Socialism DOES Work | Jeremy Corbyn | Oxford Union
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 12. 2013
- Jeremy Corbyn gives his argument that Socialism does work.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Jeremy Corbyn addresses the issue of healthcare saying that the socialist and communist thinkers of the 19th Century had a vision that healthcare should be available to all people, this had lead to the NHS today and is something we should be proud of. He concludes by saying the chamber should vote in favour of equality.
Filmed on Thursday 28th November 2013
MOTION: This House Believes Socialism Will Not Work.
RESULT: Motion Defeated
STAY CONNECTED:
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT JEREMY CORBYN:
One of the most left-win and rebellious Labour MPs.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 190 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Rights managed by Oxford Media Associates www.oxfordmediaassociates.com/
Filmed by Oxford Media Solutions www.oxfordmediasolutions.co.uk
The argument is 'Socialism Does Work'. What Corbyn has presented are the benefits of socialistic elements within a capitalist system.
I can assure you that’s what he was just telling you the beginning. The end stage would be a North Korea type regime
Nobody buys his lies nowadays
Charliegmc just because Jeremy doesn’t advocate for something, doesn’t mean upcoming socialists won’t either.
@@TONYxndHAWK communism isn't the collectivisation of the means of production, it is the collectivisation of property. Socialism is democracy in the work place, most socialists today advocate for a system that ables worker co-ops, stronger unions and retaining a market economy (while obviously decommodifying certain essential markets) it's not some USSR dictatorship where a brain surgeon earns less than a doorman like the right enjoy conjuring up
How is it a "capitalist" system when the government controls damn near everything?
So the premise of his speech is "I'm here to defend socialism, not the countries that implemented socialism".
He gave examples of socialist institutions that have existed in the country (like the NHS) which have been of benefit to society.
Paul Ireland Paul Ireland they’re socialised, not socialist, and they’re funded by a capitalism, ultimately.
@@ChrisGeden the modern usage of the word socialisms doesn't really mean what it used to mean. Socialism nowadays really means social democracy when most people use it nowadays which is what I'm talking about.
@@TheZeldoph No social democracy were the ideas of New Labour (Blairites), not Corbyn. The socialism which Corbyn and many others follow is the same Socialism which there always has been, the socialism which ruined the UK in the 70s. The socialism which always results in injustice.
Paul Ireland And I can’t believe that the right have managed to convince people that social democracy=socialism
The meaning of socialism is being shifted. What hes talking about is social democracy. Socialism is the workers controlling their workplace democratically
Cheers Barry
"or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That's the part people don't like and also the more likely path for a nation... MUCH more likely
@@Conflictedhotslol that's not socialism. I don't care what anyone says
@@barrysimpson7666 so socialism is defined by what you think, and only that. Got it
@@Conflictedhots socialism is defined by what socialists think. Not authoritarian politicians calling themselves socialists
This man is clinically insane, thank god he lost.
I know, it was a miracle that he lost!
@@blink8235 Bet you're happy now...
Is this what passes for rational argument in socialist circles? There is nothing but appeals to emotion in this video. Where is the reason, where is the evidence? Demonstrate to us why socialism works, don't just whine about the oh-so-poor, oppressed working class.
Tyler Hurson Ahaha I am not an anarchist although that might change but Anarchocapitalism is the ISIS of anarchism and an oxymoron too but its adherants still like to masquerade as anarchists regardless.
Vote Starlight Glimmer for a Brighter Future! Well there is a village in Spain which voluntarily is Communist or atleast identifies itself as Communist for example. I will say once again anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, the state which protects and legitimizes private property as can be seen by the force of the state, the police will punish people of violating private property unless the state is the perpetrator , eg. fine people for trespassing.When the oh so "tyrannical" state is destroyed the defacto leaders will be the capitalists if this utopian system of yours successfully destroys the state without some strongman getting in control instead , How can the hierarchical structure of businesses and corporations by their very nature being totalitarian be amended to be anarchistic? Will the workers have the amazing freedom to choose only between having to work to get just 1 loaf of bread a day(Or rather get 20 cents an hour) to live or choose to decline and accept starvation cause there is no minimum cause muh freedom? Why is the freedom for an individual to take away everyone elses freedom to use the means of production considered such a brilliant freedom? Why is the paradoxical nature of private property one that is often ignored by ancaps? What if the workers and/or majority do not want private property and/or anarchocapitalism to be in power in their country? Will the capitalists/ancapitalists use their fortune to buy mercenaries to beat back these dissidents?
Tyler Hurson to be fair he also has some false dichotomies, false equivocations and strawmen
Tyler Hurson You know the answer: they have a messiah complex. You also know that, when you scratch the surface, the people who are forever whining about "equality" are the biggest class and race bigots there are.
Vote Starlight Glimmer for a Brighter Future! These bastards would rather import the Third World to prove how "not racist" they are rather than help the Third World industrialise so that it too can become First World. Because that would be "imperialism" or something. And because, let's be honest, they don't think Black and Brown people are capable.
They don't see past their own noses. Never have, never will.
Corbyn, Corbyn for Labour leader. Please
blibberblib why do you hate the Falkland Islanders?
Nick Sullivan the one thing i do disagree on with him
Nick Sullivan Thatcher did until the Argies invaded. Her cabinet were almost going to scrap large assets in the Navy
en.mercopress.com/2011/12/31/thatcher-was-warned-about-risks-of-navy-cuts-a-year-before-the-falklands-conflict
Let's not forget the recent 20,000 personnel cut from regular forces.
Oh but the Tories are still patriotic because "muh Thatcher."
*****
way to miss the point and launch a strawman attack. I'm not a Tory supporter, but this idiot wants to hand the Falklands over to the Argentines.
Just looked up this. My mistake for not knowing about this.
“Hey guys having some socialism in a capitalist system works”
Title: Socialism works
But that’s not socialism... That’s a capitalist system with socialist ideals...
But that's really all were arguing. Were not asking to become a utopian socialist nation. We simply want for the government to embrace more socialistic practices
Thats the one, american magats are thinking theyre gona be full blown socialists smh
@@anthonym8303 No shit I watched the video, however the title is misleading, did you not read what I said when I was critisizing the title and not socialism?
@@Username-lt7lt socialism is an economic philosophy not a political one, Bolshevism was the political philosophy
It's just like Italian Fascists were capitalists and Fascists, both things are different
@@roguegenesis7020 Nigga if it was different then you would explain why instead of saying "It's different ok trust me even though nobody has ever said this it's different and I'm not going to explain why because I'm brainwashed and don't know it myself"
the man with the bell is just having some fun :)
You need to create wealth before you can re-distribute it.
geralldus. There’s plenty of wealth😂 there are loopholes allowing billionaires to offshore millions of pounds UNTAXED. That’s where our money is! Tories hide that fact with austerity.
Wealth isn't money .Capitalists are only motivated by money. Monopolising supply; creating artificial shortages; manipulating currency markets; usury lending: these are the preferred tools of the capitalist. How else can you explain financial sector PLCs making double the net profit of manufacturers, agriculture...?
@@hlund73 weath is money look at the modern economic system we are not trading in fucking grains anymore but if you really want us to go back to the stoneage vote labor!
Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money.
@@tectorama Well observed!
“The goal of socialism is communism” Lenin.
John H Yes. The communist manifesto sets out socialism as a step to communism, the step even.
The gulag archipelago and planned chaos are destructive books against any central planning.
@john h
i think you yet have to make your point.
Frederik Holfeld I haven’t made a point. I’ve written a quote.
@@GMU8 ah, ok. if that's enough for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A fantastic individual, and even if you didn’t like him or his political views weren’t for you it least you can admire this mans passion and effort for the working and lower classes! This man was just a little to early for our time in the world .
"you can admire this mans passion and effort for the working and lower classes!"
Provided they aren't Jewish.
@@MMDelta9 perhaps you should educate yourself on the situation in the Middle East currently and study the history of zionism before making such un educated remarks he’s also been cleared of what you are so say accusing him off most of it was a smear campaign by the right wing news and the opposition.
@@southwest3369
hes a filthy racist ffs....
@@keithcole9904 please provide factual evidence that backs what you are saying 🤣?
@@southwest3369
maybe ask his friends "hamas" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thank allah he will never back 🤣🤣🤣
I might be too ignorant but as far as I understand I have not seen a country that socialism works,
You seem to have missed a point. The NHS is proof of socialism working in Britain. Scandinavian countries often adopt socialist policies and routinely top all the measurable factors of the best places to live.
This statement "has never worked" is just a veiled insult linking socialism to Stalinism and the USSR which was very different and most can't even think of a socialist policy Stalin implemented.
But also this statement makes it sound like a purely capitalist country has ever succeeded which obviously is not true. Most people believe there is a balance to be struck because neither seem to work on their own due to the human nature of greed and corruption.
Hope that clears some of what the debate is getting at and realise why that statement is pointless
@@hunsler1006 Well show me what nacion has been successful with socialism, all the nacions in Africa, EU. and sothamerica, never have progressed , but stagnation, and misery,you missed the point Scandinavian countries only has a welfare siytem,but taxes are so high,Sweeden has to return to the market economy , free market; because after adopting the semi-socialist system the country was going to the drain after 2000 Sweeden came back to life, look Estonia, she got independence from Russia in 1991 and look what nacion is today the most promissing nacion in Europe they adopted the free trade, market economy, socialism is destructionism. in Britain after they adopted socialism came down after the war; and it was the greatest nacion ; wake up and smell the coffee
@@flaviot5226 you've missed the point again, read the above and try to take it in.
This is like me saying capitalism has never worked because there has always been social programs in typically "successful" countries that you like to point out
@@hunsler1006 I"ve got it you are right, however, most of the countries where healthcare is socialized like Canada the service is very lousy sometimes to get an appoinment with an especialist is a long way, unfortunately, there is no free lunch, besides prescriptions in Canada are very expensive. besides Canada's healthcare has decline especially with this PM. we have the worst in Canadian history, so that's an issue which is very complex. we must take into account economics??? cost in technology, medicine, professional doctors, surgeons, etc. there is not a perfect political system in the world, it is true should be free we all get sick;
@@flaviot5226 oh yeah, there are very complex issues. It's the same here in Britain, the NHS has never been in a worse state.
