John Steele Gordon | Socialism in American History

[@djplexiglass]

The content of the videos are such high quality! In time, a larger audience will come. Thank you, Hillsdale.

[@aWomanFreed]

“In capitalist countries the rich become powerful; in socialist countries the powerful become rich.” Seems USA is currently a bizarre hybrid of the two...

[@jesusislordsavior6343]

M Knits USA (James 5:1-2) 'Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted, and your garments have become moth-eaten.' (Psalm 49:20) 'Man in his pomp, yet without understanding, is like the beasts that perish.' Perhaps being rich and/or powerful is NOT the greatest blessing imaginable. (John 3:16) 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.' Now THAT sounds much better.

[@ethimself5064]

@@jesusislordsavior6343 Leave religion outa this please

[@ethimself5064]

Trump and Trumpsters? Y gotta be kidding

[@jesusislordsavior6343]

@@ethimself5064 Not good enough! 'Please, pretty please!' is the minimum required. Even then I cannot oblige you, because I DO NOT KNOW what you mean by 'religion'. You have not defined it. I do not consider myself a 'religious' person. I did not receive Christ in order to 'become religious', but because TRUTH and enlightened self-interest compelled me to do so. Furthermore the Bible DOES NOT COMMEND religion per se: (James 1:26) 'If anyone thinks himself to be religious, yet does not bridle his tongue yet deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.' No doubt Paul the apostle had many false religions of his day in mind when he wrote these words: (Romans 1:18) 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.' Have you never recognized that POLITICAL IDEOLOGY may serve exactly the same social functions as 'religion'? Indeed I regard political ideology, when it is taken very seriously, as a form of secular religion. I recommend reading Harvey Cox, 'The Secular City' (1965), which exposed the essentially SACRAL nature of BOTH American and Soviet politics at the height of the Cold War era. Never mind that one system was 'capitalist' and the other 'socialist'!

[@ethimself5064]

@@jesusislordsavior6343 Oh dear - The bible was assembles about 325 AD by the powers of The Roman Empire and the Powers of the Jews and us completely useless as there is NO Ancient Roman history at the time of Christ. It is all metaphors and mythology. Matter of fact the Jewish faith actually came from the ancient Sumerians. People should study Real History as opposed to as mentioned. Good bye

[@jamesstuartbrice420]

One problem with the contrast occurs at the start. He says, in socialism the powerful become rich. But in America the powerful in Congress or the federal government also become rich, see Pelosi, Obama, the Clintons as just a few of the people who got rich after they started their government service. And some rich Americans do not manage to get elected to high office.

[@Hunterchuck]

Capitalism and Socialism should not have much to do with government to begin with. Government ends up being a tool used by those who want to keep power and riches for themselves. This is a reoccurring theme in capitalist countries which is why people are wanting to take power away from the big businesses that control the government through lobbying. In a vacuum capitalism and socialism can work fine but government involvement is always what messes it up. So now in America we are in a stage where the majority are wanting to get rid of capitalism since it is clearly a failing system.

[@ericdailey8587]

What you said about politicians finding riches after being elected is true, but it came through a capitalistic market. Also, I am not so sure that in America we have a pure capitalistic economy.

[@vladdumitrica849]

Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented. Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

[@MatthewsSloan]

Thank you for everything you do Hillsdale. Thank you for these videos.

[@timsteinkamp2245]

America became a socialist country 100 years ago. When our congress decided to limit the people's House to 435 members that was the start of it. Instead of having one rep per 30,000 we are at one per 800,000. Capitalism is socialized, we are taxed more ways than people even understand and government is a bureaucracy of rules and regulations made up by administrators to control every aspect of our lives. BTW Congress does print money, it's called the national debt. $22,000,000,000,000. One trillion is equal to $3,000 per person in America. Each citizen owes $66,000. A family of four owes $264,000. Welcome to America.

