@Reuben Thomasson demand is not dictated by an elite club. It is dictated by the people. The fact that oil dropped hard is because people (the majority) stopped buying as much. Saying that Venezuela's fall is because of the market is like saying that capitalism is to blame for the high prices of coffee in east Berlin in 1986. You can't exploit capitalism and blame it when you make and error in a socialist state running in international markets. The mistake is on you.

Hugo Chavez, God bless this hero of the working class and to hell with the USA who have done all they can to ruin the economies of all who try a better way-A socialist way!

all thanks to the CIA and nothing to do with socialism

@Reuben Thomasson it didn't bring down Norway, the Emirates or even its neighbor Colombia who have and export oil... care to explain why?.... Let me guess, CIA

Bolivia has the fastest growing economy in all of Latin America so something is working right there.

I literally burst out laughing

Half wrong half right

If they're so doomed on their own, how come the US has to keep sponsoring coups and using sanctions to destroy them? I always wondered about that. Socialism doesn't work, but we still have to fight it as if it's the end of the world.

@@outdatedfarmequipment2702 It is easy to grow fast when you have nothing.

Such a strong statement in the beginning

@@gronddd363 it's an immediate turnoff.

where problem, comrade?

Absolutely loved that intro. Long live Socialism.

Stalin's corpse total more like 20 million people

And he left out Lenin who threw millions still in the gulags where they undoubtedly were forced into brutal and extreme human rights violations if not death.

Hahahahaha you liberals make me laugh

i bet he questions the holocaust too!!! - probably an anti-semite that epitomises the labour party!

Delusion at its best. I have rarely heard such revisionism. It is widely estimated that approx 100 MILLION people died as a resort of communism in the 20th century (and that’s at the lower end of the estimates).

That part definitely didn't age well

Bolivia under Morales has been tremendously successful.

@@batman76781 yep that's why the christian fascists and the CIA ousted him

Oof when you realise that Venezuela got fucked because of a collapse in oil prices not their social policies and that the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president of Bolivia was ousted by a right wing authoritarian backed by the CIA...nothing to do with the effectiveness of socialism or any variation of it

@@theLlamAbanna101 if their whole countries collapse because of intervention by one foreign power? doesnt sound very stable or successful to me

Mathematically, 700 million are still in poverty

They engaged in global markets, not capitalism. If you check up on China you will notice it is becoming more and more state-owned, state-planned every year. I don't understand the notion that socialism is by definition autarkical. No, socialism and communism are international in idea and don't shun global markets. They, in fact, praise and engage in them.

@@LajtSejbr privatisation and increasing individual freedom is also happening, something not characteristic of socialism

Point of information ... Bullshit !

that is because they didnt have the resources to be a self reliant market, thus needed to participate in global markets. Same goes for Vietnam(i would say Vietnam is socialist though unlike china, where i don't really know what to call it)

Well, that's like uhh... Your opinion man

Yeah, and someone go ask this guy how Venezuela is doing lately. lol

@@RaginMjolnir A lot better than the capitalist dictatorships across South America

Dick splat only because they started so much higher. Venezuela, when a capatilist country ranked in the top 10 economies of the world. Now it barely makes the top 100.

Because every Socialist country is alike, and every capitalist party is alike.

Ya know if you would have made some extreme capatilism of socialist belief remark, people of both sides would tear you apart or agree with you.....but you say this beautiful thing........and nothing lol.....shows you whos watching

@@greendragon2471 So you're saying that, for example, giving anyone vast powers will invariably corrupt them, right? So allowing people to hoard extreme amounts of money and thus gain immense political power because of the power of money under capitalism would have the same effect, right? I think you agree with social democracy there, pal.

@@Yesandsowhut what are you even saying dude? Did you know what I was even saying? Also I think I made a typo which probably made it sound different

Was thomas sankara corrupt?

Corruption, power, abuse? Ever heard of banks? Ever heard of defence equipment corporations? Ever heard of central banks? Ever heard of big pharma? Ever heard of big oil? Ever heard of big agro? Ever heard of big anything in the corporate world? The very principle capitalism works on is profit/money. Do you even see the potential of money/profit clouding a clean individual's mind to make the unethicial decision to, I dont know, may be cut down 100 hectares of forest to plant soya bean or corn? Or letting a colony of sea turtles die for a offshore drilling platform? How exactly socialism enables anyone to make them corrupt since the decisions are made on need basis and not profit basis. Even if something is needed but not profitable will be done under socialism, ranging from free health to financing innovation and experimentation to automate industry which may take decades. Profit (capitalist) making venture have to turn up a profit sooner or later or they are done for in a matter of years. Socialism will make mistakes and will correct itself as power of the people to decide their fate will ultimately lead to betterment for all. If you will have the ability to elect your boss you will. If your boss was accountable to you rather the other way round, they will stay clear of corruption. Sorry for the essay/rant. I dont mean it to come out like that, it is just that people commenting on socialism sometimes are not really bothered about even knowing the basic principles of how it works (including some of the people on that debate). And I am no expert either I must say, but I am familiar with the principles at least.

self aware wolf

You liberals make me laugh

@@acrimon3404 yeah and?

