Criticism of Marxism | Douglas Murray and Lex Fridman

[@thomasjackson5367]

This dude needs to be the voice of every villain in every Pixar movie going forward. All of them.

[@wiseonwords]

Lex? Come on, I wouldn't say he's that bad!

[@jnauttube]

But enough about lex, what about Douglas Murray

[@dallascarlos6531]

He sounds and looks like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lamms

[@selinaperveen4049]

​@@dallascarlos6531 no actually

[@dramese]

He is a real villain.

[@NowherewithNate]

“Where’s my dam omelette” 😂

[@jeremyellismusic]

Would be nice to see a debate moderated by Lex between Murray and Dr. Wolff from a few episodes back. They both seem like honest and informed individuals. One point Wolff would instantly chomp on (pun intended) would be how "there is no explanation for how communism happened." It most assuredly was a reaction to centuries of kings controlling everything and thinking everyone in their realm was a vassal, if they were even allowed to semi-own land, and that capitalism is a basic extension of this. A point of agreement could be found in Murray's assessment that there is a rational and fair ratio between CEO pay and worker pay, which he says could be something in the realm of 5 to 10x as much. If that was the case, the average Walmart worker or Amazon worker would be making $25 and hour and the Waltons and Bezos would still be billionaires.

[@HaganeHiryu]

I think he meant we don’t know what has caused communism to fail. I’m pretty sure he understands why communism appeals to people.

[@duality7]

A crucial part of an effective capitalist system is consumers choosing to vote with their wallets as well as business owners voluntarily treating workers better with increasing prosperity. Greed unfortunately is what prevents both of these things and communism was basically an attempt to curb greed which just doesn't work as greed can be said to be a core human trait. If I was a billionaire, I would make sure that my employees are treated in such a way that they would FEEL as if they were actually working for a billionaire. There is nothing that's keeping say, the Walton family from paying $25 an hour, apart from their own greed. I would hazard a guess that if you're intelligent enough to run a massive corporation like Walmart successfully, you'd have no problems with continuing to grow your wealth through sound investments even with slightly less wealth due to the increased pay your workers are getting. Greed and stupidity seem to go hand in hand.

[@HaganeHiryu]

@@duality7 do you know anything about finances for businesses? Walmart is in major competition with Amazon right now. Do you suppose they don’t have a business need for all the money they can get? Not to mention their responsibility to their share holders.

[@duality7]

@@HaganeHiryu Paying better wages to workers can lead to multiplier effects that actually lead to a better bottom line. I'm saying use the personal profits to fund such a thing, not using operating income to do it. Also, that's a huge con of taking a company public. If I had a massive corporation I'd keep it private tbh.

[@ernstthalmann4306]

That would be a great debate!

[@grantwotten-tf7rk]

Interview Vijay Prashad. And apply the worthy criticism that you keep missing. Cuba has been under US sanctions since the early 60’s. How do you think any capitalist country would fair under same sanctions.

[@Minotaur-ey2lg]

The rest of the world to trade with and it’s still shit.

[@sunnymoons1087]

Just here as an observer. I would love to see Lex moderate a debate between Murray and Wolff. My only problem is...like others have said, Murray doesn't really seem to make a point here....just states all communism/socialism/Marxism is bad. At least Wolff, even if some of what he believes is extreme, goes into detail and facts and delves into insights. Would love to see a debate between the two ideologies...

[@seanpierre1338]

That's the point. Same way Marxism is a criticism of capitalism, Murray's point here is a criticism of communism.

[@colewarner4954]

True, though makes sense since Murray focuses more of political philosophy, I.e. he’s not an economist like Wolfe.

[@tensevo]

The point(s) Murray is making is philosophical. It transcends economics, despite Marxism having a poor track record economically, I mean that was almost literally the Achilles heel of Marxism, the game theory and numbers just didn't stack up. It was feels over facts.

[@benklingman]

For me, it’s a discussion where Murray does not really need to make much of a case. He can examine the results of the Marxist experiments, and conclude what the results show, that millions die at the alter of the collective. Now if Richard Wolff wants to critique capitalism and bring in as Murray correctly identifies, “the worst ideas to date” I think the burden is on Wolff to correctly identify where they were wrong and he is right, most of the discussion has already been had with people much smarter. This is also why Murray would likely not have much to say that is original, these Marxist run in circles around each other, not critics, because there’s no where to test their theories and you don’t want to put untested theories into the idea mill, might get a real answer.

[@Nexusforce1]

I don't think it would be a good debate because it seems Murray has not actually engaged with the writings of Karl Marx which one would need to have done in order to critique it or debate about it.

[@pikiwiki]

"when humans get together, they can do some quite radically silly things"

[@BabyXGlitz]

and some great things like climbing up to the moon

[@misguidance10]

january 6

[@yossarianmnichols9641]

Marx said the final state is the dictatorship of the Proletariat. Lenin said the Proletariat is not ready to rule so the intellectuals will have to rule first. Then they created slave labor camps in the USSR.

[@rypoelk997]

Orwell was an anti-Stalinist socialist. Writers like Murray love to talk about Orwell's criticisms of Stalinism, but they rarely will ever mention Orwell's criticisms of capitalism. It's almost to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Almost.

[@tensevo]

They literally have a section in the full discussion, criticizing capitalism.

[@rypoelk997]

@@tensevo He literally still doesn't mention Orwell's politics in its fullest extent.

[@Leon56323]

@@rypoelk997 why would he? The discussion wasn't about Orwell's politics...

[@keithremedy]

@@rypoelk997 there’s no need to it’s irrelevant to the point that was being made. Diving into every crevice of every single person of topic would make for an 8-10 hour podcast atleast

[@Dschinghiss]

oh yeah lets just re-evaluate every idea of every philosophers/writer/novelist that we even briefly mention, sounds like a great idea to have a discussion

[@terryedmondson2792]

"When things go wrong people reach for other options" But hope so Mr Douglas otherwise you'll be stuck in that same problem until you find a solution.

[@laertesindeed]

@Terry What you're really doing is just like Tom Cruise in the film "Minority Report" after his eye transplant surgery..... chewing on a rotten green sandwich and then reaching for another rotten sandwich and then reaching for the spoiled milk...... eventually after you keep vomiting; you should just realize you're at the wrong fridge and you need to go back to the normal world where there are standards and checks and balances. Marxism is rotten and spoiled and belongs in the trash.

[@terryedmondson2792]

Lmafo that's a good analogy! However I would give you the option of there being more than just one refrigerator and one type of place to get the food whether it's Marxism, capitalism, socialism etc... There are always other options that could hold the possibility for a better outcome. And like all things it comes down to the people that are maintaining what's in the refrigerator or what's in their community! Got to be smart enough to check when the expiration date is 😂

[@pedrolafosse9166]

@@terryedmondson2792 Well, marxism surely expired a long time ago…

[@laertesindeed]

@@terryedmondson2792 The marxism already spoiled and rotted away..... the real world has the checks and balances within those studying free market principles and capitalism to give confidence they will work if not violated.

[@terryedmondson2792]

@@pedrolafosse9166 seems to me sparking back up

[@O8080808O]

Lex's compassion (and therefore virtue) overflows and expands to civilization as a whole. All that is required is 1) it be implemented worldwide to prevent impurity and leakage. 2) it be managed by a series of angels that can read everyone's mind simultaneously. 3) the subjects of this angel ignore the upside-down incentives.

[@tensevo]

Orwell: Where's the Omelette?

[@bennywalsh2038]

I remember a few years ago on 'Have I got News For You', a bit where a survey of teens in the UK thought Adolf Hitler had been a manager of the German football team.

[@jeffreyhall76]

There’s no such thing as the “free market” the government has to implement regulations just to keep the “free market” from destroying itself. Thus the regulations, that are not nearly sufficient enough, would make it a regulated market.

[@infiniteinfiniteinfi]

Private property is created by the state!

[@jeffreyhall76]

@@infiniteinfiniteinfi and enforced by it

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

@@jeffreyhall76 So would the distribution of the capital in a socialist state.

[@keithremedy]

@@Daniel-ih4zh but to an even greater extent

[@deponensvogel7261]

I think most people agree that freedom in general needs (state) enforcement. Doesn't mean I'm not a free person just because the State jails people who attack me. Doesn't mean it's not a free market because there are market rules.

[@akha1658]

lex work is great the man could have deeb conversation with any person regardless of his ideology and the intellectual background

[@Gen7486]

I wish they’d go deeber.