[@vinyltapelover]

Tim Steinkamp "...we are taxed more ways than people even understand and government is a bureaucracy of rules and regulations made up by administrators to control every aspect of our lives."👍👍👍👍 For me, truer words could have never been written or spoken. I dang near jumped out of my seat when I saw that sentence. I'm a 73 year old fart, who is a retired, vet. I have studied closely what has gone on in California, as well as other places bearing out your words.. Through the decades, in particular, when the "girly man" Schwarzennegar took over the reins from 'giving way the farm' Gray Davis. At taxpayers' expense, he allowed for pay increases, retirement/ pension deals, with the C.H.P.. Not to be held out of the action, the State Corrections Officers whined and wanted in on the financial action, so Davis worked them a deal. These two things along with other stuff, got Davis REcalled and Californians stuck with "Girly Man", Rhino, Schwarzzenager. What a loser. Those two actions had a domino effect that all state employees and other governmental employees in California wanted in on the action. That turned into a sliding budget breaking breaker for other states. Note, before Girly Man left office, he signed SB-32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and many Californians don't have the God's sense to understand how he has screwed them over and didn't give them a kiss. I could not begin to hold a candle to the things covered in this video nor the many learned thoughts of you and the many commenters at this video. What you wrote, I have spoken similar words, to myself, many times through the decades. It is a simple yet powerful statement It is so simple that [many] people ignore or reject the concept outright, or ignore it because they want it to be more complicated than it is. By the way, after reading your figures, it seems like I should be be broke and have need to file for bankruptcy, move all my belonging in a motorized shopping cart(electric of course in the name of the new green crappy deal), water proof my old g.i. issued sleeping bag, and bring along my 3 cases of MREs for chow.:)

[@digaddog6099]

True. If you read Das Kapital, that's exactly what Marx advocated for. He didn't care about all this "means of production" bullshit, he actually just wanted every representative to stand in for as many voters as possible.

[@jesusislordsavior6343]

I think he makes a substantial point when answering about a 'socialist' community of long standing. Its survival is a matter of limited scale and voluntary participation. The same, I think, might be said about 'democracy', of which we experience only a pale shadow through the arcane mechanics of representative government. In small communities a fuller measure of civic engagement may sometimes be possible, but inevitably 'democracy' shades into oligarchic plutocracy. The vote is as much a ritual to appease the masses as it is a means of determining the 'popular will'-----------which I scarcely credit with existence anyway. Both 'socialism' and modern 'democracy' are largely theoretical constructs of late Enlightenment vintage, though I suppose that classical antecedents could be arrayed in support. It is noteworthy that the earliest Church in Jerusalem practised communal sharing of property. The motivation was practical and charitable rather than ideological, and the community was self-sustaining without reference to the Roman imperial State. (Acts 4:32) 'And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.' Marxists would call such an example 'primitive communism' because of its antiquity, but I disagree. I see the Jerusalem church as an ethical model to which very few have attained since. CHRIST and brotherly love were their guides, not the dreams of philosophers. It seems to me that 'economic freedom' includes arrangements of this sort. There is nothing wrong with sharing goods; nor do I see State economic intervention expressly forbidden in Scripture. The patriarch Joseph bought up land and concentrated it in the hands of Pharaoh during the Egyptian famine (Genesis 47:20). The Western Allies imposed rationing during ww2 and told businesses what to produce for the war effort. However THEFT is not permissible.

[@ConstableFrost]

What makes me sad is seeing the audience made up of mostly old people. Everything that I heard was true and beautiful, but the future generations aren't there to hear it.

[@michaelellis4292]

Im 24, trying to get into hillsdale. Its just that younger people get these talks in different ways. Mostly online and in podcasts.

[@highcard150]

They are busy playing Xbox.

[@Hunterchuck]

@Kevin Smith Honest history is never enjoyable. It's only enjoyable when it feeds into what you want to believe. So when you get fed a story about socialism never working, it is extremely fun because you've already been indoctrinated to believe that socialism never has worked. However honest and thorough look at history will show you that the 'socialist' societies didn't have anything to do with socialism. Just the same old fascist dictatorships that we've seen time and time again. But to understand that you first have to have a basic understanding of what socialism is. Socialism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Lots of reading to do in learning everything there is to learn so it's quite boring right? That's why you guys love coming to these speeches to have socialism told to you through a biased lens. younger people are not interested in your indoctrination so you will have to tolerate the old retired farts for now.