@@_Wakaz_ likewise

Okay, so you can't blame its problems on socialism?

And don’t forget stealing American businesses’ intellectual property.

Well it spent those first 40 years heavily industiralising

@@matthew5386 at the cost of the people.

@@billyb4790 yes because otherwise it would have ended up like india.

What about Bolivia ?

@@seankelly378 ah, you are already asking too many questions, Luckily for Bolivian people and Evo Morales they are not sitting on the pile of natural resources, if that was the case Morales too would be presented by our media as brutal dictator who need to be deposed ASAP. going back to your question last time I checked Bolivia is doing OK poverty is going down and literacy and health is going up, you can look it up i Wiki LOL also you might wanna have a look on Thomas Sankara and his terrible brand of socialism who was ruining Burkina Faso LOL

That will happen to a country that has lost its ability to trade. If socialism is so doomed to fail, then why must the USA keep up a blockade over Venezuela?

socialism: the only time a wall was built to keep its citizens inside the country....."but don't worry, we're still learning!"

Cuba is awful. Clearly you’ve never been or see the world with corrupt eyes.

@@AtlasofInfoif Cuba is awful to you. Every Caribbean country, other capitalist nations, from Guatemala to Haiti. Is even worse, hope you understand.

@Rick55749 These nations are not Capitalist. There are no Capitalist nations today. There are crony socialist nations, authoritarian countries and other mixed economies like those we see in most of the developed world. Haiti and these other dumps are good examples of ignorant people in charge, dictating nonsense to other voodoo loving ignorant people.

Ikr it was so awful in the USSR that when it was gone there were people fighting to get it back.

Oh yes how it collapsed when it was dismantled and illegally dissolved by Gorbachev.

@Damian wayne take a look at the 1991 Soviet referendum, you call that stockholm syndrome as well? 110 million of them?

people had no choice when decisions were already made by oligarchs. think before you talk, please.

@Damian wayne well, yes - which means it wasn't people's choice to give up the country.

Comrade Rhys this is such a bait comment lol

I feel sorry for you. R.I.P.

Whats the difference?

@@Mnnwer far right; pro abortion, anti lgtb, pro corporations, pro free market economy, pro identity politics, pro nationalism, anti trade union, pro privatisation Far left; pro trade union, pro lgbt, anti corporation, planned economy, internationalism, anti id politics, pro class politics, pro nationalisation. I mean, that's just glossing over, but if you honestly can't see basic differences, I don't know what to suggest

Live in Cuba for a week, you’ll transformed back.

Defending a supposed invisible man in the sky that had a son who was also him 2000 years ago is a little hard to do. I agree that Communism is horrible but Christianity has communist ideas in it when you think about it.

What he is doing is describing the extremely real phenomenon of socialist societies transforming into industrial powerhouses within the space of a generation. Here we in the West we remain wilfully ignorant of how a crumbling Tsarist empire became one of the world's superpowers through the power of collectivization and State-owned industry. We need never follow the moral example of the monstrous politburo, but in following similar collectivist policies we have already created a generous welfare system, a National Health Service, expanded the voting franchise to total suffrage, and ensured protections for the most vulnerable members of society. If it was not for socialism, our own society would have collapsed, and become obsolete, as indeed we saw in WW2, where we were utterly outclassed by the industrial power of Germany, and had to rely upon the industrial power of the USSR to keep them busy while we asked the US for help. To ignore these realities is to remain guilty of tremendous hubris.

Eastern Europe and much of the middle east fell apart after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Money and capital are two completely different things. Obviously you have no clue what you’re talking about other than repeating non-sence.

​@@deanunterreiner6588 Technically you are correct. They are however symbiotic, as one is necessary to obtain the other, and visa versa!

Above all else, capitalism gives you the freedom to choose. If that freedom stands alone, then it is enough. The other decides for you. If weak-minded or lazy then embrace it. I am neither.