Still, I'm glad it's there 😅
Surely the lesson from history is that you need both decent socalised programmes and a market economy. Individuals pay their taxes for socialised programmes that benefit society and provide some equity. This includes Healthcare, Education and even the military and in return that healthy, educated society provides the market economy with innovators, business leaders and consumers.
Though monopoly and inheritance unchecked advanced capitalism will lead to gross inequality, a lack of social mobility, a powerless population and the exploitation of the environment.
Through an extreme socalised system there is little space to innovate, a lack of productivity, a disincentive of personal ambition and to much centralized power.
So you need to balance a market economy, with socalised programmes and a system of regulation where decisions are made for economic as well as environmental and societal gain.
Exactly. You’d think it was rocket science the way people talk about this.
This, well said.
Should point out that monopolies, the ones that are the most harmful, can only come about as a result of protective government legislation.
Hi@@2013branth, could you provide a few examples so I can understand your point properly? In particular, which Government monopolies and how they are harmful?
@@joemetcalf2235
What I mean is that Government Regulations create monopolies. Special interest groups may push for laws and regulations that protect them while harming the competition.
So Health Insurance in the US is the first thing that comes to mind. Each state in the US has different rules and regulations regarding health insurance. So say a firm from Texas wants to start selling in California, that Texas firm must then apply for Californian licenses, jump through the necessary legal hoops before being allowed to operate. By the time the Texan firm gets through all of that hoopla, it's already at a disadvantage compared to California firm(s) because of the time spent on meeting the requirements that the Texan firm is pretty much creating a new business venture rather than expanding their current model. Furthermore, their current operations have to cover the cost of the new operations in the hopes that it could pay for itself. In effect, Californian regulations protect California's Health Insurance Firm(s) from the interstate competition and vice versa. This has resulted in the US health care system is that of an oligopoly where one or two firms operate in a state, virtually without competition.
mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopolies
The next "monopoly" we have are brick and mortar restaraunts pushing for legislation that makes it harder for food truck operators to operate.
czcams.com/video/Y4dEtNFJ1bw/video.html
Next, we have a different kind of monopoly which is arguably just as insidious if not more so. Public transport.
Government is a monopoly in and of itself.
czcams.com/video/IDA8AyrtTN8/video.html
Public Unions have pushed for so many benefits that it is more enticing to work for the government than the private sector. As a result, the private sector is virtually gone, and public unions run rough shot. And guess who foots the bill? The taxpayer.
Apparently in New York, a unionised labourer makes $111/hr.
He never said a word about whether socialism does work or not; all he said was he wanted it to work. What an argument...
Believe what you want, that will make it true.
Lol dude's a few fries short of a happy meal.
"Capitalism has done X, Y, *AND* Z!!!"
"Ok, how will socialism actually work this time?"
"Didn't you hear me? Capitalism is evil!"
It's the only argument a socialist can make. It has failed every damn time in reality. Poor chap.
if ever i heard a contradiction-that was it just then. well done.
The comments about boris aged like a fine wine
There’s that premise of “the pie not being big enough,” that fatalistic idea, when capitalism proves to be otherwise the more people participate.
Jeremy Corbyn is clearly a very passionate individual, but having watched this video and listened to the things he had to say, I feel no closer to understanding why or how “Socialism does work”.
What do you mean, it's working just fine in many countries in Europe and has done for a long time.
I'd love to know where the poster is from and what their experience is. When you say "I am no closer to understanding" i want to ask "Who are you and what do you understand?"
then please listen it again..
@@kyletopfer7818 no country in Europe is socialist. They all are free market economies with a welfare state
@@dmg3736 call it what you want, I don't give a damn - we need: more even redistribution of wealth; inclusions of environmental management costs in our economy (free market carbon tax ideas are too small scale); massive government-lead investment in clean tech and research. We are running out of time to stop catastrophic climate change, and the capitalist market based system alone has not got the answers.
"Countries in the non-Marxist-Leninist category represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the term socialism and in many cases the countries do not define what they mean by it. Modern uses of the term socialism are wide in meaning and interpretation."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
Sweden’s pension system has become privatized, their lower income earners pay higher taxes comparatively to the US, and their business run more freely than the US. I wouldn’t call Sweden socialist.
Daniel Padilla there is no minimum wage either
60% tax rate if you make over what 70-75,000? Fk that, sht!!
may be, but they have a good social system.
our pension system is a hybrid program. We pay more taxes to afford more services and we have bigger unions so that we don't need minimum wages to protect us from corporations. If you wouldn't call it socialist would you mind implementing Swedens economic policys?
Togo Is Tiny. That’s fallacious propaganda. The wages are agreed upon between the unions and the representatives of the employers.
“Free market capitalist economy of the United States” hahahahaahah
What a joke that statement is. Been a joke since 1933.
Socialism does work
Spends entire segment talking about what is in fact a social market economy, not a socialist economy.
In all fairness right wingers constantly call people such as Corbyn or bearnie out as "socialists" to evoke a negative feeling without an arguement it makes sense to simply rebrand socialism for the sake of the masses.
I think it's funny how the Tories come in full tuxedo but corbyn comes dressed up as mr bean
He also wears hats, people aren't wearing enough hats in my opinion.
+Sam Nyström A silly hat that's cost him many votes.
+lee brondum The prime minister spends as much on one suit as he expects a homeless person to live on all year and you're telling me the way Jeremy Corbyn dresses is insulting?
bea haxby did you know we have government housing in this country and benefits for people who have nothing, people who are homeless are either too lazy to find a job so beg on the street then go home to their government homes at the end of the day or have spent their benefits on drugs or alcohol and have been thrown out their council homes
i have a friend who works in architecture and he tells me there are virtually no plans to build council housing and that the conservative government hopes to do away with coucil housing altogether in 20 years
A social program is not socialism. It's something that is financially achievable through capitalism!
I don't like Corbyn one bit, but I will give one tiny modicum of credit to something. That roundabout joke at the start was pretty funny.
@@BeeLeeBeats Yeah exactly, such social programs as health care and unemployment benefits are just the result of the generosity of capitalism. Socialism could not achieve these. While the generosity might still exist in people's heads, the financial generosity no longer exists.
Then a regulated market isn't capitalism. You can't draw the line with one economic system and then not apply that same meter stick to the other one.
@@BeeLeeBeats The true idea if socialism that society (the community) owns the means of production. What you described is an authoritarian branch of socialism.
@@asd-ik5er The USSR became a superpower through industrialization and taking advantage of its over abundance of workers. Industrialization became a wide spread occurrence due to Capitalist nations wanting to progress more. The USSR also gave healthcare and education yet the authoritarian regime still flourished. The healthcare was extremely bad and the conditions were said to be pathetic compared to the United States or Britain. It was bad due to the streamline in their nations aviation and research in order to accelerate their progression. To say that the USSR was a socialist success is like saying North Korea is a Utopia. While it seems true in some ways depending on how you look at it the truth becomes glaringly obvious if you look at the amount of human suffering and persecution.
What do you mean a social program is not socialism? It's literally in the definition. Having taxes that pay for universal healthcare for everyone is definitely not a capitalistic idea bud...
Dude has massive confidence.. calling these guys out to their faces
Massive confidence in a bullshit philosophy is not a positive.
Dude is a millionaire socialist living in a big house in one of the most desirable areas of London. You won't see him taking in refugees from Ukraine. Talk to an older person who was born in an East European country under the thumb of the Soviet Empire - they will tell you exactly how equal things were under Socialism: a fantastically wealthy elite (national leadership and their cronies), a wealthy upper class (Party leadership at local level) and the masses living in misery; plus rampant corruption among those with government jobs and widespread theft from the workplace among the rest. As someone once said, socialism is good in theory but doesn't work in practice - capitalism is good in practice but doesn't work in theory
@@xmfclick Actually I have talked to Eastern-European colleagues who grew up in the Warsaw Pact and nostalgia aside, they miss many things not limited to housing, employment, healthcare and generous holiday time. The same people expressed sadness at having to leave for western countries in order to build up enough wealth to retire back home (something they never worried about.)
So take that propaganda you've been fed out of your head and stick it where the sun don't shine.
@@xmfclick im sorry to burst your bubble, but we have unfathomably wealthy elites under capitalism. amazon workers pee in bottles to make more money for jeff bezos to buy a mini yacht for his super yacht to hold an helicopter.
@@sahar1213 :: As you don't seem to have much idea as to how the world really works I have to assume you're either a young person who's still idealistic, or an older person who just hasn't travelled much or read any history or watched National Geographic or the History Channel.
In the so-called Communist (actually Socialist) countries there are _always_ mega-rich elites. They get rich by corruption and stealing their countries' wealth. They mostly hide their riches from the country's population, buying gold, diamonds, property, yachts, artworks and keeping them hidden in other (Capitalist) countries, and they send their children to top universities in Europe and the USA.
In Capitalist countries there are also mega-rich elites. Some of them have inherited wealth, a few may have swindled their way to wealth, but I'd posit that the majority earned their wealth through business. Take Jeff Bezos: he had a business idea, started a company, wrote software, borrowed money (at risk, if the business failed), employed people (now many thousands of them), paid taxes as required by law, and became incredibly wealthy because people freely exchanged their money for the goods he was selling.
To address your point about Amazon employees not being given adequate working conditions: if Amazon is breaking the law then they should be prosecuted by the relevant authorities; if not, the employees should petition their elected representatives to change the law; and, ultimately, the employment market will resolve the problem one way or another (at the moment it looks like mass illegal immigration is working on Jeff's side, unfortunately). And if Jeff buys another yacht to house his helicopter, that means he's just given employment to a shipbuilding company and a helicopter company -- which, in turn, were started by somebody who had an idea, took the risk of starting a company, borrowed money, employed people, etc etc.