[@Hunterchuck]

@Kevin Smith Well, i wish i could hear an argument against socialism that wasn't fallacious and misinformed. It always comes down to pointing to so-called 'socialist' countries that don't have collective ownership of the means of production. If an argument levied against socialism where they clearly point out what parts of these societies were socialist and the reason why it didn't work then i would get on board. Unfortunately i've already looked myself and seen no such socialism in these countries. tisk tisk

[@Hunterchuck]

@Kevin Smith Glad you asked. Any socialist you talk to will tell you co-ops are the way to go. This is like teaching a person how to fish so you feed them for a lifetime because the workers have ownership of the business and will learn how to manage a business while doing the labor as well. docs.google.com/document/d/1ido70LgXsEhxcnyXE7RVS0wYJZc6aeVTpujCUPQgTrE/edit I have a google docs full of information on them being successful and their barriers to entry in a capitalist run economy. So i've got all the ground covered. Socialism = collective ownership of production and distribution of goods and services. This is why we are never impressed by anti socialist pointing at the so-called 'socialist' failures. We aren't interested in government controlled economies.

[@Hunterchuck]

There is a lot to go through in this video but i'll just chip in at 35:00 - First how does a person make billions of dollars? I run a business as a sole proprietor and i only make $178k/yr and that's only if i overcharge customers. if i add more workers to my business i can make even more money but only if i underpay the workers for the work they do. People like Jeff Bezos has hurt a lot of small businesses like myself as well since Amazon has monopolized the market. People can buy items for cheaper so for the consumers it's really nice to get cheaper goods but it comes at the expense of the people who work for the company you are purchasing from. - Also, are we going to sit around and pretend that we can just keep printing money? If we allow people to accumulate absurd amounts of wealth then how is the economy going to hold out without printing money? Did we forget that printing money decreases the dollar value and inflates prices? I think we need to stop pretending that these rich business owners make their wealth through hard work and acknowledge that their success is only due to the underpaid workers they hire to increase their profits.

[@djplexiglass]

I can speak to just a couple things you mentioned sir, so I’ll mostly stick to those. All the money doesn’t get printed, most of it exists in the form of banking ledgers, accounts and so forth. Most wealth exists in the form of assets that can be utilized, for example someone owning a home could also rent it out or sell it. There formerly wasn’t a house and then there was, so wealth was actually created. There are of course expenses involved, everything costs something. As for underpaying workers, I think that’s possible in some circumstances (like if there’s a minimum wage law), but most of the time worker and employee agree on a pay that everyone isn’t perfectly happy with, but find acceptable. If not, then they renegotiate or stop working together. It gets more complicated if you’ve moved far away for that job or something like that, and no system works without any problems, but based on real world evidence and alternatives, it seems the best way to manage labor that we currently know of. I think a person can make billions of dollars by being part of something that the rest of the population find very, very valuable, which we determine by sending our dollars to whatever enterprise seems best able to provide for our needs. What do you think, Hunterchuck?

[@Hunterchuck]

@@djplexiglass Money (currency) comes bonds bought from banks by the federal reserve. The gold standard monetary system that we used to abide by was an inefficient means of establishing wealth since you only have so much gold after all. So now we use fiat money to increase flexibility in our value exchange. However, there is a lid on how much money can be printed due to value being lost due to high amounts of this new currency being in circulation. ** As for a different way to manage labor, there are also better alternatives. The only way forward from this problem with capitalism is by establishing a basis in socialism. Which is collectivizing the means of production and distribution of goods and services. 1. So what does Socialism look like? They look like worker coops. 2. Do those so-called 'socialist' nations have economies driven by worker coops? Not at all. 3. Do coops work? Yes and here is a google docs to show you that they work and how successful they are. docs.google.com/document/d/1ido70LgXsEhxcnyXE7RVS0wYJZc6aeVTpujCUPQgTrE/edit 4. Why are coops important? They are a necessary transition from the brick wall we have run into with capitalism, where private firms dominate the market too much for any viable competition to be possible. We call this monopolization. www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined * Antitrust laws are supposed to protect the market from monopolies but there are ways around the laws to allow them to basically be a monopoly. This means that if you want to start a business in a market where these major firms dominate then all we can say is "good luck". They have money to buy customer loyalty, they have set up barriers to entry with their marketing power, and they can sell their products or services at a 'competitive' price that you can't compete with. * So if it's not easy to start a business and these major firms are dominating the market, which means we have no choice but to be at the mercy of these corporations, what should be done? - We should restructure the major firms into coops to hold them accountable through a democratic process. This installs checks and balances to businesses who tend to get away with more than they should because it's built in the interest of one person. The only answer to a dictatorship is to democratize it and give the people more liberty.