[@zhandy020]

He does know how to get to the deebest level

[@cakeburps]

I think this is an Obligatory Comment bot from the deeb web

[@akha1658]

@@cakeburps 😂😂😂

[@soulfuzz368]

All these people claiming that someone needs to understand all of the nuances and fine points of marxism to criticize it are just plain wrong. It’s like saying that in order to criticize a school shooter we must study and debate the content of their manifesto.

[@arthurrosa9403]

Well, you should give thought to the contest of that shooter, considering your contry has more of it than the rest of the world combined.

[@soulfuzz368]

@@arthurrosa9403 why do you assume I am American? I’m not, my country had one school shooting in 99 where one person died and another was injured. We have quite strict gun control laws. I disagree that those clowns deserve a mere moment of consideration, their names should never be spoken of at all.

[@arthurrosa9403]

@@soulfuzz368 Refusing to look at the problem doesn't make it go away.

[@soulfuzz368]

@@arthurrosa9403 I agree with that completely.

[@Magicwillnz]

Sure, you can criticize Marxism if you know nothing about it, you're just very likely to be wrong. A lot of the criticism of Marx are based on misunderstandings and distortions - things people repeat because they've heard it before. Interestingly the most powerful critiques of Marxism are Marxists, because they understand the source material. So you're right, you don't need to be an expert to criticize Marx, but I'll bet you those criticisms aren't well supported.

[@shughy1]

Douglas is one of the most articulate people I've ever had the pleasure of listening to, and is superb off-script

[@shughy1]

@keepitreal7723 mine is a natural product, yours is just the letter K inside a blue circle.... Hmmmm weird

[@jasonabercrombie7869]

No. The fundamental idea Marx had was NOT to criticize capitalism. His fundamental idea was that history was on an inevitable march towards perfection and anything standing in the way will need to be destroyed. It was not a fair minded, pragmatic analysis that takes into account all the variables of objective reality and tries to come up with a workable solution to how people can get along. It starts with the premise that he is a prophet that has special vision to see the arc of history headed towards utopia. He then unfairly compares capitalism with an imaginary perfect utopia that doesn’t exist instead of comparing it to anything else that exists or has been tried. He has some vague notions about what might be better, but no concrete ideas about how to pull off his utopian vision. And he makes predictions about the future that failed. I detest greed corporations that screw people over. But at least corporations can die. Most do. Others use the power of the state to prop themselves up unfairly. I’m fine with people who want to fight against corporations trying to influence the government to be their lapdogs, or who try to find novel, pragmatic ways to lessen suffering or improve quality of life for as many as possible. All problems will never be completely solved by humans, but we should peck away at improvement cautiously. However, every time someone switches from that to, “I’m smart enough to eliminate problems from the fabric of reality if I could just make everyone do things my way,” that is when you end up with mass graves. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela. Every time.

[@ko19702005]

Yes. Every time Marxism has been tried it has led to a mountain of corpses from violence or mass starvation. Let’s not do that again.

[@robertpirsig5011]

I'd consider my self a socialist within a capitalist framework. I believe most of the inequality of today's world is rooted in neo liberal capitalism. If we could stop the constant cycke of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor I think capitalism would work just fine.

[@jasonabercrombie7869]

@@robertpirsig5011 I think some inequality is a natural consequence of free will and differing ability. Tons of people will choose to spend large amounts of money to watch sports for instance. That means elite athletes will be make millions, and so I will never have as much as Lebron James. You can’t eliminate inequality without eliminating all freedom of choice and not allowing anyone to use their talents. But you aren’t wrong that large companies get unfairly propped up and make things worse. The rich cry communism any time anyone tries to help poor people and hypocritically take billions in government handouts. Corruption is a monster that has to be fought constantly. And compassionate people should always be looking at pragmatic ways to help those in need that will have the least unintended negative consequences possible. But thinking that we can eliminate inequality and corruption requires warping reality and stamping out human nature in ways that are beyond human capacity.

[@HaganeHiryu]

Well said.

[@HaganeHiryu]

@@robertpirsig5011 inequality is rooted in human nature, not a system of economics/politics.

[@jonwhitehead5426]

Because I'm not convinced of a Marxist revolution or even a complete socialist revolution, I would have to agree that we need to then reform capitalism. So, how do you address such income inequality? How do you curb development that harms our planet? Seems there needs to be intervention, regulation. And back to the Wolff interview, I hope everyone heard Wolff say that what Bernie Sanders - a so called radical - proposed was not Marxism, but a mild form of socialism akin to FDR. So, tell a friend who buys into conservative politicians using socialism and Marxism as pejorative terms.

[@richardjoseph8532]

John, you pose two very important questions here about capitalism, to which I would respond as follows, in all honesty and humility: I HAVE NO FRICKIN IDEA... 🤷‍♂️ That being said, I often use the analogy of the time JFK anounced that the US is going to put a man on the moon within the decade and how terrified the scientists must have been upon hearing this, since they had no idea at the time, as to how they would achieve such a feat! But, they started a conversation and worked through the issues, one by one and voila! So, since I am not a specialist in the field of economics or philosophy, I think that we should simply get the right people to start this conversation, however, it would have to be sanctioned by world leaders, albeit those in the Western world, for now. Because without their involvement the suggestions from the "think-tank" will not be implemented. Take care!

[@dgoodall]

Is income inequality inherently bad? Or is it rather that some people having far too little income is bad? Deciding on that could lead to different solutions.

[@Nexusforce1]

As to your first question regarding inequality I think part of the solution would be to reorganize the owner/worker relationship within companies as that is fundamentally where inequality first emerges from (the ownership of productive assets vs wages). Since wages have been mostly stagnant for the last 30yrs adjusted for inflation while productivity, revenues, and profits have been soaring during the same period. This is something I wish Lex had asked Wolff to expand more on as it is his bread and butter (side note, cooperatives were one of the main policies supported by Marx not state ownership). Anyways basically it would be to have policies that promote the creation and expansion of worker owned businesses like the Mondragon Corporation (look it up) the biggest cooperative in the world founded 1957 about as big as Google. For examples of cooperatives besides Mondragon in northern Spain look up the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy. This can be done and is being done by, for example, the Marcora law in Italy, loans/grants thru the Small Business Administration, business conversion efforts like those of www.icagroup.org, or the utilization of a sovereign wealth fund for the creation of cooperatives. If we can democratize the economy by the creation and growth of worker cooperatives than we would effectively reduce the pay gap ratio between executives and workers to levels that are decided upon by each enterprise but the gist is that workers at firms would not pay executives as much as they do now while keeping their own wages stagnant. I wrote short paper a while back about reducing inequality through coops here: medium.com/@CubanAnalyst/trickle-up-economic-development-f0cce3baebeb As to your second question, I think the answer in part lies with achieving the first question thru cooperatives since firms owned by the workers would be less likely to adopt technologies that can harm the ecosystem/environment where they live and work. How things are today, a firm's major shareholders and board can decide to adopt a technology that produces more pollution in a geolocation without any personal liability to their health/environment since they usually do not live where the technology would be adopted and thus would not suffer its consequences. Also having a democratic economy would mean that the 1% or whatever term you like would be unable to sway our political system for their own interest as it happens today, so there is a better chance of the public being able to debate consumption and production levels relatively to their effects on the environment/climate. Perhaps even serious discussions of a quasi-steady state economy can occur.

[@Nexusforce1]

@@dgoodall extreme inequality is bad and in a winner take all system like Capitalism that means that more and more of income/wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands over time. Depressing economic growth and causing social issues as we're experiencing now.

[@dgoodall]

@@Nexusforce1 .. intuitively it seems unfair but.. the counter argument is that inequality is not as much of a problem as a system that generates less total wealth, *if* that means that the poor are even poorer in a “fairer”socialist system. I’m not convinced Capitalism achieves those results, but that is different than arguing against “extreme” income inequality as a matter of principle.

[@L.C.Sweeney]

A shame there are so many people who are judging somebody's character from their accent and cadence. Very strange that adults would equate it to a character from a children's film and in reality he sounds nothing like neither Palpatine or Hannibal. Americans really do live in an a bubble of ignorance.

[@bdimarco054]

The sarcastic "fascism has never been properly tried" line is such a delicious antidote to the classic same socialist point that I'm literally salivating.