In Socialist countries you don't get all that. A political leader (probably unelected, at least not in a genuine election) tells a government bureaucrat to set up a company making, say, buckets (because everybody needs a bucket). The bureaucrat calls his brother and his cousin-in-law and agrees to make them the directors of the company and give them government funds in exchange for a kickback for himself. The relatives go to the local Mayor and do a deal whereby the municipality builds them a factory in exchange for making the mayor's son the factory manager. The machinery for the factory is supplied by another Government company but they can't supply all the machines that are really needed because they haven't been allocated enough iron this year. The factory managers and foremen are friends and relatives of the "owners" or of the Mayor or of other influential people in the town, and the rest of the workforce come from the town or surrounding villages and work where they can because being unemployed is illegal. They don't have the right to strike, or the police will come and beat them, so they work for whatever the company offers and they pilfer from the factory to make enough to get by. As the joke goes, "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us." You think I'm making this up? No, this is what actually happened in Soviet-era socialist countries all throughout Eastern Europe, as told to me by my relatives -- and the model applies (with small modifications) in current socialist utopias like Venezuela, North Korea and China.
In a capitalist (market) economy, people get rich by the free exchange of goods and services for money; in a socialist (government-directed) economy, people get rich by having "connections".
So, @sahar, don't apologise for bursting my bubble because I don't _have_ a bubble, just a clear idea of what Socialism means in the real world rather than the fantasy world of dreamers like Jeremy Corbyn,
Had a numbnut argue with me and said USSR and Maoist China were examples of successful socialist countries. Like what do you even say after that?
A. That guy clearly didn't study history. OR B. USSR no longer exists and Maoist China is now CCP... And we all know how thats going.
China economy only grew because they embraced free markets
@@mrquasar2922 China does not have a free market, it's called state capitalism.
Yeah, you talked with an idiot, all Authoritarian Leftists have to do, is talk about Cuba and Burkina Faso, which are clear examples of successful Socialism to own your illiterate ass, but they keep talking about Stalin and Mao.
I guess if they had brains they wouldn't be authoritarian but still smarter than Capitalists.
@@1997lordofdoom in Cuba, people literally have no way of getting medicine in their hospitals. You can ask any Cuban down in Miami or Tampa Bay about life back in Cuba, and they will tell you that they're in America for a good reason.
full respect. A principled man not in awe of the banks and privatisation. I only hope we have the balls to support this man.
Tele Player well said. Couldn't agree more!
United Kingdom: The next lab rat for the failed Socialist project.
Tele Player Say Hitler it's Godwin's Law, say Stalin it's false representation of Corbyn's socialism. Funny middle class liberals, no winning.
So what you're saying is that you admire shit principles as long as people are defensive in keeping them and refuse to modernise by a century. Fine by me. I also admire slave advocates, at least they don't change their opinions like the spineless Lib Dems. Principled people, they are.
Tele Player There's nothing to debate, this is clear cut. Corbyn is not fit for purpose and that is why every single major news media isn't even attacking him, they want him to win. This is why Tories are joining en masse to vote for him. This is why the hard left are joining en masse to vote for him.
People want him to win because he will never run this country and it's shameful to see my party be in such disarray, and I'm definitely going to another party if he wins.
Roy T
sorry, what are his principles that are 'shit'?
Everything that Jeremy shares here as his arguments for Socialism are emotional appeals. No evidence, no facts, but anecdotal stories of the wrongs in the world. I have come to learn that there will always be such things. There will always be people left behind, often times by no fault of their own. But that does not mean we need to tear down the greatest system we currently have that has elevated the most people in the history of the world to achieve a dream of nirvana/utopia that has never existed in nature, nor ever will. Maybe someday we can achieve a system that does just that. And I believe that this is what those arguing for Socialism are trying to do. But I also believe that this is what everyone at this debate is trying to do. What common sense/logic does it make to destroy and rebuild the best system our species has ever seen to achieve this goal with one that has failed everytime it has been put into practice.
I agree. To be fair, the argument before about the roundabouts against socialism wasn't very appealing or substantial either.
lol what. The existance of billionaires is proof alone this is not the best system. They could easily end world poverty but it is not profitable to do so
lumiere Yeah the existence of Bill Gates who created thousands of jobs and made everyone's life incredibly easier is the proof of the evilness of capitalism.
lumiere And sarcastically socialism is the main reason why people starved in the past century
@@lumiere930 The best means better than all others. Under socialism governors are by no means poor people, they get their needs satisfied before all others, they enjoy luxurious life compared to the rest of society (and most of the time have access to luxuries provided by capitalism). So I do not see how socialism is any better in this regard.
I still haven't heard any proof and the entire thing sounds like it's more emotional than logic. Capitalists point out where socialism hasn't work, where has it worked? I'd really like to know. And don't say Sweden - I'm from there.
This was nor a defense or case for socialism, but simply a criticism of capitalism.
"We live in a society"
Jeremy Corbyn -- 2013
Underated comment
Sounds like communist propaganda but I digress.... haha
No shit
"There is no such thing as society"
Mergaret Thatcher -- 1987
khang milton the duality of man...
"It doesn't mater how beutiful the theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with the experiment, it is wrong." Richard P Feynman Don't listen to what they say, watch what they actually do.
Actions really do speak louder than words.
One of this main points was about the healthcare system and if you look at america's healthcare system vs other countries where it is essentially free then I would say that it supports his theory quite well. I'm a tory voter for context
The rest of the world gets to benefit from the advancement and breakthroughs of the American medical system that aren't happening at the same rate or with the same impact anywhere else. That system requires resources. Companies create resources through transaction. Governments create resources by taxing those very same transactions. So the American system essentially cuts out the resource wasting, bureaucratic middle man and infuses the resources directly into the system.
And it might look expensive, but keep in mind the financial costs of other systems are hidden in the tax codes, paycheck after paycheck.
I get to take the same money and set it aside in my own account where I am the one that gets to keep the interest of that pool of money (1.75% paid out monthly) until I need it for a procedure.
That's like a feudalist saying that capitalism has had too many failed experiments before it was fully developed
Pedro Prada Carciofi the 2008 housing bubble had nothing to do with capitalism?
The socialist aspect of the society are fully propped up by the capitalist structure. Its funny how the things that are spending at a deficit to profit are the socialist parts, I'd like these parts be put into a socialist society see how they work then.
He should be in jail
“Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.” Winston Churchill
Yeah Winston Churchill also sent the black and tans into Ireland funny how he wasn't able to "foretell" what a collosal fuck up that would be
Churchill said he wasn't worried about his place in history, he was going to write the history.
Bingo. It could argued that we went too far in the 70's. We've gone too far right now. We need to steer left to stay level.
The problem we have is that the Labour Party, playing the distorted game of the Tory media, have excised all the energy and policies needed to course correct. They are Tory placeholders now, not an opposition. There will be no transformation under them. It's going to get hella worse.
Politics in Victorian era framed this view of Winston Churchill, that they did.
Say it with me: Just because a famous person said it doesn't mean it's true.
He actually didn't say why "socialism DOES work." It was just that fancy "this bad, this good" thing again, as all the others. You should change the title.
I think they simply titled this video that way because Mr.Corbyn is attempting to somehow counter the argument that "socialism doesn't work" presented by earlier speakers in this video collection. I agree he didn't offer up anything beyond the tired "this bad, this good" argument as you put it.
@@Somewhat-Evil thank you, you're correct, there's a video on this channel titled "Why Socialism DOES NOT Work," probably presented by the previous speaker, as you wrote. Still not a totally accurate title, but it makes more sense now.
Socialism in a nutshell is making everyone happy. It has capitalist values like having people being paid wages for their labour but what socialism want is that people get paid the correct amount of money for their labour. Socialism makes sure that all is happy and it works. School is socialist, the police are socialist, firefighters are socialist and our greatest thing in this nation, our NHS is socialist. If the torys has their way the poor would rot on the street to die as they would be no way for them to learn because schools would be privatised, if a fire happened, they would have to sit and watch, if they got mugged they wouldn’t be able to bring justice and if they hurt themselves they would just have to...die. If the torys has there way we would be living in the medieval times so therefore socialism works.
Socialism sucks at paying people at right amount particularly because without market you can’t figure out how much everyone should be paid.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 also I'd say income inequality is the issue and that's usually what is happening in strong economies
Mr Corbyn forgot about the fact that British “socialism” was a huge welfare state which could not survive without capitalism. If he wants to defend “true socialism” he should be ashamed.
“Hey guys you know how everyone who jumps from 100ft dies? Well let’s jump from 90ft, I’m sure we will be fine.” - This argument in a nutshell
-- a guy that didnt fucking watch it
@@JacobR522 your right, I just found this random video by this random guy I never heard and decided to leave a critical comment because the CZcams gods wished it.
Seriously though his general thesis was that everyone does enjoy some socialist ideas (which I agree) but then gets pretty flustered when presented with evidence of how when taken to its ultimate conclusion socialism in all forms has produced disastrous human tragedies and death. His general response is again let’s just go 90.. not 100.
@@DreamHHS not in all forms. For example, Yugoslavia collapsed due to rising nationalism and tensions between ethnicities, not because of Socialism
@@saccorhytus right, but socialism and Marxism tend to have a propensity to devolve into and even promote nationalism. Most current socialist countries used nationalism as a tool to spread the idea of socialism in their early days.
@@DreamHHS no, they mostly use patriotism. Also just cuz they supported something a few decades ago doesn’t mean that you should do it now but WAY worse
Tbf, he has some balls going to Oxford uni knowing full well he will tax the shit out of these future high earners.
Socialists only want to tax land owners and businesses owners if e can avoid taxing actual workers.
Lack of self awareness and a brass neck ....= Socialist
@@jodinha4225 Bollocks.
If socialism is so good, then why isn't there a socialism 2?
Cascadesbmx capitalism will rain down on them , place sanctions and go as far as planting propaganda jus to start a war and got loot as they do in Africa
China
Watch the United States for the next decade or so. There will be a socialism 2.
Because the people making the most from capitalism are the people with the most power.
Chile, Uruguya, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, Canada,. All of these countries have some regulated free market, but built on a strong base of socialist policies. These countries are socialist, you like it or not.