So point them out for us

Bolivia on the other hand is the fastest growing Latin American country

Your argument, however, is sublime.

I disagree with authoritarian-leftism, but he does a good job of arguing his position when the consensus is stacked against him. I agree with you though, overall his position is part of a dated left tradition that most modern socialists and the left-wing in general would reject.

He is a cretin

You should learn to be more critical of what your father told you.

samsonlovesyou It wasn't an argument, it was a comment genius, just like this isnt an argument.

What part of "I own myself" from the previous speecher you didn't understand? Slavery is a violation of capitalism, because it violates ownership.

Yea don't talk down to me like that. Totally unwarranted. Just because someone puts forward the "i own myself" argument does not make it definitive

Slaves can be bought and sold as commodities. Slaves also provide a source of cheap labor. Both aspects have been used historically to make the capitalists who controlled them a lot of money. Capitalism is about the ownership and control of capital, and humans can be considered a form of capital. It is not some declaration of human rights.

The difference is nobody is calling for slavery to return! People ARE calling for a socialist states in the West.

And after slave trade ends in Western world, socialism brings it back. Incredible.

tumarfa These people don't see the problem with that sort of society.

I'm very much on the free-market, liberty side, but can you tell me what is so terrible about a social credit system? Assuming that it wasn't hacked or used dishonestly.

@Thelema9331 Yes, but you're explaining practical problems, and problems when introduced by a oppressive regime. But what's wrong with a social credit rating in theory?

@@neoepicurean3772 Whats wrong with it? Seriously? It suppressing free thinking and free speach. Everyone is forced to follow one agenda or suffer the consequences. And in theory, it can lead a democratic system into your formally mentioned oppressive regime when the ruling party uses it "wisely" to stay in charge.

@@matteloht Again, you are saying that the problem is coming from following 'one agenda or suffer the consequences': I'm saying separate the issues. I agree that a oppressive regime using it as a tool to enforce obedience is bad... but. What is wrong with the social credit rating in theory, without the regime control part. That is my question.

NO JUCHE IS BEST IDEOLOGY JUCHE GANG JUCHE GANG JUCHE GANG

Check the Morning Star online. Robert Griffiths has published many articles there

***** thank you for your reply.I would appreciate it if you had used "you've"instead of"they've" since It seems your main point is that China has progressed since "1949".As I in my first comment,tens of millions died under Mao's regime,from starvation between 1956 and 1966,and persecution between 1966 and 1976.How can you call that "progress"?I also pointed out that China began to progress economically after 1976 when we gradually abandoned socialism.With my own experience I can assure you we are more capitalist than any other state of the world.We have quasi-0 welfare ,All classes only worship money.I am not saying it's good but it's still better than the populus having no food to survive.To conclude,I am not biggoted against socialism,that's why I only attack this communist not the rest of the speakers.I agree that capitalism has problems.But we don't replace a system whose flaw is having tens of thousands of people living on the street with a system where millions die without food,millions in labour camps slowly tortured to death ,where you can be killed just because you forget wear the the badge with your dear leader's image(This literally happend under Mao's China).In short ,you don't replace a system which is not heaven with a system which is 100% hell on earth.That's why this communist disgusts me.Thank you for reading the words of a person who lived in a communist state for 18 years.

Nicely phrased. Very amusing

Sanctions are what fuck up socialist countries.

@@robertomartin59 Thanks

@@johncswheatleyfor his time Venezuela was doing great, and no one bats an eye. Now the Venezuelan economy has tanked with the oil prices. Suddenly it gets all the attention.

***** Robert Griffiths is not in the 'upper ranks' of the political world.

Earth.

***** Not true. Robert Griffiths is active in trade unions, academia, the peace movement and journalism. Many of those that work with and respect him are not communists.

***** they are not they are big money winning and although socialism has it's flaws capitalism is far worse.

Exactly -- their embrace of capitalism on a global scale is what helped them out of poverty. My God this guy is an idiot.

Jennifer: sounds like you know a lot about China! I also left a comment 08/20/2030. Would like to chat more on this topic, especially in today’s US-China relationship. Would like to chat over email: jeffz0607@gmail.com

E M that guy is a real idiot. You said I tried to say!

I don't think YOU know the more recent Chinese history. On how China was constantly rising while the capitalist countries were declining during the 2007 crisis while reducing the amount of private ownership and increasing the amount of centralized state planning. The fact China rose trough capitalism only happened because all the sanctions were slowly lifted off them and some hostility towards China disappeared. They purposely hampered their growth through capitalism only to be introduced to international communities. Now, as they are slowly becoming irreplaceable on the world stage they are getting rid of capitalism and are facing greater growth than anyone could predict.