[@naaro_____]

Except that fascism has been done several times. Like several hundreds of times more than any Marxist oriented government. Kingdoms, Empires, etc

[@nutshang]

What a worthless existence

[@ronmartin1375]

Alt-left fascism. Alt-left were the ones building the camps and lighting the gas. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro. Lots of sad idols in leftist history. Now the taliban. Ideology is not an alt-left strong point. Famine is distinct alt-left trait. Alt-left fascism has brought famine 100% every time.

[@bdimarco054]

@@naaro_____ What are you referring to? Wiki itself states that fascism as we know it started in Italy during the 20th century. Are you equating older forms of government, like feudalism, to fascism?

[@costasrex476]

Does fascism sound appealing to you?

[@duncanmacnevin267]

I’m glad he acknowledge how capitalism in America has created a lot of unfair inequality. I feel a lot of anti-Marxist speakers tent to downplay or out right deny the problem of income inequality or spin it as “that’s the way it is” or “its actually a good thing”. It’s very relieving to see Douglas Merry not fall into this trap. One can be anti-Marxist and still see faults in capitalism that must be rectified.

[@marvinrascal3376]

Capitalism gives everyone the opportunity. Your choice.

[@ElectronicCalifornia]

@@marvinrascal3376 Tell that to prisoners in the private prison industry. Giving more choices to some can come at the cost of choices from others. It's not rocket science.

[@marvinrascal3376]

@@ElectronicCalifornia read my response again.

[@jonwhitehead5426]

@@marvinrascal3376 Yes, but not necessarily an equal opportunity.

[@duncanmacnevin267]

@@marvinrascal3376 you are your own worst enemy man. People that think as you do only feed the meats instead of weaken it. If you want to defeat marxism you got to make capitalism work for everyone.

[@Dirge4july]

We need to take what we have learned from the past and apply it today. We need to take the good of both socialism and capitalism and create something. We live in a totally different world now. The economic system in America is broken and wasteful. The richest country on earth can’t even give all its people healthcare. They have to argue for weeks just to bail the American people out with a one check. But if Wall Street or boeing needs help it’s done no questions asked. Tax cuts for the rich? No problem. Any and all economic systems are subject to flaws and failure because it’s it’s ran by humans. Humans are flawed. American almost because a capitalist dictatorship ..

[@nowayout8773]

I am thinking Bitcoin will crash further and just like with Wallstreet and the Auto industry bail out thanks to the taxpayers, will bail out the billionaires who invested in Bitcoin. The government is cruel, and politicians are bad actors, who give us one sided arguments. It's disgusting how much we here in the news about the rich getting richer from investing in MRNA shots. What would I do with all that money? Some people have to work, take care of sick people in the hospital, or take your order at Burger King. The rich politicians really love their money I don't think there are any philanthropists anymore. Not asking for handouts, rather fairness.

[@lassyduckie8830]

That's what Marx and all Marxists want - to create something new. Still trying. Capitalism arose from innovation. Marxism was a plan between two intellectuals - Marx and Engels. Certainly, capitalism is flawed, but would you have to choose which flaws you want

[@vicdhillon455]

LOL the comment section is funny and filled with such lunatic uttering inane diatribes like this...."...good of both socialism.." there is no good...do you read? Have you paid attention to the conversation? America isn't broken. The narrative you are trying to push is what's broken. We can give all people healthcare but will never give healthcare for free. Then you go on like some leftist nut about tax cuts for the rich and Boeing...lol.

[@wiseonwords]

@Jessie Hydro - Sure, let's try Marxism just one more time! We'll get it right this time. ;)

[@HaganeHiryu]

@@lassyduckie8830 as the original commenter wrote, humans are flawed. I don’t believe capitalism is flawed, it’s the people. Capitalism is more successful historically because it allows power to be spread out through many flawed people, where as communism causes power to be centralized to just a few flawed people (a monopoly on power if you will). Flawed, corrupt capitalist have to compete with other flawed corrupt capitalists. Flawed corrupt communists don’t (not much at least).

[@Nova.t]

Douglas Murray expects people to think he’s correct because he speaks in a smug British accent. He’s never debated a real intellectual.

[@28pbtkh23]

Smug British accent? Oh dear. Aren’t you such a bigot. Can’t tolerate people who speak differently to you? Moreover, Mr Murray has debated plenty of intelligent people from the other side of the political divide.

[@integrallens6045]

@14:04 Think of it as the 2 ends of Jung's type matrix, thinking and feeling, Haidt's Elephant (Moral intuition) and Rider (Moral Reasoning) and if you push those to the extreme there are 2 end points. Extreme compassion and openness/tolerance and extreme order. These have been symbolized throughout time and our mythologies as the masculine and feminin archetypes. The Great mother symbolizes the compassion and loving care, but the negative side is the devouring mother. Empathy and compassion taken to their extreme leads to infantilizing and viewing the world as infants (people and groups you like) and predators (people and groups you don't like) and this distortion of the world is dangerous for the same reason why you don't get between a mother bear and her cubs. The masculine usually was a symbol for knowledge which is like ordered or organized thoughts. This on the negative, brings us fascism and the state being correct above all else. The state being that symbol of order. It can be simplified like this, people who listen more to their thoughts, or their rider, can reach a negative point on the spectrum that causes them to believe that they know so much that they should be in charge because they know what's best for people. Likewise people who listen more to their feelings and their elephant, have a spot on their spectrum that leads to believing that they love and care about others so much that they could do no wrong and know what's best. One just feels like marxism and one just feels like orderly fascists.

[@istivanp8747]

You reminded me of thinking on something like this. Marxism/communism having that 'feminine' quality by being widespread and 'fair', having this appearance of nurturing that can turn devouring. I wonder if Lex will have a Jungian analyst on his show sometime, if he hasn't already.

[@integrallens6045]

@@istivanp8747 Exactly. That's why it's so easy to indoctrinate people into it and why it can become so consuming and dangerous. I'd love to see Lex have a Jungian on.

[@HaganeHiryu]

You have a good idea there. I wonder though because fascism and communism are both authoritarian. Could it be that authoritarian is feminine and libertarian is masculine?

[@integrallens6045]

@@HaganeHiryu I don't believe so, to me it appears as though both masculine and feminine, or thinking and feeling, (people of both genders can lean more heavily towards one or the other) both lead to different forms of authoritarianism. If you lean more into rationality and reason you seem more likely to fall into the trap of believing you know so much and can think so well that you know what is best for others. But if you lean more into your feelings and emotions you seem more likely to fall into the trap of believing you care so much and your heart is so pure that you know what's best for others. I would say this is what happens when you move too far to the left ( personality trait predictor of left leaning values being openness) or the right ( personality trait predictor of right leaning values being orderliness). Libertarian seems to be a different dimension of the same spectrum. Perhaps when there is a balance people will feel or understand that people need freedom and to be helped and supported by government in moderation. Instead of allowing your thinking or feeling to become so consuming that you blind yourself of this.

[@mgordon1964]

Put this guy and Richard Wolfe in a room

[@BrentStrathdeePehi]

Can’t say I like this guys smug sarcastic vibe - he doesn’t seem to take actual argument seriously

[@Tygrus758]

@@jaybrown8807 it is difficult to determine what his words truly mean when they are fraught with sarcasm. What he says hold some truth; however, his inference seems to be biased to a fault, and therefore misinformed in areas where he lacks understanding. I love Lex's approach to this discussion despite his apparent recognition of the biases he is faced with. It's one of his greatest attributes in the conversations that hit incredibly nuanced topics.

[@jeffreyhall76]

He’s almost certainly a shill who believes 50% of what he’s saying

[@marksage5722]

I mean... you can't take the idea of communism seriously to begin with.

[@Tygrus758]

@@marksage5722 you mean you can't take it seriously especially if all you got from the criticism of Marxism was "cOMMuNisM bad." Over a billion people take it seriously everyday. Anyone will take an idea seriously if they drink enough of the Kool aid, just look at yourself and your likely thought that "tHeRE iS No sySTeM bEtTEr ThaN cApITaLiSM."

[@marksage5722]

@@Tygrus758 I mean... listen to yourself. 🤣

[@integrallens6045]

@14:34 the workers haven't taken all of the financial risk of starting the business though. The one who owns the business likely didn't give themselves a paycheck for the first number of years.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

Mate nobody gives two fucks about a little nobody who managed to get his little construction company or boat shop up and running. The issue is an entirely different class of people who have nothing in common with that guy and operate on a whole different level. So hold your horses, nobody has an issue with a guy who employees a few people and makes a few millions, those aren't the issue at all, and everybody gets that except some capitalist wannabes, ok? There's innumerable good reasons to criticise big business.