These Capitalism vs Socialism debates keep overlooking the fact that most developed countries have mixed economies. So it's about how much more or less you want of each?
these debates are always frustrating because they always repeat the same points and look more to the history of socialism rather then what it is! "look at Venezuela" "look at north Korea" "look at china" not only is that communism which is a variety of socialism not all socialists are communists, its also so annoying because instead of looking at what socialism actually is they look at all the corrupt and false "socialist" states, when i argue about democracy or capitalism we don't think about all the extremely poor countries they call themselves democracies even though its just a façade
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 well fuck you then, rude asshole
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Intended outcome vs reality of outcome are two very different things and a lot of people cant gasp this basic reality or strait up refuse to accept it.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 ah ok, well sorry for lashing out
Neither system in it's purest form really works. You need to find a healthy balance.
The "purest forms" are just concepts. It's useless to call everything that is not the purest forn of either a "mixed economy". It's a scale and the argument is between the socialist and capitalist ends here.
Capitalism works without any socialism. It already did
Government mandated altruism. You must be altruistic by command of the government
Funny that these socialists claim capitalism is evil....yet fail to grasp their own negative views being the problem. Socialism starts with the belief that humans are innately evil, selfish, and will not help others unless forced to do so. How positive and progressive a world-view eh?
@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 but its actaully a fact that people will not be civilized unless there is a certain set of rules or government. its also like this in religion. and any form of government has enforced this to some degree.
@@dudefrombelgium Then cite your source for this fact champ.
You might be surprised to learn just how well intentioned those people are....and how the need for rule, be it through religious or political decree isn't something that needs to be enforced nearly as much as you think...and is really needed more to keep people working together to achieve a means. True leadership doesn't come out by force. It comes from inspiring people. Leaders are people who get others to see their vision. It's why Dr. King said "I have a dream" not "I have a gun, no do as I say".
Ask yourself a question, do business owners only pay employees what they are forced to by law? Care to venture a guess as to what percentage of workers are paid minimum wage?
@@dudefrombelgium Why was government and rules created in the first place then
@@joaquimpereira4995 to create order and context
Guy with the bell reminding everyone that he is a bell-end.
The most accurate description ever.😂
@@michaelgrant169 With communism you would be forced to wipe them.
Bell end
Ace Adventura I’m a huge fan of Corbyn and I still fucking laughed
With wit like this from his opponents no wonder he won.
If ‘everyone pays what they can afford’ who decides what people can afford? and will that not take away any incentive to better oneself financially?
Love how debating capitalism makes jokes and that is their #1 go to... I think of Cenk
This was one of Oxford's most entertaining debates, very enjoyable.
a comedy show, thats all this is
@@tomrawley6549 John Redwoods analogy regards traffic lights / jams and socialism was good even with the comedy / attempted comedy taken out.
Only selfish idiots would think that it is OK for the Rich to keep cheating their workers out of $1.5 Trillion dollars in wages each year was OK! That is How Much these Corporations cheat their workers with low wages and No benefits every year!
Why, do you think that American companies move to 3rd World Countries? They want to pay almost 0 in wages and Republican Policies allow Companies to pay 0 on the Billions in income and Profits!
TAX THE RICH!
@@larrybarnhouse9989 Companies investing in low income areas or poverty stricken countries is a good thing.
Makes a change for them to have a debate, they normally cancel anyone they don't agree with. Don't want the little dears hearing other ideas or opinions.
Like how he can only bring his arguments forward by strawmen, appeals to emotions, and being outraged
That's because the moral case for socialism is the only case to be made in favor of it. You literally can't make an argument for socialism without appealing to emotion.
Just for fun, Try to count how many logical fallacies he actually employs. Here's some videos explaining the Fallacies:
czcams.com/video/xkoMdnCS6Og/video.html
@@alexanderedinger The entire case for socialism can be boiled down to the desire for fairness/equality of outcome (the supposed morally right thing) . This isn't about pros and cons, it is what the movement, at its core, wants to achieve. If you want to try to make other cases for it, be my guest.
@@alexanderedinger I did not say that at all. I said that you can't make an argument for socialism without it coming from moral grounds. You really need to improve that reading comprehension, it will not get you far in life.
And as I previously stated, if you want to attempt making non-moral arguments for socialism please do so.
@@reishin6 easy: as a result of robust equality more people have more buying power and thus a far larger portion of the population can support the economy. Additionally, through health care people live longer and healthier lives, further extending their economic activity by years if not decades. By nationalising industry the population is able to better control and maintain the prosperity of that sector and, as seen with Norway's sovereign wealth fund, generate a stockpile of cash that can be reinvested in social programs creating an exponential positive feedback loop. And here I am without bringing up the morality, though it is the cherry on top, isn't it? Honestly, once you take the blinders off it's easy to see that socialism is the best thing to ever happen to free market capitalism.
Name a single successful socialist regime in a democracy
*IMPOSSIBLE*
@regurgitated memes if you define successful as people got fed up of them after one term and voted the tories in again
@regurgitated memes UK 1945 - 1951 is one of the best examples to illustrate why socialism does NOT work, has never worked, and will never work.
Revolutionary Catalonia?
@@alex_flynn it didn’t work
Loved this, it's possible to not be on the extreme between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism.
Socialism fails, consistently, because of one simple reason: it penalizes success and rewards mediocrity....at least until it runs out of money, then everyone is penalized.
Choosing socialism is like unscrewing the spark plugs and still expecting the car to run on just gasoline.
Civilization relies on constant innovation to advance, and it must grow to succeed, it cannot stagnate for too long, otherwise it collapses under its own weight. People high in ambition, creativity, industriousness, adaptability, discipline, intellect are the driving force of civilization NOT workers (who generally have no aptitutude and have to be given directions to be useful). I'll admit, all talent with no workers is counter-productive too (at least until all work becomes securely automated with robots). But there will never be a shortage of underachievers, the point is to maximize the talent.
Peace & Prosperity your wrong on many levels. Socialism gives the opportunity to everyone to be what they want for little to no cost. It allows those who are creative to be exceptional. Look at the Soviet Union, they had the first man in space and lead the country in many aspects. My father was able to become a technical engineer for very little money with very good grades. We should not suppress opportunity because of the name it carries. My father would never have been able to afford to go to university because his mother was single. By giving education to everyone we allow for the maximum potential in humanity. In Capitalism, we neglect those who cannot afford education by making it way too expensive.
Montreal VSM you really used the Soviets as an example of socialist success?....laughable, and a you used a very narrow argument indeed. This is the same government that gave us the startling incompetence that lead to chernobyl. Just because your dad enjoyed “free” education does not mean it didn’t have a cost, because it did. The biggest problem in socialism is the absence of a consumer market. Without that you can’t even gauge the value of commodities accurately, leading to waste and misuse.
True equity of outcome requires unequal treatment of people, which is unfair and immoral. Alternatively, when people are treated exactly the same, which is fair, outcomes will always differ. That is a natural phenomenon in all mammals, due to hierarchies of competence, nothing to do with society.
Socialism demands mediocrity.
@@montrealvsm3301 I mean the reason college is so expensive is because the government subsidizes it so college's know regardless of if a student can pay off his debt they get their money up front. These are the same colleges that pump out socialist like a goddamn Ford factory. Awful convenient. I agree college is absolutely to expensive but we need to find ways to make it less expensive like it once was but that would threaten the cash cow enjoyed by a lot of those who run and work these colleges and they will throw every buzzword in the progressive book to shame the public into buying it. The question isn't "why doesn't the government help to fund college education when it's so expensive" but simply "why is it so expensive when an internet connection and a decent work ethic can get me the same level of education"
Blah blah blah
The problem with socialism is that it makes everyone equally poor and eventually you run out of other peoples money.
The problem with stupid, overused quotes is that it makes the fools believe them and you eventually run out of them and are forced to defend your poorly researched positions.
Gothicfan51 It's an oldie, but a goodie and it's right as rain. The only fool is you. Now get off your Capitalist iPhone and stop posting on this Capitalist video service. :-)
RangerAmbient Yes, because anyone who drives a Volkswagen Beetle is a Nazi and should just get out their NAZI car and stop driving it.
Anyone who uses the Moscow metro is a damn Stalinist and should stop using this method of transportation, anyone who owns an old pre-revolution house is a damn loyalist to the British crown.
*The problem with stupid, overused quotes is that it makes the fools believe them and you eventually run out of them and are forced to defend your poorly researched positions.*
Let me guess, you are going to post another 'stupid, overused quote...'
You're making a silly leap there. Capitalism drives innovation and change. Technology, if owned by socialist governments, would not enjoy nearly the amount freedoms and amazing evolutions that technology has experienced in the past 15-20 years or so. Capitalist markets let the bad companies and products die to make way for better products for the consumer. We are not forced to use products that don't improve. Capitalism gives us Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Amazon, ebay, etc. Capitalism gives us the freedom of choice. It forces corporations compete for your dollar by creating better products every year. Money is given to those that make our lives better and easier, not to those who don't contribute or to those that make awful products. And the best thing about Capitalism? If a corporation can't hang, it gets eliminated by the public driven marketplace. It's a corporate killer (when governments don't issue insane taxpayer paid socialist bailouts) and lets the good companies succeed. It also forces my small business to offer better prices, better products and better service to the end user, the general public.
Well, it's Saturday night. Time to choose an awesome beer to drink. Maybe a small microbrew!
RangerAmbient
*Capitalism drives innovation and change*
That's why most advances were/are financed by the public money via the public sector...
*Capitalist markets let the bad companies and products die to make way for better products for the consumer*
Ekhmm, Time Warner, Comcast, Apple e.t.c Are these dead? No, they are not despite the fact that each offer a terrible service. That's because they have a monopoly of information, how could a consumer make an informed choice when he is lied via every mass communication medium.
Capitalism doesn't kill shit, especially if there's a monopoly.
*Capitalism gives us Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Amazon, ebay*
The government gave us NASA which is responsible in some way or another for innovations used by all of these companies, Internet was built by the US military and expanded in CERN in 1989, you wouldn't post what you just did if it wasn't for public money, also the USSR won the space race by a mile and they sure weren't capitalist, so many innovations of the Soviets are now being used by the world(LED's, Space rovers).
