leads - inevitably - to concentration "cartells" etc. Read the economy pages. How many big players like Google are there on the market - and will they be able to resist the temptation to rig the system in their favour to keep potential competitiors out of the market. There are legal provisions of course against that, and naturally Corportations will bend the rules (and make sure the politicians and regulators to not hinder them). Corporations strive for maximum profit. Karl Marx created the definition "capitalism". In the time of the industrialization the economy, the way of prod. etc. drastically changed and Marx anlyzed what was going on here. The most important new thing was diversified mass production with machines (using "capital" thus the name). The new way of manufacturing goods was so effective that a broader customer base was needed. It meant also that the barrier to even start production went higher and higher. If Merceded wants to come up with a new model or even a new motor that means a huge investment upfront. (If you produce a tailored suit you can start a new model every few days without much investment or risk). For Mercedes that means that they will do everything - legal or illegal or unethical to make their new project a success and one of the reasons is the high costs of failure and that you need to sell a lot of your products to break even. With time and competion the numbers of players in each branch are reduced because some will fail (they vanish or are taken over) - we see these takeovers, sales and mergers all the times (pharmaceutical industry, automobile industry, mobile phone providers, ...). If there are too few players left that starts to ressemble a monoply because the remaining few players will - legal or not - come to an agreement. And they will very effectively secure that they are not getting any competition (for their specific product), start-ups with the same products do not have a chance. They will fight new technologies as good as they can if they make their product line or their latest investments obsolete. Side note: Gemanr cars and Dieselmotors - they maneuvred themselves into a corner - Dieselgate. There is a reason the German government does not more for basic research on batteries and energy storage - which would be the rational thing - for Germany not for some big players who are cozy with the goverment. Effective batteries would hurt the car industry with combustion motors (E-motor) and the energy providers (decentral energy prodcution by citizens and small businesses). Also: Imagine a street where Starbucks has a branch. Could make it hard for a little privately owned cafe to compete with them. Starbucks has the advantage of size, brand recognition, the little cafe can offer individuality. Starbuck can avoid paying taxes - the small entrepreneur not. That alone gives the big player an unfair advantage and may in the long run skew the system.

+Xyz Same You confuse monopoly with oligapoly. In the latter, competition still exists, plus there are way too many markets for a single megacorporation to take them all over. Even less so, since new markets keep arising, when new technologies are discovered. Where was Nokia or Samsung 80 years ago? And the Small caffe vs Starbucks example perfectly demonstrates the power of capitalism: in order to be more succesful, than Starbucks, our little startup has to do something better. Either offer better coffee, better service, better prices, better ambience, etc. Or it has to do something unique, like the one where they have a bunch of cats in the shop for the customers to play with. Or it can target a different market segment: the "coffee snobs", by offering exotic and premium kinds of coffe, or those who just want to get their daily dose of caffeine for a good price. And could you elaborate on how Starbucks avoids taxes? If anything, it has to pay a higher percentage due to its huge income. Tax evasion has not benefitted any company in the long run, and unlike people, large companies tend to make long term plans.

it eventually does become a monopoly.

I'm sure that's why the porposition was defeated.

Drigger95 Don't spoil on the comments... Bloody hell.

Drigger95 I'm sure Britain is corrupt as hell

during our Neanderthal years people started to fence cattle and grow their own food they controlled their resources as oppose to having to survive in the wilderness. don't know why people in the comment section get knee jerk when they hear the word CONTROL.

+NOTA Democracy Perfect arguement against capitalism?

She's an idiot.

*were taxed* in the U.S.

You got a few things wrong, I'm afraid. Firstly, every single individual in the US was taxed prior to 1913, because the only taxes were consumption-taxes. As for the growth-rates of that period, they were at about 2-2.5% per capita per year, which is the same as what we've experienced up until 2008. We should also expect growth-rates to fall over time, because of the laws of diminishing returns and steady-state output.

New Deal (1930s!) and Roosevelt. After the Great Depression Incomce! and corporate taxes were very high in the US. After WW2 in 1945 the US had 200 % of GDP as debt. Today everyone would call it the end of the world and demand budget cuts. Not so Eisenhower. They packed more debt on top of that to finance an infrastructure investment program, the GI Bill (college education for soldiers to integrate them into the economy) and the Marshall Plan for Europe). Income taxes still were high, the highest tax bracket was 70 % (effecively). Good wages were paid. They were rising with productitivity - workers got their fair share. People who had a high income or corporations who made good profits paid high taxes - and these factors made sure the money STAID IN CIRCULATION among the majority of citizens. The state used the tax revenue for investments, reaseach, military projects, salary of state employees. Next circle: People working in these projects got good wages, they spent money in the economy (sales tax), businesses made profits and again paid high taxes, .... Hint: tax evasion was not possible then - not only forbidden because that would not have kept the busines world from trying, but very diffucult in a practical sense. So the business world lived with these taxes and they lived very well. If tax evasion would have been possible that would have interrupted the beneficial circle. Because the economy was booming, tax revenue stayed high and it was possible to reduce debt without problems or without disadvantage for the citizens. The US spent too much money on wars and in the 1970s globally unemployment started to rise. (One major reason was that production had become more and more efficient and less workers were necessary). Wages did not rise as much as they used to because of the unemployment (more profits for the corporations). That was a game changer and it is very impressive to view the charts and data. At that time the economic model would have needed an adaption (e.g. shorter working time without pay loss so that everyone could have a job and an income sufficiently high to participate in the economy. ) Instead the upper class "retaliated" for the high taxes they had to "endure" since the New Deal. Most did not understand that "you need to feed the cow before you can get milk of it". So Reagonomics and Neoliberalism became all the fashion. The US, Japan and Europe did never better than with HIGH taxes and relatively regulated markets (import restrictions, tariffs, capital could not flow as easily as today, banking was VERY regulated, speculation was regulated, the states not the speculators determined the value of a currency - so the value of the currency was more rationale than today).