[@spanishjohn420]

Exactly and what about nvidia where over 70% of the employees are now millionaires from stock compensation

[@delvictor7570]

Modern self proclaimed marxists need to be mocked the same way nazis are. It is absolutely necessary to maintain our free society. Seriously, if you know any, if your young friend or relative is dating one you need to speak up and point them out and explain why they are either evil or stupid.

[@arthurrosa9403]

And how did Marx propose freedom be abolished?

[@delvictor7570]

@@arthurrosa9403 Marxism is the antithesis of individual freedom. Marxists do not believe individuals exist, only the collective.

[@arthurrosa9403]

@@delvictor7570 How many of the books did you read. And what made you come to this conclusion?

[@kolo5836]

you dont know what youre talking about

[@delvictor7570]

@@kolo5836 nice rebuttal.

[@stunns2003]

The problem in civilisation that hasn’t been solved is the “Pareto Distribution” problem ………that unfortunately affects everything of value e.g. wealth, power, knowledge, art, resources, etc. This is a ‘law of nature’ that hasn’t been solved yet. No Socialism or Fascism can solve this problem. And it’s not a byproduct of capitalism either because it has been around for centuries and long before capitalism. Unfortunately the experts don’t teach this because they all want their opportunity to rule and impose their grand ideas. It’s a “Pareto Distribution” problem.

[@mattstevenson5849]

Capitalism and socialism shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If you have decentralised banking, supporting small/medium sized local/national businesses, with decentralised government - and eliminate corporations, globalism and the free movement of capital to avoid taxation - socialist policies can be adopted without the state having control of the means of production.

[@cyrix3737]

Its called socialism by reform

[@mattstevenson5849]

@@Joe-sg9ll you really think the wealthiest companies and individuals, at any point in history, are going to allow reforms that take away the very means that allowed them to get wealthy? Politicians make legislation, and they all sit as non-executive directors on the boards, or are 'consultants' to these very companies. Do really think MP's or Senators are going to work for you or I for $100K a year when they can work for BAE/Northop/MS for millions of dollars?

[@mattstevenson5849]

@@Joe-sg9ll no, I am talking about corporate tax avoidance - and moving profits to Luxembourg or the Virgin Islands. If these corporations paid their fair share in taxes - pensions, unemployment, healthcare, childcare, education, care for the elderly - would all be trivial issues. As long as these big businesses can move their money and lobby politicians - the tax liability is left with the lower and middle classes. Someone in the UK earning £65K a year in the UK has pretty much a tax rate of close to 40% (by the time you factor in income tax, National Insurance, Council Tax, child benefit penalties). Apple paid 12% tax on UK profits last year, and even then there was accountancy tricks with asset depreciation/carrying of paper losses - the real number is probably less than 1%.

[@mrgreatdude2]

Yeah this seems more sensible to me 👍

[@mattstevenson5849]

@@Joe-sg9ll the reason we as working people are all taxed to the hilt is because of the shortfall in corporate taxes. Yes, a tax is a penalty - one that we don't have the means to avoid but Google, Apple and Amazon do.

[@christiananderson9015]

It doesn't sound like he's ever read anything Marx wrote

[@Bruteforce765]

He hasn't ever read anything but confidentally goes around denouncing anything he doesn't like

[@NathanK13]

@@Bruteforce765maybe you just don’t agree with him?

[@stantonwebb6032]

Where’s the omelet? Chilling

[@artvandalay7632]

“Where is the omelette?” Sincerely, -100 million people killed by Communism

[@ColorMatching]

spoken like a true simpleton

[@artvandalay7632]

@@ColorMatching I’m from a communist country. You’re probably from Princeton

[@ColorMatching]

@@artvandalay7632 I was born in Romania. You? What does the Marxism in Marxism-Leninism mean? What did Marx have to say about how a government should be structured and ran? What was his view on central planning?

[@artvandalay7632]

@@ColorMatching USSR, which absolutely obliterated your beautiful country along with the rest of Eastern Europe with its utopian vision for a classless society. Hundreds of thousands of Romanians shot dead or tortured through the 1950s and 60s. What a horrible picture for such a great people and culture. Absolutely decimated by the gift of collectivization.

[@ColorMatching]

@@cesarvarela go play with rocks, child.

[@aaronkelly4711]

He doesn't sound like a villain to me. Very interesting guy. Very smart and profound.

[@HaganeHiryu]

I think they just mean his voice, not what he is saying or his motivations.

[@grantwilliams643]

@@HaganeHiryu IDK, he sounds like a villain to me. Confident ignorant English intellectual type. Notice how humble somebody thoughtful like Penrose is when approaching his theories and problem solving? This guy lectures like he knows the absolute truth, and he is talking about culture and social theories rather than physical properties and laws and mathematics and logic systems lol. This whole comment section makes me kinda sad, really. People patting themselves on the back because they like what this confident guy says. Just my take, not really even worth 2c in today's economy.

[@ltmund]

@@grantwilliams643 Confidence and intellectualism indicate a villain? I'm interested where that assumption from? Does that mean uncertainty and stupidity indicate good?

[@daytonjobgen8639]

@@grantwilliams643 problem is that he quite correct, and there is quite a bit of documentation and evidence on what he said about Marx/Marxism.

[@daytonjobgen8639]

@@ltmund Confidence and intellectualism only indicate a villain, if they say uncomfortable truths or reasonably challenge that holy ideologies, Marx being one of them.

[@marksage5722]

Statism in general has never been successful as far as maintaining natural, human and civil rights.

[@DMM1840]

Human rights aren’t real

[@marksage5722]

@@DMM1840 neither are you.

[@mynameismynameyourname6197]

"when everything seems to go wrong people reach for other options" good line

[@Anonymous-rz6vq]

i mean...no shit, why wouldn't you. sticking to the same principles when things are going wrong and expecting a new outcome is the definition of insanity...

[@mynameismynameyourname6197]

@@Anonymous-rz6vq Id take it by a case by case basis. There are times to hold the course and there are times to move on. It really depends on the circumstance and situation. As always things are always more complex than absolutes warrants. My OC was just highlighting a observation about humans that I thought carries through the whole clip.

[@SocratesOnline]

Marx is not equal to communism. Its analysis of capitalism inspired Western European socialism with healthcare, social security, Capitalism brought its share of death via colonialism, poverty, abuse of human dignity by making people work themselves to death. This man is in this sequence sounds like a weak intellectual, about the level of discussion in a bar.

[@adampeaston2076]

In a "capitalist" free market/society what is stopping folks from forming worker co-ops and running their businesses however they like? Have at it! Just don't force other people into the same and we're golden 👌

[@deanemarks8611]

I mean that's the problem bro... They are fundamentally at odds with each other... So they both try to sabotage and strawman the other... Capitalism just happens to have won... for now.

[@HaganeHiryu]

Where is a free market society stopping co-ops?

[@smokeyhoodoo]

@@deanemarks8611 Capitalism isnt a thing so im not sure how that took place

[@pweddy1]

The omelette analogy is actually not as bad as what Marx actually believed. He advocated for upending all material conditions of the existing society. Everything burn it to the ground. His view wasn't that you had a crack, a few eggs to make an omelette, he wanted to set the chicken house on fire.

[@MrZloodie]

Contrary to the title I don't hear any critique of marxism, bro just pointing finger saying bad as usual. If he truly would try to debate the marx view on capitalism he would have a difficult time painting it in a way better than he describes marxism.

[@Brunoku]

This comment section is a dumpster fire of people that came here to confirm their own bias.

[@jlmur54]

No it’s not…

[@ElectronicCalifornia]

@@jlmur54 It clearly is. Douglas makes no arguments, only emotional language. For example: "If everytime you bake it and it comes out shit, it means the recipe is shit" This doesn't tell you what specifically is 'shit' in Marxism's critique of capitalism, and what role that critique played in making economic experiments of the 20th century fail, but if you are biased to believe Marxism is bad, then you will repeat this quote as if it's saying anything.

[@prod.hxrford3896]

@@ElectronicCalifornia what the rest of the video he makes other points

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

@@ElectronicCalifornia what role did capitalism make in making socialism fail...