*Capitalism gives us the freedom of choice*
You had freedom of choice in ancient times(Arabia), you could just go to a market and buy what you needed from a seller that you wanted, that's not capitalism that's TRADE.
*It forces corporations compete for your dollar by creating better products every year*
No it doesn't, why hasn't the cost of healthcare go down if this is the case?
Why don't we see corporations popping up providing cheaper/better healthcare?
A government act known 'Affordable Care Act' had to be passed to finally guarantee people that they will get coverage(once again government saves the day).
*Money is given to those that make our lives better and easier, not to those who don't contribute or to those that make awful products*
Yes, I can see all these bankers starving on the streets because they have no money...
*taxpayer paid socialist bailouts*
Wtf did I just read, YOU, CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS! Why would a socialist system of power, bail out a PRIVATE corporation? That's stupid and you know it!
* Socialism definition= : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Meaning that lazy people are not getting money for nothing, it means that if you work, you get money, you get to live as you are a part of the Proletariat, if you don't then you don't get to share the resources.
This is the constitution of USSR 1936:
ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.
So the more you work the more you are getting paid.
If socialism works try it in a pub.
Name me one country where Socialism has worked.
Finland.
Did Corbyn say "im not here to defend Stalin and his strange views"
Strange view of socialism?
@@triplea7536 yeah stalins strange view that socialism means being allowed to starve and kill people
@@electricpants8194 you know what? Stalin made socialism work. That's what needs to happen for socialism to happen. I was wrong. Socialism has worked but in order to work it requires the collective suffering of the people. You've changes my mind. Congratulations
@@triplea7536 why are you acting like i said socialism was the collective suffering of twats who cant stand up to a government that wa set up to overthrow an authoritarian government
@La ϟϟ no? The USSR only grew more powerful as a result of Stalin and winning the war. Stalin didnt lead to the collapse of the Soviets. It was a lot of factors that stemmed after Stalin's regime. Mg point is Stalinism worked, but led to the deaths and suffering of Russians en mass. He made socialism work as long as that happened. That's the only way to make socialism works. Strip freedom. People think under a socialist government their civil liberties wouldnt be affected. Flat out lie.
Why does he keep saying "I want to live in a society that..."? This isn't an argument, he spends half of the debate saying what he wants and the rest attacking the existing government policies, never once did he say or provide evidence of it actually working.
These societies do exist, there are more societies in the world than the UK. Open your mind.
bruh thats socialism they have no new ideas its all in the holy book written by the prophet karl marx and if u follow the book the ultimate utopia will happen trust me its like magic u gotta believe in it to make it happen ask the cambodians
@@ojberrettaberretta5314 you said "holy book" and "prophet karl marx"? and the liberals call conservatives sycophantic to donald trump, how ironic! also "ask the cambodians, " and "its like magic" is stupid, theres a reason the first search result from cambodia is "cambodia human trafficking" and cambodia povery"
@@roofkorean2067 sarcasm,my dear
@@ojberrettaberretta5314 welp I'm sorry, i guess I couldnt tell when I wrote that comment
No. Certain elements of socialism may work, sometimes, when blended with some elements of capitalism and other systems. Socialism alone has NEVER worked.
The USSR was attacked by 14 countries within ONE YEAR of inception, and went on to have the biggest explosion of industry, art, music, poetry, diplomatic and military power, theatre, technology, space travel and crushing of nazis starting from a backwards feudal peasant nation.
socialism never works tho bro..
NO IT DOES NOT!!! Stop lying!!!
"Socialism is where the government does stuff, the more stuff it does the socialister it is"
-Carl Marcks
@kevin walker Do you ever have an original thought kid? :D
@@DominusTheOne Socialism means the government has full control over the economy when capitalism means you have economic freedom.I would chose capitalism. Everything will slow down if gov takes over especially in the manafacturing industrys. Also what side of the argument are you on?
Socialism is where the government owns means of production. Fascism is where it is privately owned (also socialist) publicly directed.
Both are collectivist and infringe on private property.
Private property ownership is capitalist.
The government passing rules and taxing is collectivist/socialist to a degree. The more rules they pass and taxes they collect, the more socialist they are.
Can we agree on terms?
I'm sure socialists want to act like fascism is completely seperate just like they want scarce resources to be more abundant but there it is.
@@tbxmxdog9187 Are you..are you for real?We are on the internet you know...If you want at least the most simplified and basic definion of something go check it out.Socialism is not what you are talking about.Also I recommend you to study a bit about the history of socialism.It's the movement of the opressed workers constantly fighting to earn basic human rights denied to them by their bosses...So with whom do YOU side with??
@@ProlificThreadworm Plz educate yourself.You have everything mixed up at a very dangerous level.Open up an encyclopedia at first and then maybe a history book?Maybe some Karl Marx after that? :D
Still waiting on proof of a socialism based nation doing extremely well. Not a mixed economic system area, full on socialism. It's amazing that these people always try and tie socialism to morals and similar things to try and make themselves appear to have the high ground. They don't. Socialism doesn't work. You can't say "well, some have benefited from socialism" and then say it should be fully implemented. These people sound smart but they're not. It's just a lot of hot air is all. Besides, how can anyone claim socialism can solve poverty when it has historically lead to poverty. It's all theory without practice, it's nonsense.
@3dokid How dare you make sense.
meanwhile I will live in this catastrophe called the free market.
@Mr Very noice and the millions it's put into poverty. Or haven't you heard of food banks, or the increase in child poverty, increase in homeless increase in violence and that is just the UK . Apparently one of the richest countries in the world. Hail capatlism hail our saviour. Thank God for such a democratic system. It's great. It's really great. No I mean great system.
@Mr Very noice I'm afraid it hasn't taken billions out if poverty just 50 yrs ago the world has half the population. So no it hasn't taken billions out of poverty. It may have created the facility for more people to exist. But it still hasn't taken billions out if poverty in fact you will find that in almost half the population of the world lived on less than$10.00 a day. UNICEF says 22,000 children DIE a day THROUGH poverty. So think about that . But if you want to keep your eyes shut it's your choice. Like I said it really is a fair and just balanced system that works so well.Also Oxfam estimates it would take € 60 billion a year to end extreme global poverty that's less than 1/4 of income of the top 100 richest billionaires. So Mr Very noice have a word with your friends and get it sorted out. Prove to me what a great and just system it is and I will honestly celebrate the success.
@Mr Very noice spread of wealth it has everything to do with capitalism.
Of course it does! Just go to Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea to see how well it does work. Too bad you can't go to the Soviet Union or the Eastern Block anymore to see how well it worked there too! :)
Corbyn is an eloquent speaker.
Thank God he's no longer leader of the Labour party.He made Labour unelectable.
You want 8 to 24 hour wait time in the ER? Cause this is how you get it.
No, that's not true. If you have an emergency (er presumably standing for emergency room) you will be seen near enough straight away. The reason the waits are long for non emergency issues is due to tory cuts.
They didn't. They made cuts, so that it would become progressively harder for the NHS to function, until eventually they point to it and say "this is what the inefficiencies of public funding gets you" and then they privatise it, at which point we have a health care system analogous to the US which nobody wants.
@@TheRugFace Beats having no affordable health care.
Wait what? We currently have extremely affordable healthcare (free at the point of service), and it can remain so, if not for nefarious powers who want to make it worse. The response to that isn't "Well a much worse healthcare system is worse than no healthcare, so we should just do nothing to the NHS".
@@TheRugFace whic Country are you talking about? Also I wasn't suggesting that we do nothing to the NHS. I am suggesting that it needs improvement not scrapping.
It does work. It works to transfer all power from the people to the Government, which disregards human rights and ultimately the value of human life.
Tell that to sick and dying coal workers who lost their jobs and cant afford healthcare while their companies owner made millions or more liquidating the company. Capitalism puts value on profits not human life. Socialism is a response to capitalism and seeks to put power in the hands of workers precisely because their lives are valued.
Jeremy S I wonder what shit you are smoking, because when has a socialist country EVER put the power into the peoples hands? Surly you can’t be talking about Venezuela, or the more socialist policies in some parts of Europe. Those that are beaten down by the European union that only better the politicians and ignore the peoples democratic vote? Socialism is for people like you who are too lazy to work and want free shit.
@@TheMoonisFlat223 "when has a socialist country EVER put the power into the peoples hands?"
A better question would be when has there ever been a socialist country. The answer is never. You will find that whenever a country start trying to put its economy in the hands of the people, foreign powers try to invade or otherwise cripple the economy. In which case the country either collapses and is subsequently ruled by right wing authoritarian dictators propped up by said foreign powers. Or a left wing dictator takes control and successfully fends off the foreign powers but the country ultimately loses common ownership of the means of production which is the defining characteristic of socialism.
On the other hand you can point to several successful socialist organizations like co-ops which show the economic viability of socialism when not targeted for destruction.
People like me have had a job since they were 14, and paid their own way through university to get a PhD in physics... We aren't lazy and we don't want free shit. You just don't understand what socialism is, or what problems it tries to address. Socialism is for people who recognize the flaws with capitalism and think we can do better.
@@taravanova You have way too much confidence in the people that need to take care of your country if they go full socialism. It's Utopian. You talk about coal workers, it ain't the only job in the world. There is other stuff. Here in Holland there is a safety net for such people, it's socialistic. Almost all European countries have it. It's a good mix of both, that's what you need.The freedom of capitalism and the care/safety of socialism. Not to forget that there is still a lot that goes wrong, like privatized healthcare, raising the healthcare prices immensely for over a decade. Pensions that decrease because people get 'older'. Collapsing banks, debts, money that keeps getting printed. Corruption etc.