Yeah, typical lefty makes up the rules as they go along. The arrogance of her deciding what socialism is to suit her argument.

also.. where is the argument for "yes, it works?". Forgive me, but what I'm hearing is "things are bad now therefore socialism is needed" which is like saying "we don't know how the universe was made therefore god", it might be something else...

Tories, more than likely.

right

And it is sad that my country, a former colony of America mostly thinks the same..

Nope. I am from South Africa. Another beautiful example of a world leading country turned into a dump heap thanks to socialism. Open your eyes. It has never and will never work, just like our Government.

Shut the fuck up

Raju Gurung That's because she's a New-Labour Thatcherite. She doesn't believe in Socialism, yes she'll brag about the NHS but she'll never suggest taking wealth from others and handing it to the poor. If her ilk don't pretend to be socialist why would the left vote Labour? The answer is they wouldn't.

She isn't there for a debate, she is there to complain about her history and oppression in another land that tried to implement socialism in response to slavery. It has nothing to do with capitalism and socialism. It has everything to do with a dream that doesn't exist, that never has existed, and that is purely theory, and furthermore, that wherever it has existed, it has lead DIRECTLY to the life she claims to have escaped, i.e. slavery. She doesn't explain how socialism works, she explains about how democracy works and how private enterprise lead to the freedom of the nation where she lives. It is a complete farce.

Deos Chris Hitchens said you cant fool the young. Go watch Stuart Varney and shut the fuck up. This is a conversation for highschool graduates and college graduates and who work two jobs. You dont work, and school was a communist plot to you, so you are on no position to debate capitalism or democracy or socialism. We on the Left are sick and tired of subsidizing people like you

Monopoly in capitalism is the biggest myth and a lie. And so over the top misrepresentation by the very same bureaucrats. Don't have state lobbyists. If someone has a better product its not monopolistic anymore.

That's a derogatory comment IMO

Pipboy Approved The argument of Marx pal is free enterprise and capitalism are not the same thing

Christopher McFadden Traditional Libertarians were anarcho communists and socialists who believed in workers coops and organized labor. Fascists lime you disgraced them. I'm do sick of you fucken Libertarians. Get lost!

You don't need to do that though. You just need to show up with an emotional story. You will get everyone that way, the rest can be cast off as bigots.

wkvalader More babble. More babble. She stated many historical references. You dont argue on emotion? You dont think anger at your own illiteracy and uninformed behavior is emotional?

Drew Blacker Ummm this is a discussion about political science and history. Its for people who finished public education and in some cases finished college and are now reading about the history of organized labor. You dont qaulify so get lost.

Drew Blacker Well, the socialists know free enterpise and capitalism are not the same thing. Through historical example after another capitalism has enslaved people. Do you want to know what empires conquered and enslaved people? Ill be happy to tell you.

@@Rpzinna basically every islamic empire, the aztecs, belgian congo, Rome, ancient persia, Alexander the greats empire, communist China,the sowjet "republic"...and so on. Those who did'nt: the British empire, the frankish empire, the HRE, and so on

+Joe Grodis You'd need to be a capitalist then, ideally you'd own a bank too then the government will print money for you. If you were a lowly corporation then you'd have to be happy with hand outs instead but you'll be looked after don't worry.

+GlenUK1 "You'd need to be a capitalist then, ideally you'd own a bank too then the government will print money for you. If you were a lowly corporation then you'd have to be happy with hand outs instead but you'll be looked after don't worry." That isn't free market capitalism, dip shit. what you described is crony capitalism which means that you are just about as close to socialism as you can get (state owned business for the social good) without actual state ownership, directly, but through the use of money and regulation as a means to control or even bully companies or entire sectors to toe-the-line. Remember the big banks that everyone hates so much? Well, they were following the rules that they are forced to by the government. When the shit hits the fan, people hate the banks....who were doing what they were told or risk other forms of government driven sanction. There are piles of examples out there, all of which are NOT the form of capitalism that they are talking about in these debates. Free market capitalism is far from what you think.

Joe Grodis Well the reason you dont have any money is you dont work. Anyone who works two jobs has a right to make their voices heard. You dont because you see public education as a threat and I have to pay for it. What else is new?

Socialism 187 tries 0 successes, care to try again?

+Jack Riordan Sure, until it works.

+Johnsen1972 Making dumb decisions doesn't make you crazy, repeating them over and over expecting a different outcome makes you crazy.

Your comment was really dumb, so I had to comment it with a dumb answer. I bet you didnt even watch the video.

Johnsen1972 I'm a different person from the previous comments. Or are you saying my specific comment was dumb and saying your reply to me was the dumb answer you responded with?