[@jonnybyrne989]

Yes an in a marxiest/socialist society the government wouldn't allow you to send such comments 👍

[@MrD_2112]

Marx criticized Crony Capitalism (basically todays situation and how it was in Sovjetunion). He actually was for Free Market Capitalism for the sake of the workers wellbeing. Todays (crony) capitalism is corporatism, which is just another word for fascism.

[@RCallahan592]

Dude said, “it never worked before and Marx said the n-word.” I wouldn’t consider myself a Marxist but this was not a convincing argument at all IMO.

[@3halfshadows]

It never worked and led to millions of deaths everywhere it was tried is not a convincing argument? You judge a tree by the fruit it bears.

[@Crimelord]

What more convincing do you Marxist fanatics need if not the evidence of how horrible it had been where it was tried?

[@artvandalay7632]

He references countless experiments of Marxism across 120 years that point to consistent failure at a grandiose scale, that is a convincing argument. We have no convincing arguments otherwise.

[@ElectronicCalifornia]

@@artvandalay7632 Lex pushed back and told him they were all the following the soviet model, noticed how Douglas talks over him and ignores the point. Douglas refuses to acknowledge that there are multiple socialist models, economic democracy, lange-lerner model, self-managed economy, feasible socialism, pragmatic market socialism, participatory economy, computer-managed allocation, peer-to-peer economy and open source, negotiated coordiation. BUT YES BECAUSE THE THE SOVIET MODEL WAS TRIED APPARENTLY WEVE TRIED THEM ALL. Just because something sounds "convincing" doesn't make it a good argument, and this is the problem. All people like Douglas have to do is sound convincing, use emotional rhetoric, and anyone with a bias will believe him without question.

[@ElectronicCalifornia]

​@@artvandalay7632 The most successful countries in the modern world are arguably the social democracies of North Europe, which came out of socialists movements. Marxists like Eduard Bernstein, went against the idea of a violent revolution, and instead sought to slowly reform capitalism through peaceful and incremental legislation. Mixing socialism with capitalism was not a failure.

[@AlternativeElvis]

When I was at school, in the 80’s under Thatcher, Mao was a cool Andy Warhol portrait.

[@mrbertaro4822]

Again from wiki: Murray is known for his association with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In March 2018, Orbán posted a photo on his official Facebook account of himself reading the Hungarian-language edition of The Strange Death of Europe.[93][94] Murray has disputed the claim that Hungary is experiencing significant democratic backsliding under Orbán, and has called Freedom House's comparisons of Orbán's government to a dictatorship as "increasingly off-kilter".[95] In May 2018, Murray was personally received by Orbán in Budapest as part of the "Future of Europe" conference along with other conservative figures like Steve Bannon, and according to Hungarian state media had an individual discussion and photograph with Orbán.[96][97]

[@wiseonwords]

Okay, and? Other than trying to smear Douglas Murray, exactly what point are you trying to make with these innuendos?

[@HaganeHiryu]

If any of that is true, how is it significant? Does it change what Murray is saying?

[@docneuro4500]

I’m not so sure we’ve learned the lessons of fascism. The Republican party in the US is embracing fascist ideology and this is happening in other countries as well via Bolsonaro, Modi, Erdrogan, Orban, and Putin amongst others. I don’t think we’ve learned a damn thing.

[@docneuro4500]

@@CallOfEuropeanSpirit You sound sensitive. Must be your nationalistic sounding user name and fascist iconography profile image.

[@michaelshannon9169]

I like Douglas but how he speaks is gonna turn a lot of ppl off. He's too toffer, too proper, at times he embelishes it. He needs to loosen up and shake off the pomp.

[@Jean-ri3cn]

Keeping my personal affiliations aside, its somewhat objective he uses the same 3-4 anti-Marxist arguments that leftists have debunked over and over again, he isn't adding anything new or being "profound", he's just eloquent and charismatic. Populism at its finest.

[@bertbauer2631]

The issue about Fascism is that it's not about race. That National Socialism, which weirdly is more like a mix of fascism and communism.

[@Hunter1428]

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome.

[@Pauliewalnuts_822]

I've listened to douglas murray for years being from the u.k. He was a prominent figure on mainstream political programmes. I've always gave him opportunity to change my mind on certain political positions but as always, he omits facts (his Venezuela argument) and gives no context to his criticism. He just gives tired examples of it's failure with again no context. Asking him to give a critique on unfettered capitalism I'm sure would cause him an aneurysm.

[@ameenomar1911]

Exactly. His criticism is just slander. It doesn’t have any real basis or critical examination. I do not know how I feel about Marxism nor capitalism but I at least know not to take Murray’s views serious. His remarks seem much more personal than logical. He cannot go a sentence criticizing Marx without referring to red herrings or name calling. The crazy thing is that Murray may be right, but the way he makes arguments are terrible. Firstly, he makes an analogy to fascism. First of all, systems akin to fascism were the modus operandi for at least a millennia so there is something to be said about retrying previously experimented systems of governance.

[@keithremedy]

@@ameenomar1911 he’s talked about it so many times though. It’s probably getting inherently exhausting at this point. The way he talks about this is as if it should be obvious to the audience

[@ameenomar1911]

@@keithremedy Can you please share with me a sober critique of capitalism offered by Murray. Has he critiqued anything for that matter, I am genuinely interested

[@geopoliticsweekly]

I like how Murray’s big concern (radical income inequality) is also one of the chief points raised by Marxism. It’d be fascinating to see Murray in a debate with Richard Wolff. Wolff highlighted the evolution of Marxist and socialist thinking, whereas Murray mistakenly treats it as monolithic. Murray also doesn’t understand Marx and Engels thought socialists would first come to power in the industrialized world, not the underdeveloped world. The necessity for rapid industrialization this brought about, particularly in Russia and China, accounts for much of the suffering.

[@suzysocas3070]

Yes and when he says that Marxist ideologies have not work, well with harsh international sanctions and blockades can it flourished? Every time it was working it has been destroyed, as in the former Yugoslavia. I think this guy as Peter Jordan, are full of shit.

[@geopoliticsweekly]

@@suzysocas3070 Agreed. I think Murray demonstrated his knowledge of Marxism, and of socialism more broadly, is pretty shallow.

[@soulfuzz368]

@@suzysocas3070 wolff already laid out how centrally planned economies are NOT marxist. Your example was not socialism according to wolff

[@soulfuzz368]

@@geopoliticsweekly most people have shallow understandings of the things they oppose. Wolff knows absolutely nothing about capitalism for example.

[@suzysocas3070]

@@soulfuzz368 Murray said that Marxist ideas have not worked in practice, as if they were unviable. What I am saying is: how anything that smells Marxist, Leninist, Socialist, Communist or even Anarchist ideas and systems are going to work with so much antagonism from imperial capitalism; or what is the meaning of McCarthyism then? I am not talking about centralised or decentralised economies nope, I am talking about the fact of over a century in demonising, embargo, blockade and destruction of any movement that is not capitalism, predatory capitalism.

[@tensevo]

Marx: Hey I'm just the ideas guy. You ppl are crazy.

[@Magicwillnz]

Ask this guy why capitalism seems to collapse every decade, why millions of people starve to death despite the abundance of food, and why millions die from preventable disease, and he'll tell you "the free market has never been tried."

[@jcivilis533]

Oh it has been tried, those are just acceptable faults of the system to him, instead he'll probably argue that the solution to our current issues is to just ban immigration or something. A lot of these types mistake the aesthetic superstructure of society for analysis of the superstructure itself, so their solution is usually some essentialist spiritualized bullshit about changing culture without changing economy at the same time.

[@Magicwillnz]

@@jcivilis533 Agreed. It's this attitude of humanity having failed Capitalism instead of the other way around.

[@davidrandell2224]

Apart from “The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner,1844/2017 Landstreicher translation this wishy washy capitalism/ communism dispute will continue. Fixed ideas from the human brain remain rubbish.

[@Supple_Leopard]

Never once in my education did I learn anything about Mao

[@TRUTHRULES777]

When you speak the truth and you are a true believer of the truth and you look for the truth and you find the lies that’s when sad to say you find TRUTH. Tell the truth always.🦉❤️🕊

[@misterprogressive8730]

Its dissapointing that none of the themes from prof wolf were mentioned, like democratisation of the workplace, unfairness of the free market, or exploitation of labour.

[@arthurrosa9403]

As always. Just strawmanning and joking. This was a disgrace of a "discussion" even Lex can't keep his face straight.