@@nozirohhh I'm not convinced you understand what it means to go full socialism. I think you are equating it to some kind of Stalinistic regime where the government, being only a few people, control everything. But a small number of people controlling the means of production is the opposite of socialism. Socialism in my view is when workers have some representative control over the businesses they work at. Under this framework, you can have a democratic government much like what already exists in western countries. Although I am not a fan of private enterprise, I haven't suggested they be banned. Instead I think we should have laws that facilitate social enterprises. For example, when a private owner wants to sell their company. The first right to purchase goes to workers, and the government can offer loans to help them pay for it.
Jeremy Corbyn:
socialism is good, capitalism is bad!
Also Jeremy Corbyn:
*runs for Prime Minister with socialist manifesto - biggest Labour loss in 85 years*
How’s that whole for the good of the people idea going...
Its funny how he ignores the downsides of the British health system such as how the government decides who lives and who dies. The family has no opinion to keep their love one alive nor can they take that loved one to get treatment in a different country like the US once their love one is in the Hospital (so the UK hospitals are basically prisons for the critically sick/injured)
I watched this because I'm open to hearing the benefits of socialism and wanted to understand it. This man uses ad hominem for every criticism and expresses his views angrily. Can someone show me a rational defense of socialism rather than an emotional one?
You won't find one. It sounds good on paper as many have said before me, but it doesn't factor in human nature or supply and demand.
I think it’s easier to think about socialism as a philosophy and not as an economic system. Then it’s more about socialist thinking rather than socialism vs capitalism.
There is a good book called the 23 myths of capitalism if you want an objective read.
The rate of profit of business only goes down over the long term. It's called the 'tendency of the rate of profit to fall'.
The way to counteract that is the exploitation of the 3rd world. What will happen to capitalists when all workers of the world demand the same wages and benefits as the 1st world?
Capitalism is held together by tape and chewing gum.
@PatrickDeHoyos Same could be said with Socialism/Communism except its not tape or chewing gum rather its being held together by authoritarianism, the want to hold on to power, sanctions that’ll starve the citizen and benefit the ruling class or those who hold power or preach the ideology and bodies of either the collateral or people who disagree with socialism and communism.
Those are the things that socialism/communism is being held together by especially the bodies those seem to be the important ingredient anything from suffering to bloody casualties and blaming other things such as people and capitalism bad might just be icing on the cake there.
@@leonridao1618 My gum/tape analogy was to say that capitalism is extremely unstable, not that there is nothing protecting it.
If you don't think capitalism is protected by a state monopoly on violence by a state that is run by the capitalist class, then I don't know what to tell you.
The most efficient forms of capitalism are the most authoritarian, such as contemporary China or Singapore.
Although, to be honest a lot of what you said was incoherent.
He didn't even say that socialism works. Lol, he just said the principles and ideas are good. Why hasn't Socialism or communism worked anywhere else??
Yes, I think his argument was rather flimsy.
Michael G That’s right. “Pah! Cultural Revolution? Great Leap Forward? You call THAT socialism? You ain’t seen NOTHING yet! Next time, we’ll bump off half a billion - minimum!”
It works pretty well in Scandinavia. I think you are confusing socialism and communism.
@@paulshaw4451 scandanavia?? Sweden is a shit hole, you seen Stockholm? It looks more like Islamabad
@Michael G just make everyone not poor, it'll work! just take my word for it! just cause you're making $100k a year while everyone will make $20m a year means no one is poor and has less money!
Honestly, why does anyone care at this point? I'm so tired of hearing this pointless debate.
he was the only hope of working class British people. it's a great shame he was falsely demonised and vilified by his enemies. A great wrong was done to him and to England
Guy give statistical fact. He retorts with "Wow. I seriously doubt what you are saying."
Really?! THAT'S your argument?! I guarantee he never took the time to look up those statistics for himself.
And his opening argument was purely emotional, not logical.
I'm American, and it's not been until universal healthcare reform was implemented that healthcare prices and waiting lists have increased. When healthcare was more free marketed, the prices and wait times for care were lower and the QUALITY was better!
Its always a battle between quality over quantity. A socialist will argue that is only fair that everyone gets healthcare, which in itself is a statement with good intentions, but when everyone gets it, no one does because the demand is higher than the supply. In a perfect world, socialism would have been great, but unfortunately for them, idealism isn't going to provide for the needs of everyone.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Check out the other sides speeches, it was so brutal I thought this was a roast.
What the fuck are you talking about? America has NO “universal healthcare reform.” Are you daft?
@Jubsy Saddinger Ok lets play your game, name the socialist nation where socialism is working.
Like they just cherry picked the outliers right so you should be able to rattle off the counter examples.
Look we both know you are full of shit, this debate was settled over 30 years ago, socialism doesn't work never has and never will.
The best that socialists have achieved is claiming that using govt powers to solve market failures is socialism. Even though it isn't.
@@harrisondarby1333 They do actually, think of the components that make up universal healthcare and then look at what Obama was trying to do with Obamacare.
Apparently there were 2 other types already within their system but those were more complicated so I didn't bother looking into them.
Capitalism is about "doing." Socialism is about "getting."
Yeah. Everyone just loves exploiting labor for profit and give nothing back to the people that made the profit for them. Amaaaaazin!
Socialism is about security, capitalism is about freedom. The problem is that the absence of freedom is called slavery.
@@AdamantSeraph I agree. But freedom without responsibility is chaos.
@@pjdelucala nope, chaos is the absence of order, not the absence of responsability.
Taxing others is not exactly responsability. One can feel free do adopt responsabilities or not to. I can choose my responsabilities in my life and I am not ok with somebody inflict them to me, especially when I am suposed to be responisible for some random people which choose maybe not to take care about themselves. Your free will can not be my responsability.
Freedom and order do not colide. If I decide how to shape my life, my dailly agenda let's say, that is not slavery. Discipline and especially self discipline does not affect freedom.
@@lol-ff8di they do not exploit and they do give something back , Einstein. It is called salary...and you are free to say you want more or to stop it and find something else, or do your own. Not to mention that the ones who pay you for the work get stressed by the taxes they have to pay while paying your work....Woooooow!!!! Science!!
Socialism is capitalist, benefiting from peoples ignorance.
Oh really? Come out and ask the people of the former Soviet Uniom!
You really believe that was socialism? On the other hand, how many people went bankrupt there paying for health care...
How did he go from "I'm not saying anything to defend how socialism destroyed the environment in the marxist economies" to "if we want to save the environment we need to do socialism"...?
Hethalean Thats down to the country... Jeremy is emphasising a green revolution
Socialism is good for the environment which is why socialist countries are the most heavily polluted places on earth.
So many flaws from his *academic* speech
It depends on what the goal of the labor party is. Polution and the environment were not on anybody's mind during the fall of the berlin wall. What he omitted to say is is that in a cpitalist economy, it's harder to achieve an environment goal. You'd have to convince all business leaders to your common goal, namely to get some profit loss for a greener environment. Look how this turned out in the USA. Half of the people are climate change deniers. Oil production business pay researchers to provide contradictory papers. It's much easier to achieve this goal in a socialist country. Those CO2 targets can be achieved in an year in a socialist country.
Militant defensive marxism does what it must to survive, 'must' defined by capitalist attacks.
"Socialism works because I care about the environment."
"Socialist countries have screwed up the environment."
"I'm not talking about them. I care about the environment. We should all care about the environment."
Those were not examples of any kind of socialism that Corbyn is espousing.
@Gregory Jones what about the caspian sea being dried up because the USSR needed the water for farms
@Gregory Jones thanks for the information, also caspian sea isnt salt water as it is a lake biggest in the world, even though its literally called Caspian SEA
@Gregory Jones Oh my bad, nice to know you understand what you are talking about i did a see a documentary on something similar but the USSR did drain a lake to provide for crops will have to check it out
Gregory Jones current largest are China and India. One is communist another is a mix of all things
The dislikes are from capitalists, conservatives, children, uneducated people, and a few liberals
Yes, what are you ? A Marxist??? Keep living with your dead past, CCCP.
@@NotNoobsDeath Socialism is on the rise bucko, better educate yourself.
The likes are from benefit scroungers, perverts and foreigners.
Two important and related questions, the a swers to which conform that it is impossible for Socialism to ever work are "Why does Socialism always Fail?" which leads to "What is Socialism Really, that guarantees its inevitable Failure?" Most people, by their mid to late twenties in age, figure put that there's something not right with Socialism, and just never get to the point of considering the issue Philosophically, and it was seeing what goes on behind the scenes with Socialists in Political Parties and Trade Unions that started ringing alarm bells when I started Studying Constitutional Philosophy (It's also very telling, and no accident imho, that there doesn't seem to be anywhere in the World you can Study, and get Qualified in the Subject, and yes, I tried). The Philosophy that fits Socialism to a T, is the Lawless State Divine Right Philosophy Thomas Hobbes, which boils down to People only having One Right - The Right Not To be killed if they do exactly what they are told . The Philosopher who Proved the Lie of this Despotic Tyranny, was John Locke, and he created the Scientific Method of Empiricism to do it (like Constitutional Philosophy, probably the greatest genius who ever lived, John Locke, is also being concealed from us). So to the answer to why Socialism can Never Work, is behind all that Virtue Signalling and effort being to put into appearing nicer than nice, and kinder than kind standing up for people and their Rights, etc, What Socialism is almost all really about, is The Power and Property Grab, which has been a problem, and hasn't had a single example of ever working, that stretches back pretty much to the Stone Age. The other clue is what Karl Marx dedicated all his work to - Satan- Marx was actually a Satan Worshipping Member of the Khazarian Mafia Death Cult, and not actually Jewish at all (the Khazarians infiltrated Judaism a long time ago, and use real Jews as Useful Disposable Human Shields). Murder Inc, Looting, Pillaging, and Asset Stripping as they destroy Societies is par for the Course, so it's no surprise then is it, that everywhere run by Socialists gets to end up as a Shithole equivalent of Hell on Earth, and we are now into hundreds of millions of Dead People being Left in its Wake. So Seriously, if You Believe A man involved deeply in Socialism for the Decades Jeremy Corbyn has been, doesn't know this, then I have a very attractive selection of Bridges in the Gobi Desert to Sell You . Socialism has kept Jeremy Corbyn in a standard of living he has enjoyed, and hopes to continue enjoying for the rest of his life, because of one thing, he is an expert at Faking Sincerity and believability, and is a practiced Liar with a Lifetime's experience to back it up. He too is all about the Power and Property Grab, and could care keys if this attempt at Socialism Fails, because switch the names, adopt new Labels relaunch after failure and So What if the Next version Fails ? KaChing, we Keep what we've Stolen, and make Bank with the next round as well, as we bleed the next round of Suckers dry as well. Sorry to burst Bubbles, but we've had to put up with this Enslavement of Huma its, abuse and exploitation of us, for getting on 7,000 years now. But this time, the setting Humanity against Humanity isn't working for these Bastards, this time, we are Waging War on them in the Biggest War of Liberation for Humanity, in recorded History, and wecare seriously kicking the Living Daylights out of them and are destroying All of their Human Sacrifice Sites like the Georgia Guidestones all around the World . Humanity is Winning, and we are now entering the Final Roundup and cleanout phase of all the Minions controlled by those Malevolent Bastards, and the Freeing of All Our Xhildren is proceeding very well. Isn't it odd that we hear nothing about this Real World War in the Legacy Lying Media ? Perhaps not, but they are being seen to, as well. 👍🤔
I'm so glad socialism is no more in my homeland (Russia), you wonder why so many immigrated out when the Perestroika happened. Capitalism is not perfect but it's better.