Wrong China's economy started to grow after they joined the WTO

Does the opinion poll mean nothing to you? It's not even that they share the sentiments - they gave the sentiment.

It actually started in the 90s

Again, this is what the press told you, you bought it without question because you quit thinking whenever it is pleasant, and in your favor.

Okay, got anything to prove the press wrong other than articles on dodgy conspiracy blogs attributing all miseries of humankind to reptilians in Washington? I don't understand why people like you and Griffiths keep using monstrous authoritarian regimes like the USSR and Venezuela to defend socialism. I grew up amidst the ruins of Soviet-style socialism, among families who have been robbed of their modest farms, businesses, and savings after 1948. I've seen the border fences that used to be charged with 2000V current that nobody knew of until after the revolutions. People disappearing in the middle of the night because they said something negative about the Party in the pub. There was no joy, no security, only the grim certainty of continued hopelessness. Of course socialism does work, if coupled with common sense economic freedoms and accountability of the government - like in Scandinavia. Those countries are living proof that socialist healthcare and education with capitalist justice and market systems result in wealthy, egalitarian and happy societies. I don't understand why we still need debates like the above, why we can't just admit both systems need to work together for the benefit of both the disadvantaged and the ambitious.

***** Scandinavia became more and more left through out the years, and now this land has nothing else to offer than men that are so or even more feminine than the women and a bunch of people that decided to join the religion of feelings, where the government is their god, and will provide them with safe spaces, and forever security. All that for the cheap price of their own humanity, the freedom of being a human being as it is, and the lack of opportunity to become better versions of themselves, because if you better than someone else, you are definitely oppressing someone else. It is sad.

I've heard of what scandinavian lifestyle has done to their societies. I'd still choose lack of masculinity and reliance on a benevolent state over lack of basic human dignity and reliance on a malignant state.

Is there a problem with that

@@ianreynolds8552 yes it doesn't work

@@fuhleep7734 That means nothing, your repeating what your told.

@@scifispaceman1557 or what ive observed with other countries from now and the past. It's never been better than capitalism, the data is overwhelming on that. I doesn't work your ignorant

@@fuhleep7734 Yeah capitalism has definitely been better, I am being sarcastic, You ignore the poverty in the world and you only follow american propaganda

Not because if socialism, you're an obtuse twit if you buy the neoliberal propaganda.

+Max Stirner of*

Actually it was entirely because of socialism. Chavez made the country entirely reliant on oil, a finite resource. When oil prices dropped a few years ago their economy tanked since he had chased out all of the industry with threats of seizure. Now the Venezuelans want change. Stop watching cancerous trash like TeleSur and RT, state run anti-western propaganda sites, and realize that Noam Chomsky has gone fucking senile.

Spot on.

Nick Venezuela isn't socialist

Feliks Gailitis You don't think that the economic blockade, designed to impoverish Cuba, has something to do with people leaving?

***** Of course the gangsters, pimps and plantation owners fought against the Revolution. Their ill-gotten plunder was being confiscated by the people.

***** You still haven't responded to my original point: to what extent has the US imposed economic blockade contributed to the challenges that Cuba faces?

***** Americans (and Cubans, and they certainly weren't "pimps and gangsters" as was said earlier) had property stolen by the communists. After that they allowed the Soviets to bring nuclear missiles into their country to attack America and kill millions of innocent people. Anything that America did to Cuba was warranted.

Feliks Gailitis he lives in Wales actually

Red Emrys Socialism works only at family level. i.e a father giving money to his daughter. It sort of works at friend level with getting rounds but there is a sort of expectation and code of honour about getting a reciprocal round in. It stops working if you know someone who doesn't pay as much. Which is what happens with full scale socialism.

@@Tom_Hadler Guess what Lenin’s favourite drink was? Vodka? - Wrong . Lenin did not care much about food but loved a good beer. His favourite: the Russian-brewed brand “Жигулeвское,” or “Zhigulyovskoe.” It was practically the only mass-produced beer during Soviet times and is still very popular in Russia. It is available pretty much everywhere , although unfortunately not in the USA. Why have I inserted this anecdote? To illustrate that, by asserting that the provision of beer is dependent on bourgeois ideas (concepts) of honour and code, you have completely missed the point. Non-market socialism involves replacing factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system and provide the workers with better ale!