[@HaganeHiryu]

Maybe they didn’t mention those because those are all dumb ideas. I disagree that a free market is unfair, but for the sake of argument let’s say that it is. A fair economic system isn’t inherently good. That system might provide $5 and one meal a day to every person. That’s fair but it’s terrible.

[@DEPARTMENTOFREDUNDANCYDEPT]

What zealots arguing for their imagined utopia never openly confront is the single historical lesson which zealots have taught us, which is that their delusional utopia/nirvana is always right over THERE, on the other side of that OCEAN OF BLOOD, and all we must do is swim across it. Some brain dead fanatics, mourning the failure of the Soviet Union, have actually suggested that Russian Communism might have succeeded, if only the Bolsheviks had killed just one million more people. After all, Stalin taught us that while the death of one man is a tragedy, but the deaths of a million people is just a statistic.

[@samthesham6854]

Now the kids say Stalin saved the world.

[@davidswanson5669]

“Every time you try the recipe and it comes out as s***, then the recipe is s***”… you’ve never had my wife’s cooking

[@luckyricky7131]

To be honest, I don't see justification of either capitalism or socialism, communication, democracy, republics or what have you. If you look at the world today you don't just see pure Communism or socialism. The capitalist societies we see prevailing today are blends of capitalist republics and democracy and humanitarian are left at the way side. This is what truly fuels the ratchet effect in my opinion.

[@HaganeHiryu]

What is humanitarianism? Why is it good? How should it be achieved?

[@wolsch3435]

Karl Marx descended from rabbi families on both his mother's and father's side. His father Heinrich converted to Christianity, otherwise he would not have been able to continue working as a lawyer in Trier, which had been Prussian since 1815. Karl Marx was already accused during his lifetime that his view of the "working class", which was supposed to bring about salvation from the contradictions of capitalism and bring humanity blessed, peaceful communism, meant a deeply religious return to paradise lost. Karl Marx's later disciples then had to experience that "the workers" were by no means so keen on the new paradise of communism, but were more interested in tangible, concrete improvements in their living conditions in the "here and now". Therefore, the "Party" was declared the vanguard of the working class, and its leaders knew only what is good for the "workers" and what is good for humanity. This presumption and arrogance led to Lenin and Stalin and, in my opinion, clearly has religious traits of the worst kind.

[@MrJesseBell]

This is what a mature intellectual sounds like.

[@cristianmartinez9091]

Who? Lex barely spoke…

[@geofsawaya394]

Marxism failed Has capitalism succeeded? Where’s the omelette? I suppose some taste it. How many Americans live in poverty?

[@nathanclearyschin7100]

Relative poverty. Even the poor in America are relatively well off.

[@nathanclearyschin7100]

Americans have no grasp on true poverty.

[@El_krux]

Not quite true. There is people in central valley, California, for example, that lives in shacks and earn a couple of dollars a day from working the fields their ancestors have worked for generations.

[@Ahabite]

Define poverty. Where would you rather be poor, if not the US?

[@geofsawaya394]

@@Ahabite indeed. It was only a counterpoint, as many Americans live in poverty, there are sadly people in the world suffering much more dire conditions ❤️

[@RajpreetMatharu1993]

HE LITERALLY ISNT SAYING ANYTHING HERE HAHA how do ppl think this is an insightful critique of marx...

[@RajpreetMatharu1993]

hasn't been specific about a single thing... is talking in vague generalities and analogies

[@justin_5631]

This Lex guy seems completely checked out or high. And saying something like 'crowds are dangerous' isn't a useful insight when you're structuring societies, which by their nature involve crowds. So it's a complete nonsequitar. Murray's focus on communism and fascism is more to the point.

[@kirklazenby1]

Russia: 'Let's try this Hegelian dialectical thingy, and meet the status quo with its antithesis". (Shortly after) : (Millions dead of starvation, Hitler raises to power, over a 100 million dead world wide, and a nuclear power that can't find its arse with both hands in a war with Ukraine)....-Russia "Wow! this absolute truth synthesis smells like dogshit"- >>>>Meanwhile in US academia: " 'Let's try this Hegelian dialectical thingy, and meet the status quo with its antithesis"

[@cristianmartinez9091]

Based anti-misreading-of-Hegel post. Wait, you think Hegel was about the tripartite dialect… 💀

[@kirklazenby1]

@@cristianmartinez9091 Mmmm No. Idealism is fine, so long as you remember the dialectic is an ontological conceptual method which maps onto reality, and if you like, I'll just wait here while you provide some objective evidence of metaphysics?.,,and astrology whilst you're looking......... The dialectic is fine, as a Socratic method, Kantian, even Hegelian is fine,. My scepticism of the applied triad is Hegel's religious inference that a truth will eventually synthesise, because it's far too numinous., even by the standards of an Idealist..Unlike other ontological concepts such as maths and the periodic table: peer reviewed, double blind tests are not forth coming, unless a bunch of sexually inactive idealists scribbling truth tables in mums basements is your idea of a peer review study?... Aristotle's syllogism, lays out premises that we can establish the validity of, when assessing their axiomatic claims; the Hegelian dialectic seems more subjective, (conceptual) and easier to manipulate, "make fit" according to biases..... Pick an arbitrary epoch in history (call this your synthesis) then look further back until you'll invariably find a thesis and antithesis to fit....It's even easer to do when applied to ontological concepts such as identity, and being... Similar to map reading: The map should fit the ground, the ground should not have to try to fit the map.(This was also Foucault's issue with it) And yet I still use the method myself, but BUT!!! , It was Marx's Concrete synthesis, as laid out in Dialectical Materialism, THAT was when the world witnessed its truly amazing mystical properties open like a fern cone....Picture the scene:, its Germany, and the Frankfurt school eagerly awaiting the election results, so they can celebrate theirs, and Germany's new socialist government...And they fucking got one. National socialist lol ....The school packed up, headed to the states, where they set up schools, and "realigned" the young Hegelian method, repackaged, and sold to a load of gullible yanks...

[@kirklazenby1]

@@cristianmartinez9091 And for shits and dits I've provided you with a google stock answer, seeing as this is where you probably get your education - Google: "Marx applied dialectic to “justify” the proletarian revolution and radicalism. Hegel idealized the state through dialectical method and ultimately it culminated to fascism. Marx's application of dialectic led to the proletarian revolution and establishment of communism."

[@samham4243]

Gustave le bon The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind published in 1895

[@dsgio7254]

So Douglas - the same thing all the latin American countries would say : look what happened with 150 years of imposed capitalism ... poverty and oppression ..the same recipe over and over - right ?

[@dukejones5107]

Tell me you haven’t read any Marx without explicitly saying so. If you read Das Kapital you’ll see Marx actually steel man’s capitalism then critiques it. He demonstrates that even on paper capitalism is fundamentally flawed, that’s why it requires government bailouts or world war to bail itself out. Capitalism comes at the cost of billions of lives whether by death or quality of life. Familiarize yourself with the concepts of CMC and MCM. A commodity that needs money for commodities (laborer) or someone with money that buys commodities to make more money. Also look up primitive accumulation and you’ll see why it’s insane to suggest a free market is in any way based on merit. Capitalism can’t be refined, it must be transformed into a superior economic system, Marx pretty much says as much. The idea that communists want you to live in a backwards society is absolutely mental. Just check out the development in China that’s happening under a Marxist ideology. And yes even though they engage in capitalism (you have to in the modern era) they are not primarily motivated by profit. It’s why they can invest in education, modern infrastructure, eliminating poverty without the overwhelming obstruction of profit.

[@CTrudo27]

Douglas Murray's response completely missed the spirit of Lex's question. Millions of people have died from capitalism as well. It's remained in power due to the failure of Marxism primarily. Capitalists have produced dead bodies in country after country in a western crusade of economic ideas. Let asked if there can be better than capitalism and if that is useful. Douglas goes off on a rant that is exactly the same answers you hear everytime from someone defending capitalism without any acknowledgement of the ills of capitalism that have been awful as well and included its own genocides.

[@TheGabriel12341]

Marxist is a complex idea (theories) can't be forgotten but "Marxism" has two ways: the once is the theorietical and the other one is practical activist ideologues.... The second tendency is common from when he had born...

[@waleednoor6590]

Conservatives displaying their ignorance about what they love to criticize the most never gets old…

[@mrpotifar]

Go on that

[@SwampFeet678]

I dont have to be a doctor to diagnose a broken leg. This is the same argument that someone must be a biologist to be able explain what a "woman" is.