Life is not perfect- it's a brutal struggle against nature. Capitalism is the most efficient means thus far to take on the fight.
Frankly socialism reminds me of my Mum - she always complained nothing worked and nothing was getting done. She proceeded to make her point by giving an example of something that was not getting done. I proceeded to fix this. In response, the next day she pointed out something else that was not getting done. I took to doing this as well. After rinsing and repeating this cycle, I ended up doing many tasks a day. I felt fantastically accomplished. My Mum, however, was literally not even an ounce different and still harangued me like I was the boy I was three years ago. I had to grab her by the shoulders and say look, Mum, I love you, you're doing a great job and that, but seriously I've literally built vast amounts of competence and discipline just so you'd shut up. The way you complain about me not making vast amounts of money, or how I haven't solved world poverty yet, is absolutely laughable. I accomplish every task in the house and you see this. So why are you now additionally complaining I haven't managed to solve your next whimsical problem? I know things will never be good enough for you, and you will continue to sit and demand more of this or more of that, while sounding like you know what's up when really you just know what you want, but really, I'm doing so well and just wanted a pat on the back so bad that you asking me to do this next thing, as if I haven't made huge progress, is just annoying.
Socialism, is just like me Mum, and needs to be treated as such ;)
@@BreezeLeg-mo4jh Life in The West has become so bourgeois and easy. People like you work behind the scene to make things happen and others think the shit happens automatically as though it were the weather.
Many feel persecuted for having to vacuum their own house and think the goods on the shelves at walmart have been bestowed by the gods.
Ah yes , now you live in the great free society under Putin 🤔🤔
corruption makes all systems worse..
Who came here again in 2020 after Covid-19?
🙋♂️
After?
@@user-go3jv8rw7i during*
it's making it more and more obvious that he's right
“NHS: free at the point of use” … because this year I was taxed more than £4000 in advance of using it!
If you log into HMRC you will see the breakdown of where your tax money goes. About 20% goes on health.
@@cpcnw - it’s 19% actually, but that’s my point. The NHS is an entitled costly store card.
@@Pete_Piper Tell your kids that when there are no free at the point of use hospitals.
So it does work, despite never having worked at any point in history?
Radagast Denmark Sweden are examples of socialist countries
Bill Cosby not really. They are composite economies that built up their wealth before regulating things more. The resources were not built up during the current composite era. They are also homogenous societies, that are slowly dipping as they lose that homogeneity.
Venezuela is a socialist country, pure Socialism. Pure Socialism does not produce it distributes, that's why it fails to provide for people after resources run out.
Jameshi I can never understand what posts like these argue in favour of?
I don't know the history of Venezuela but it seems to be a tired anti socialist argument that ignores other complexities and western intervention. It's interesting that countries with close links to western super powers are left a train wreck and are unable to develop.
sure great capitalist examples like the US can now boast things like some of the poorest health standards (like infant mortality) of any industrialised nation. Massive inequality. It can boast about the countries it's invaded and devastated like Cambodia, Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Libya and the millions left dead as a result.
The so called capitalist societies we live in are funded on the back of massive state subsidies and protectionism. We've not seen true capitalism since the 30s and we know how that ended.
So what are we looking for? Pure socialism is about putting the means of production in the hands of the worker. Why would you be against this? You're essentially in favour of tyranny otherwise.
You can't move to a socialist society in one step but there's definitely elements where it's seen to work and worth exploring because whatever the hell we have now isn't working (well, it is for the plutocrats).
"socialism" exists very successfully in all kinds of forms in many countries including the USA. There is no such thing as a "socialist country" so lets stop looking for one. In Canada, where I live, one of the things that tops the polls of what Canadians are most proud of in their country and what makes Canada, Canada is its socialized medicare system. It is 100% "socialism" and very successful. To take this argument to a level that seems to be missed, is that even policing is "socialism", since the public is taxed and that money used to pay for a public service that works (at least in theory) for everyone. Only some one who has been neo-conned and does not know what socialism is could have a bizarre view that socialism does not work.
Sebastian I think you are misunderstanding Socialism for Communism. "Pure socialism is about putting the means of production in the hands of the worker." This is just simply not true. Socialism is when everything is owned by *the state* - IE, the government.
Communism is when it is owned by the workers. And the likes of "Communist China" are actually Socialist.
The problem with using Socialism to get to Communism - is that in favour of material gain, you give up increasing amounts of liberty to the state. And on the other side - to get increasing amounts of liberty through more free-market ideas, the poorest are even worse off (For arguments sake).
So how can you get to "putting the means of production in the hands of the worker" when the only two routes both sacrifice one vital part of that being possible.
every argument he made was one to emotion.
And his arguments that capitalism will always result in companies ignoring the natural world, ignores all of the lumber industries who need healthy forests in order to make any money at all
And of course he mentioned big corporations, which are actually following GLOBALISM and sponsoring Leftists all across the world, pathetic
Only after they've deforested the entire planet. Your excellent example has been playing that out for centuries: planting trees is an added cost and a long term investment. A Free market economy will always choose to destroy virgin forest instead.
@@heorhiichertkov1538 The Trump Organization sponsors leftists? Holy shit I love Trump now.
Heorhii Chertkov By “Leftists” I assume you actually mean Neoliberals who cynically weaponise identity politics and advocate open borders for corporate profit. Those people are not leftists in any sense of the word.
Compare a plantation forest to a natural forest and tell me which is healthy.
Nevermind the NHS, what we really need is a communal system that gives everyone access to a proper suit.
And sing the national anthem?
Socialism does work as does capitalism its the people runing it.
The spectacle HF Daniel hanaan lecturing on issues of fairness when he's not only in favor of demolishing the NHS (he's even been interviewed by hannity in America) but sports the horrendous TTIP
That bastard stood up as he heard the word "oil" as if he's been commanded to do so. :P
“Socialism is when the governmenment does stuff and the more the government does the more socialister it is”-Karl Marx may not be worded perfectly but is on those lines, why does the economy always do terribly under socialist regimes in comparison to capitalism and how come the rich become more numerous, the middle class richer and more numerous and the poor richer? socialism isn’t needed and very often leads to governments abusing their power which has resulted in around 100,000,000 deaths in only the 20th century. friedrich Von Hayek said that “if socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists”
If they had functional brains they won't be Socialists.
For all who are interested in HOW socialism works, I recommend you watch videos by and with Prof. Richard Wolff, a marxist professor of economics.
Or parenti
Thanks,very helpful
For all who are interested in the fact that socialism is impossible, I recommend you read _Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth_ by Ludwig von Mises.
@@BAAWAKnight damn som , how you even finding this stuff? True intellectual right here.
@@bigmonkee639 I'm a student of the Austrian school.
Corbyn said that if there is health inequality it's because of debt and poverty. If the NHS is free at the point of use then why is there health inequality at all regardless of individual wealth?
Indeed.
Health inequality I believe is due to ignorance, a lack of education, sexual immorality resulting in illigitimacy and the poverty of education, morals, wealth etc. usually associated with it, thereby creating an underclass, (a phrase I first heard from Charles Murray, an American Political Scientist) , drug misuse, alcohol abuse, inherited disease and the welfare state that enables some to believe they can always go to others to solve their problems usually with the others money!!When someone gets something for nothing, someone else has done something and got nothing for it!
@@trevorhinkley2291 drug misuse, alcohol abuse, inherited disease ,sexual immorality sounds more like the upper class.....
@@SNORKYMEDIA Snorky, if we're going to speak of class, you're spot on, AND the Middle class the Lower class & the Under class, in fact it's our fallen world and we can choose to live better lives to be happier or continue on down the way of least resistance to misery and who knows where it will end up.
Cheap food is bad food.
What happens when socialized housing becomes generational?? When there is no incentive to move up? And tell me what developed country does not have free schooling for all children ??
Gregory Jones didn’t I say the developed world??
What has happened with privitized housing is unprecedented increases in homelessness. Right wing nutjobs may be happy throwing their children on the streets but don't force it on everyone else Elizabeth.
Elizabeth Munson What incentive do you have to move up now under capitalism?? You do realize that socialism doesn’t mean “give white peoples free stuff!!”?? You have to work, but instead of working for useless currency you work so your society can benefit as a whole, and you’re rewarded with food, shelter, clothing, housing, more free time, free education, etc.
There will always be some who are rich and some who are poor, no matter if it's under Capitalism or Socialism or Communism. It's all a matter of how you get there. With Capitalism, those who are smartest and work the hardest benefit. With Socialism and Communism, those who are closest to those in power benefit, while the rest live in poverty. I'll take Capitalism any day.
"With capitalism, those who are smartest and work the hardest benefit". Then please explain why we in the UK currently have a PM who is the exact opposite of this? And your idea of socialism being only for those closest to power, do you know anything of the Tory party? That pretty much describes them and their Ilk of voters. Your description pretty much covers most western governments, and socialist they most certainly are not.