Red Emrys Your comment reads like a bot wrote it! Unsure of the point you're trying to make. Let's just agree that beer is great and so is vodka

@@Tom_Hadler You are not friendly, Tom. Goodbye

In what world is establishing a satellite state (which is obviously open for criticism) in anyway comparable to physically capturing, exporting and selling humans for your own economic growth for over a hundred years

since socialism is so bad and will fail either way why does america spend billions embargoing the socialist nations?

Shush

Alright Mr Torrance, are YOU the brightest spark? Mr Griffiths is much cleverer than you’ll ever be.

The slave trade allied the squadron of capital that funded capitalism I think was his point, as was the enclose acts that kicked the independent peasants(and that is no derogatory term) off the land they lived and into destitution that provided the labour for the capitalists in the UK particularly.

I think that's the problem of our time. The best model probably is a marriage of a few different ones and not outright capitalism or socialism. But nowadays it's all about the team and step one toe over the line to the other side and you'll burn for it.

@@tomasmccauley569 I'm not sure what your point is.

@@tomasmccauley569 And Mao's communism? I grant you that untrammeled capitalism is also bad, but I wouldn't say it was anywhere near as bad as the awful policies of socialism and communism that always lead to millions of deaths.

Daniel Hannan resorted to Godwins law....laughable considering that the Nazis were the first to privatize state owned industries.

MrReco12 Yes he briefly pointed out the Nazis were socialists - which they were - but the majority of Hannan's talk was around the conclusive evidence that free market capitalism, despite it's flaws, is vastly superior to socialism.

The Nazis were socialists were they? Cool. I guess if I go around saying I have a 12 inch cock that becomes true as well.

@@Starsandfunk £ucktard read the awful mein Kampf and then say again your lie that Hitler was a socialist.

*slow clap*

every time i read this quote i cringe hard. if anything this applies much better to capitalism seeing as it bases itself on the bourgeoisie stealing the value that workers have created.

***** No. You need to step out of that tiny Marxist box for a minute and understand a little bit of history. It's embarrassing that you know so little about the ideology that you subscribe to. Pre-communist Russian plutocracy, which forms the basis of marxist class warfare in such terms as the one you just used, is nothing like western liberal capitalism. The former is based on violent coercion to steal from the poor while the latter is based on mutual benefit and voluntary transaction. Capitalists only have so much power as you willingly choose to give them. Does coca cola force you to buy a can of coke at the barrel of a gun, or do you buy it because you value the product more than the money you hold.

tsarist russia didn't form the basis of marxist class warfare, what are you talking about? tsarist russia formed the basis of the bolshevik revolution sure but not marxist class warfare itself. marx developed his economics off the back of the conditions under which workers lived in britain during the industrial revolution. entirely different side of europe. capitalism distributes resources so 62 people own the same level of wealth as the bottom 50% of the world's population (rougly 3.7 billion people), there can be no mutually beneficial relationship in those circumstances. transactions within developed capitalist countries are as 'voluntary' as they can be but there is nothing voluntary about people working for these companies in sweatshop conditions to bring us our 'voluntary' choices. the claim that capitalists simply have as much power as you willingly give them is just plain false though. how does that explain the conditions of workers in the third world and in britain during the industrial revolution? these people have no choice but to 'give' power to capitalists, so it's not exactly a willing choice. also history shows us that when people collectively decide to stop giving power to capitalists fascist movements start in order to protect the power of capitalists so it's not like it would simply cease to exist if people decided to stop supporting capitalism.

oh, you just explained how the capitalist brakedown of 2008 happened. Bravo!

Not everyone is ignorant on this subject. Just because somebody goes to Oxbridge doesn't make them any better than you or myself. You must have heard of the saying "intellectual idiot". Well I have met plenty of those along the way nolanatm, plenty.

Ur dumb

You’re nuts! I lived in China and I’ve been in Cuba and neither are as he described. Lifted out of absolute poverty maybe… but languishing in poverty still. Compare that to the West.

thomuk2006 Because they actually have some of the most free economies in Europe, Sure they have High taxes and Social programs but their economy is still capitalist, They don't have heavy Regulation/Nationalization or Protectionism. Also these countries arnt as prosperous as Socialists and Liberals like to claim. With a sluggish GDP and most people making less money than Americans before and after taxes.

No, They are Capitalist. Care to explain why you think they are Socalist? Im 100% sure they don't use a Planned centralized economic model. Just a lot of State programs, And very Liberal social policy.

thomuk2006 Yikes, THAT'S the best you've got?

Yeah...because Cuba’s still using cars manufactured 50 years ago. Real economic growth and productivity...

@@situational476 A poorer form of capitalism.

socialism: where everything is free except the people.