[@jorgemachado5317]

Ok then. Murray descarted marxism without saying the words: "Theory of Value, abstract labor, concrete labor, fetishism, use value, exchange value, dialetics, materialism, productive forces, relations of production, alienation, variable capital, constant capital, class struggle, mode of production, burgeois democracy, proletariat dictatorship, capital crisis, abstract accumulation" and others People seems to think is easy to refute marxism because they never feel obligated to study it

[@kunipeg8706]

Sure, most people didn't study Marx. But most people know about Soviet Russia, Red China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. And then there's the West. Where would you rather live in?

[@jorgemachado5317]

​@@kunipeg8706 That's not refuting marxism. That's just a convenient change of subject

[@emrebarsismailoglu5829]

"It never worked because the recipe is shit." With the great recipe of capitalism we have which so clearly works out, we are heading towards inevitable climate catastrophe. Hoorrayy! Long live capitalism! It is easier to imagine the end of humanity rather than the end of capitalism

[@Guevorkyan]

Or we could take down all trees and produce energy that way, or with carbon. That's what most third world countries do it, most of them devoid of the capitalism of the developed world. Just like when they call out modern agriculture practices, when the alternative, "more naturalistic" way, pollutes more on account of more land required, more deforestation, more everything.

[@emrebarsismailoglu5829]

@@Guevorkyan third world countries are not devoid of capitalism, they literally suffer from capitalism. A capitalist world order is not possible without the existence of third world countries.

[@Guevorkyan]

@@emrebarsismailoglu5829 I live in one, and capitalism was not the problem we are in the third world. Rather, going against it is what brought us down here. State driven production is what causes poverty and most problems associated with the creation of pollution.

[@9Plaka]

The 'climate catastrophe' is not caused by capitalism, i.e., climate change is the result of industrialization independent from whatever economic system a country is using. In our modern age, the consumer has the freedom to not purchase products that are detrimental to the environment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humans are simply unwilling to make the personal sacrifices necessary to make environmentally unfriendly processes unprofitable for companies. That is how a free market is supposed to work, but note that there is not a single country on Earth that exhibits pure capitalism; no matter where you look, there is government regulation and interference in all markets. If you look now at the global CO2 emissions by country, you will see that China (an authoritarian socialist state) contributes to 30% of the global CO2 emission. The particular economic system is not relevant and instead, factors like population size, level of industrialization, and lifestyle choices (i.e., supply and demand for carbon producing products) are more meaningful to analyze. As Milton Friedman said in one of his speeches, "governments don't make decisions, people make decisions." You cannot just blame an economic system for your troubles when it is individuals that make decisions, and individuals make decisions based on their values. Magically implementing socialism or communism won't make all our troubles go away; individuals will still make shitty decisions, except now they'll have greater power than before. You're then relying on a perfect leader to fix everything, and those kinds of leaders are exceptionally rare and you're more likely to end up with a tyrant in charge.

[@Ahabite]

@@9Plaka Thank you for pointing this out. I love when the Commie apologists babble about climate change utterly ignoring the ecological disasters that took place during the Soviet Union.

[@michaellowe3665]

This was so needed after the raving socialist that was on previously. Lex is inclusive at least.

[@SerDunk]

Hell yea!

[@Supernautiloid]

Next we need another socialist to clean up the messy arguments offered by this lunatic.

[@michaellowe3665]

@@Supernautiloid I'll pass, the last one pretty much said all the dumb stuff that socialists can come up with.

[@Supernautiloid]

@@michaellowe3665 Even if that was true, Murray makes Wolff look like Einstein. 😂

[@ColorMatching]

@@michaellowe3665 like what?

[@alexespinoza3325]

Simplicity compels Murray

[@tensevo]

Lets not make all the happy people miserable, for the sake of equality. That would be unreasonable.

[@HaganeHiryu]

@@tensevo there is no reason to think that people would be happier if “equality” were achieved.

[@tensevo]

@@HaganeHiryu quite right, but if you are aiming for equal outcomes, it's easier to shoot for equally miserable, then equally happy.

[@yavare22]

He is talking about how Marxism failed while ignoring the fact that how Capitalism succeeded ! Let's pretend he doesn't know the history

[@kylecasey7890]

Most of us agree that capitalism is the best form of economy, providing the most freedom and quality of life, if you work for it. It also produces the most ingenuity of any economic system. So one has to wonder, why don’t the powers that be favor a more capitalistic approach to society, as it benefits not only themselves more, but their fellow human? *POWER AND CONTROL* Always has been.

[@Shahpo]

It’s true that Communist countries never succeeded. But what about socialist states? The EU is practically socialist, Denmark, Germany, hell even the UK has a number of classic socialist policies.

[@catalinpopa8908]

Nazi Germany was socialist. What’s your point?

[@Shahpo]

@@catalinpopa8908 they were also fascist

[@Ahabite]

"Practically socialist"? Please expand on this weasel phrase.

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

They are not socialist lmaoooo. Scandinavian countries literally have a lower corporation tax than US

[@Shahpo]

@@Daniel-ih4zh if you take France for example, they own their rail, energy, health, education, military, and many more industries.

[@roseagain2]

Love the ending

[@tropics8407]

Appreciate you bringing Douglas Murray on and esp getting him to critique Marxism. Esp after the last series…👊

[@DreamingRobots]

Agreed. Really surprised how narrow minded the comments are on here. "The rich car salesman who says the fake dog money is real says we're all going to MARS" Bunch of crazy losers.

[@vampirepvssy]

Indoctrination is one hell of drug

[@jeffreyhall76]

@@vampirepvssy it’s terrifying to witness

[@tropics8407]

Tyranny of the worker. What ? This cannot happen ? In my country the unions and workers are exploiting the government and the public. The state enterprise sector has the highest pay, the largest amount of workers and the least amount of work getting done. The state enterprises are losing money and need to be supported by the government which in turn is taxing the private sector. The unions threaten the political parties with strikes and their votes. So the suffering ordinary citizens and private sector must accept this ? Why is it that we must accept communism ? Every worker is now their own little dictator….total failure is inevitable.

[@biometronome7010]

@@tropics8407 This is ridiculous nonsense. Every statistic shows that the rich have gotten richer, and the richer the very few get, the worse the lives of workers become. What you're saying is the exact opposite of the facts of the world.

[@dalelane1948]

Last week guy - socialism is the ONLY way, this week it's the polar opposite. Someone needs to dose these guys up or something, try to get them to open their ears, maybe one day their minds, so that rational open-minde discussion may flow.

[@timhall3231]

He is genuinely brilliant

[@grantwilliams643]

What part do you think was really brilliant? Genuinely curious. Sorry, I guess it is a little trollish but I just want to understand the appeal. Seems like a lot of assumptions based off of some books he read. I could be wrong.

[@stankwilliamsjr.8949]

@Grant Williams aren’t most “brilliant” people referred to as being BECAUSE they have done a lot of reading? And research and analysis and study and interpretation and….

[@alst4817]

Unfortunately he is that lowest of life forms: a journalist. He is far from being brilliant, although he is sometimes right

[@nikogdatakogo]

If socialism does not work and has to fail why West uses economical sanctions and blocades to tackle socialist regimes? I mean, if socialist countries will inevetibly fail why even bother?

[@DrakeRose]

Quantitative easing isn't capitalism.

[@1uckywanderboy519]

Marxism does not mean Communism

[@riteshsinghchoudhary115]

Hey Lex you might like to invite Hakim to talk on marxism. And Not just bikes, Adam something to talk on urban planning and transportation. Also you should read Maurice Cornforth's 📕 Dialectical materialism, written as an introduction to some key aspects of marxist philosophy for British workers.

[@gladmann8921]

Why would Lex give a platform to a ideological d rider? And also why would he spend 3 hours talking with people trying to fit the would into an ideological framework and not vice-versa?

[@nickking6371]

"ONLY CAPITALSIM! OK WELL SOCIAL MOBILITY IS BROKEN, AND SUPER INEQUALITY, BUT CAPITALISM IS THE BEST STILL"

[@Ahabite]

Agreed. It is the best.