Every state needs central planning
I'm watching this so I stop getting ben shapiro ads
The Soviet Union can not be called socialist, government ownership is not the same as public ownership if the public doesn't own the government, i.e., if the government isn't democratic. The Soviet system's flaws and failures were not because of socialism - as it never practiced socialism in the first place - they are because of dictatorship and thus a lack of accountability of the government to the people.
Completely agree. The free market proponents will always try to associate any form of Socialism with the Soviet Communist system.
@@ChucksterJax name a socialist country that didn't turn into a disastrous dictatorship.
@@mrmountain1683 Really!!!! Try most of Europe. England, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, .........and they have a better standard of living than we have in the States.
@@evan2173 "socialism" and "communism" are largely interchangeable terms. Friedrich Engels was asked why he and Marx called their book "The Communist Manifesto" and not the " The Socialist Manifesto" and he said it was because, in popular culture, "socialist" had come to have many definitions - those of Fourrier, Bernstein, Owen, etc. - while "communist" was still uniquely referring to the proposed political economic order of Marx, Engels and their Communist League of the 1840s but there are many forms and definitions of socialism and communism. They certainly don't have to be defined as government ownership. Many communists or socialists - or Marxists - would consider the Marxist-Leninism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or of China sham Marxism and certainly sham communism or socialism as Marxism, communism, socialism are intended to be democratic, workers' and people's control of society, not submission to a single dictator or single personality as Lenin's revisionism of Marxism would have it. Libertarian socialism or anarcho communism don't even figure government into their model for socialism or communism, only a communal, stateless, propertyless, classless, unhierarchical society and social order.
What defines socialism in any meaningful sense is workers' - and, therefore, people's - control over a society and economy and their means of economic production. Any autocratic dictatorship by a single individual or governing elite cannot fit that criteria but by tremendous contortion of logic and truth.
@@mstrailertrash058 Thank you!
Yeah, socialism works... I’ve got some magic beans to sell you too.
the tories have spent more in one year than jeremy corbyn’s entire manifesto cost :))
@@MichaelWilliams-iw2ch Yeah clearly because of covid. That's literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
@@sedricsaunders3480 no bro this was 2 years ago the money they’re spending on bailing out capitalism and now with energy suppliers
@@MichaelWilliams-iw2ch yet it took the tories to reverse the crippling inflation…
@@sedricsaunders3480 that’s gone well for you sedric hasn’t it
thanks for the point of view and the video
When will socialists understand that "free stuff" (housing for all, education, etc) have to be paid for, that there are no "right" to education, medical car, clothes, etc? These things have to be produced. That takes devotion, passing high standards, sacrifices, by individuals.
We understand that. We just want society as a whole to pay the individuals that provide vital services because sometimes people who need them cannot. Also government has more bargaining power and that's a positive for society as a whole when the state represents the people.
@@user-qi7xx5ih6z Government is horribly inefficient, corrupt and makes everything more expensive, you half wit.
I enjoy these debates & have watched many or them. However, it's usually the case that the outcomes are rarely available. Which way did the vote go on this one?
what do you think?, do the audience present generally benefit from capitalism?
The virtue signalling is strong.
As opposed to vice signalling like the bowtie Tory wanker...
Yeah. It’s better to stand for nothing when people are suffering. It’s better to walk down our high streets, see the homeless, see boarded up shops, see food banks, see drug abuse and do nothing about it. It’s better to hide behind the screen as a low life, so diseased and full of hate with his own inadequacies he poses as a contrarian by simply saying ‘virtue signalling’ when people are trying to promote a better world. You’re the sort of brainless asshat who watches a Jordan Peterson interview (who I’m a big fan of, FYI) and thinks he’s an intellectual. If doing the right thing makes me a virtue signaller, then damn it I’m a virtue signaller. If ignoring the right wing bullshit you’ve been brainwashed with makes me a virtue signaller than I’ll say it with my chest. You my friend, are a fool
@@dfd7376 ...But you're not doing anything, you're just talking and virtue-signaling.
You could be outdoors picking up litter or working at a homeless shelter to make the world better.
Instead, you choose to blather on sanctimoniously, throwing insults while you're at it.
Alexaeus what is your issue with altruism? Why is doing good, in your eyes, something people only do for admiration?
In your post you make one assumption and ignore the fact the original poster used the word ‘wanker,’ stop looking at the world through your corrupt lens
He's taken the few good things that socialism has given us and is using them to represent socialism as a whole, there's a difference between injecting select socialist ideas into a capitalist society and having a socialist society, he shouldn't be conflating the two
Absolutely!
Yes, this guy needs to read more. The government doesn’t need more power
That’s the problem though bro do you know where you are and who would be responsible for properly implementing the things you want? Everyone you know would suffer. They would just see power they don’t care about you
@Comrade Saul | Anti-Malarkey Front You mean a 'vanguard party' made up of genocidal degenerates like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin?
I can completely understand people being socialist in like the early 1930's during the worst years of the great depression and before socialism/communism had actually been realized in country's around the world, but for anyone in this day and age to actually believe that socialism is the answer to make things better is just absolutely incomprehensible to me. After seeing it fail over and over and over, after seeing what it does to the people living under it everytime. For anyone to truly believe that any one party government will ever result in anything but corruption, totalitarianism, and oppression for it's people is nothing short of insane. When a country has to literally build a wall to keep it's people IN then it's has obvious fails it's purpose
From what I discern from his speech is that Socialism is the way forward and Capitalism is evil. Why the former is better and the latter is worst he does not say other than giving rhetorical answers that can be easily countered off.
For example...
Corbyn queried the origins the concept of NHS. He then argues that it was the socialist thinkers that came up with that idea. This is nothing but an attempt to color himself and the political ideology he's representing as good and if one is to read deeper, one may even find his statement to be utterly self-congratulatory while at the same time incredibly condescending to those that subscribes to capitalism. He is basically saying capitalists don't give a shit to people and are irredeemable heartless bastards. Funny that the largest donations are all given by rich people in large capitalistic corporations. But I suppose he'd argue that that's because those are socialists in the first place.
George Orwell talked about socialists in his book The Road to Wigan Pier and the great thinker had convincingly pointed out that socialists are really just pro-industrialists. After all, socialist ideas cannot work without an industrial complex (Means of Production) churning out daily consumables at a fraction of the labor cost usually needed. Corbyn also claims that capitalists are greedy people that desire nothing more in their life than the number of zeros in their bank accounts and therefore Capitalism should be eradicated. I'm not sure about the former but I have something to say about the latter. Insofar there is a means of production, inequality is inevitable. Walter Scheidel, author of The Great Leveler, certainly made a poignant argument - the leveling out of inequality, as far as he could learn from history, can only be achieved through the destruction of the society itself. The book also suggested that inequality is so prevalent that it almost appears to be natural, that it is the eventual inevitability of a productive society. The author did not say that inequality is good but he did say that there's a much deeper reason behind it than the character-assassinating slander Corbyn so adamantly threw at those that disagree with him. As such, Corbyn's statement about the ridding of Capitalism is in fact a fundamental contradiction to the progression towards the socialist ideal. The aim to eradicate inequality is really a suicide at the societal level. He should, if he does care for the citizens of UK, practice socialist ideas insofar that it doesn't collapse the productive means fueled by capitalistic ideas.
Capitalism isn't ideal and the inevitable nature of it to generate inequality is quite dangerous. Capitalism is like fire. Use it wisely and you will prosper. Misuse it and you'll get yourself burned. Socialistic ideas are needed to buffer out the harshness of reality. What we really want is to stop people from dying prematurely so that they can compete with one another to generate the best possible creative output. We also don't want the individual to be so encumbered by inequality that they see no way up. Inescapable inequality will breed resentment and resentment is the fuel to burn down the society as a whole. i.e. Red October revolution, French Revolution. Capitalism also does feed into human greed. The aim to produce and make money often make a company blind to everything else. One such case is the production of junk food. Companies spent millions to research how best to make you addicted to certain foods. They make you addicted to it - like they actually lab test it to see how you will have the highest probability to buy another pack! Talk about ethics here. While you can argue that the free market ensures the emergence of competitive companies that offer different variety of food (i.e. soy-rich, healthy, organic, GMO-free, etc), it is hard to prevent market domination by a single Ultra-large company that single-handedly controls every single niche in the consumer's choice simply because they can. Nestle sells you diabetic-inducing ice cream while at the same time selling you healthy low-calorie granola bars in the next aisle. While this isn't necessary a bad thing on its own, its sheer size is a powerful force and as with many powerful forces, it is susceptible to corruption. How often have we seen governments changing policies and enacting laws and capitulating to the companies' demand all in the name of 'increasing jobs' as if its entirely for the public's interest and not their own? We have even seen a fair share of insidious deeds done by large corporation too such as the sugar-scandal, Intel's anti-competition strategy and the unfortunate cases of radon girls. Frauds? Enron, California power scandal, Madoff Scandal and the 2008 Housing Financial crisis.
Capitalism isn't the holy grail. Neither is Socialism.
Here's how I see it - it's simplified, I know. Capitalism focuses on production. Socialism focuses on distribution. In short, the world can't operate properly without both. The key is to find the balance. How much socialism can be sucked out of the productive capability of capitalism to cultivate the health of the population without collapsing the entire structure of capitalism altogether? (like what Stalin, Chavez, Mao, Polpot, Kim and many more did). In retrospect, capitalism should be subordinate to the interest of the people rather than the blind uncontrolled self-serving nature of the unregulated free market. Capitalism that doesn't go for sustainability (fraud, anti-competition practices, aggressive business tactics, unethical practices) should not be endorsed as it will only cripple the society.
George Orwell despised socialism and communism. Read Animal Farm.
@@tessa1238 Orwell was a socialist...
@@susa3500 Read Animal Farm by Orwell. He despised Communism and Socialism.
@@tessa1238 He did not like how it was implemented in the soviet union. That does not mean he wasn't a socialist
That's what Animal farm is about