[@alexrayoalv]

The old "Marxism never works" trope. Meh. Marxist theory has some good stuff (the critique of exploitative structures in industrial capitalism, framework for analyzing class relations, alienation, and capital accumulation, and understanding of the social costs of unregulated markets), and the lesson of the 20th century is not "Marxism bad" - it's that authoritarianism, whether czarist, fascist, Stalinist, Maoist, neoliberal, or whatever, creates systemic failures and severe socioeconomic consequences. The real issue is how power gets exercised and concentrated. Totalizing ideologies can lead to authoritarianism and oppression (e.g., arguably the Marxist-Leninist deterministic view of history), and so can exclusionary ideologies like nationalism, racial supremacy, and hierarchical social structures. Look at Stalin's U.S.S.R., Mussolini's Italy, Nazi Germany, Spain under Franco, Mao's China, Japan under Hirohito, Chile under Pinochet, Iraq under Hussein - the pattern is clear. Ideology shapes how power is exercised, but context and structure matter just as much. Even well-meaning ideology becomes a mere tool of authoritarian power when paired with unchecked power and flawed governance. And crucially, Western liberal democracies are part of this story too - their history of colonialism, imperialism, systems of exploitation and inequality, environmental degradation, and support for authoritarian regimes aligned with neoliberalism and Western interests. Murray & Lex didn't even bother to define Marxism or distinguish between Marxist theory and the broad range of ideologies within "Marxist" praxis, which is important to understand. The comparison of "Marxist experiments" to Fascism is particularly absurd. Nazi Germany's ideology was explicitly about racial supremacy, antisemitism, and wars of conquest. When people say Marxism hasn't really been tried, they're referring to its vision of an egalitarian society ("From each according to ability, to each according to needs"), not endorsing Soviet-style state control. Equating an egalitarian ideology with one built on racism and genocide is absurd. If your analysis of the U.S.S.R., Cuba, or Venezuela boils down to "Marxism doesn't work," you don't understand these states' histories, geopolitical contexts, or the dynamics of power in general. The fundamental lesson isn't about ideology - it's about how unchecked power corrupts any system, regardless of its stated principles. Understanding this means looking beyond "-isms" to examine how power actually operates within specific historical and cultural contexts.

[@MiroRaitamaa]

This guy should debate @InfraredShow asap!

[@sovmindset]

I like what he said and how he said it. Very entertaining and correct. However it would be also nice to include some arguments from first principles. For instance that core to communism working it requires a concentration of power, top down hierarchy, and state sponsored authoritarianism.

[@billjohnson6863]

I agree and I think that discussion would be pretty simple. If you make a venn diagram of "jobs people want to do" and "jobs society needs" then you'll find those circles don't overlap. So the question is, how do you get people to do things they don't want to do? Capitalism does it with money but how does marxism do it? The answer is centralized power and authoritarianism. Marxists (like the the one Lex recently interviewed) love to claim that soviet russia, china, etc. Were just one flavor of marxism. However, they fail to see that those examples are inevitable.

[@jdonthepc9831]

@@billjohnson6863 just look at anarchist Spain in the 30s to prove how that isn't true.

[@HaganeHiryu]

@@jdonthepc9831 anarchism won’t function without a free market unless everyone is 100% self sufficient. Even then a free market would still be utilized.

[@mstendedero]

“If the Marxist Bible cannot be taken as a guide to parliamentary tactics, the same may be said of those very revolutionary documents the Gospels. We do not on that account burn the Gospels and conclude that the preacher of The Sermon on the Mount has nothing to teach us; and neither should we burn Das Kapital and ban Marx as a worthless author whom nobody ought to read. Marx did not get his reputation for nothing. He was a very great teacher. And the people who have not yet learn his lessons make most dangerous stateswomen and statesmen.” I like to share what Bernard Shaw said about Marx.

[@gursugursakal5601]

The very words those Douglass Murray fellow utters (Making free markets fair etc.) is an absolute proof that he has no idea of what he is talking about, knows nothing about economics and how Capitalism works and should take an introduction course in "History of Economic Thought". The very concept of modern free market had been born/constructed against the arbitrariness of concepts such as Justness/Fairness. It says us that here is the demand, here is the supply and here is the equilibrium/equilibria where they intersect. It does not give a damn about your subjective concept of "Fairness" and that is what makes free markets "efficient". For nearly two thousand years from Plato to Saint Thomas of Aquinas up to Adam Smith every philosopher had searched for "Just Price" alas they have not been able to find it because there is no such thing... And throughout the history when any Lord, King, Governor, Padishah, Dictator claimed he knew it and implemented economies failed miserably...So he is in fact arguing against the system he thinks he is defending without even knowing the nature of "Free Market" mechanism ))) That is the problem of our current "intellectuals"; they're so shallow and usually have no idea about what they're talking but they have strong "opinions". You may be all for Capitalism & "Free Markets" or vehemently oppose it I don't care. But for crying out loud just be coherent in your train of thought and basic concepts....

[@marvinrascal3376]

Debate him then?

[@alphonsis6183]

I had assumed that by "making free markets fair" he was just agreeing with Lex that we can and should critique capitalist government, in part based on perceived fairness of proposals/outcomes. I guess I missed the economics lesson.

[@gursugursakal5601]

@@alphonsis6183 But it is the whole point. You can NOT make "Free Markets" fair based on an arbitrary notion of fairness. Then it would not be a "Free Market". That is simply not possible and it is a common knowledge taught in any Economics Department in the world. He also specifically gave the example of an "overpaid" boss earning 100-1000 times a worker. In a capitalist economy wages are determined by the market not by someone's' arbitrary notion of fairness. You can of course critique it and say that it is a weak point of Capitalist system. But you can not propose to "fix it" à la "Price Controls" and at the same time have a Capitalist system. He wants to have his cake and eat it. He is inconsistent because he lacks the basic understanding of the subject he is talking about. You can of course critique the capitalist system but what I am arguing is that his way of critique is ignorant and incoherent.

[@gursugursakal5601]

@@marvinrascal3376 Of course, no problem. But it is pointless and instead he can simply buy an "Introduction to Economics" book and read it or attend any university's Introduction to Economics classes since everything I've pointed is common knowledge. I did not specifically defend Capitalism or Critique it. You can do either, no problem but get your facts straight.

[@alphonsis6183]

@@gursugursakal5601 nobody is discussing laissez faire, I think "free markets" is being loosely used synonymously with capitalism, by both men here. You are right of course about true free markets and fairness. But certainly you can apply fairness principles to policies of our current capitalist/socialist mix of governments.

[@seanjohnson7145]

HAHAHA "If everytime you bake it and it comes out shit, it means the recipe is shit" :D

[@rylewx]

Weird when Lex looks right in the camera

[@mr.giggles4995]

Did you guys know jesus was a venture capitalist? He preached about the free market all the time. So did Buddha!... the free market is the only true way to achieve a state of enlightenment. Material items = happiness.

[@HaganeHiryu]

Close. Capitalism promotes individual liberty. Individual liberty = happiness

[@mr.giggles4995]

@@HaganeHiryu well seeing as the majority of the US society is now living paycheck to paycheck and is basically guaranteed to lose what little life-savings they have to insurance companies and hospital bills once they get sick and are forced to work 2 or 3 jobs to just barely survive... I'd say capitalism has been a failure for America. And that's not even touching upon the fact that capitalism relies on child and slave labor. Is capitalism liberating the child in the sweatshop that made your clothing?

[@HaganeHiryu]

@@mr.giggles4995 none of that is the result of capitalism. It is the result of corrupt government. Healthcare in the US is probably the least free part of the market here.

[@melkenhoning158]

Blackrock gave me enlightenment! Thanks Jesus!

[@hoodparticles]

Yet capitalism is destroying the planet and our species and this guy yaps about nothing lol

[@key6723]

No the invisible mental health epidemic is destroying our species.

[@artvandalay7632]

Wait till you see what the Soviet’s did to the environment

[@robertotolentino1542]

@@artvandalay7632 wait til you see what the Soviets claimed was “communism”

[@artvandalay7632]

@@robertotolentino1542 what about North Korea, Cuba, Mao’s China, Venezuela, Vietnam? Also not real communism? Which one is real communism?

[@edh615]

@@artvandalay7632 Yes, dropping multiple times the bombs of WW2 in vietnam was also the communist industrial complex.

[@dsgio7254]

The same thing we can say for capitalism ,, has been tried and look at the world .. Whatever progress has been achieved is not because of the market economy but because of the state intervention.

[@alexvalin9085]

Uh oh, Douglas Murray? That must mean Lex is now a member of the alt right!