[@djplexiglass]

Hunterchuck I read some of the literature you posted, and would like to make sure that I understand it with you. Please forgive me if I get it wrong, as I am new to hearing about socialism in this way. So in co-ops, is what’s essentially better the fact that I’d own part of the means of production? So if I went to work in one, my social contract would not be to fulfill a certain position for an agreed upon wage, but rather that I’d sink or swim with he company as a whole? If so, is the idea of what’s beneficial in that case the fact that I’d share in profits the same way that everyone in the company does? And also, how would that account for differences in skills or how much each person puts into their work? Regarding the literature itself, the first link you sent explained how the co-op corporation in Spain has had to start changing and become more like the capitalist system around it. It also named many well-known socialist proponents and credited them with saying that socialism cannot work unless it is a worldwide movement because it would always either be influenced by outside capitalism or be turned over from within. If that’s the case, how do you see that system being developed? Is it to vote on it in America and change the way that country is? Or to continue getting the word out until a worldwide bloc (or continental or something else sizable) is established? Lastly, and unrelated to the literature you sent me, is the premise of major firms dominating markets being bad. Firstly, we can choose where to spend our money, but also, these firms don’t dominate forever. There are none that have ever controlled a whole industry more than a couple of generations, but most don’t last as long as that. The history of A&P, Sears, Radio-Shack, and General Motors (which should not have been bailed out) and I’m sure many more, are examples of this. Also, I’m ok with them dominating a market if they do whatever they do better than the alternatives. Individuals will want to find what they think is best if they are unsatisfied with what they have, unless they are forced not to, of course. Anyway, what do you think, sir? Thanks for the discussion, by the way. I hope you’re well.

[@Hunterchuck]

@@djplexiglass Yeah it sucks that the word socialism gets thrown around a lot by people who don't understand it. So i can understand the confusion. --Point 1) The benefits to coops is that the employee is not at the complete mercy of the business. Private business can make lots of promises and not keep them such as: promotions, raise, job titles, mentors, pensions, lunch, remote work, healthcare. This is a list that i can think of off the top of my head and we can also factor in the fact that they can drop their employees for any given reason. This leads a lot of people in a dire situation financially when suddenly the place they work for cuts them without warning. As for how coops function: ***How do they work? Well, they are democratically run by the people who are a part of them. They have many different structures such as: 1. They can govern with direct democracy. 2. They can vote to elect an individual to run the company (So basically like private business with one person making the big decisions, except they are held accountable for the decisions they make.) Or they can establish a committee which is similar to a board of directors. 3. They can have a management structure where there are people who rotate from positions of management back to labor positions. And many more structures that can be possible with the inclusion of more participants ---So basically this gives the employees a way to take more responsibility for the work they do and therefore they will care more about the work they do. Under privatized industries, there are far too many people who just don't care about the jobs they do and will neglect many problems that could have been addressed due to a mentality such as "not my business, not my problem". This is why people have been confused about why it's hard to find good workers. Also, if you have ever have contracted yourself out to other companies; you will realize that you have much more leverage to negotiate a price for the work they want you to do. Since the company needs you and you have the ability to pick and choose what kind of work you'd like to assume. People who look for jobs to get hired do not have negotiating power. The company will offer a set wage, whether it's hourly rate or salary, and it would come down to whether or not the interviewee will agree to it (which most of the time they do even if the offer is unreasonable because they just need money to pay bills). In coops people will get to earn their money based on the work they do. People will democratically participate in the big decisions that would normally impact their lives. The checks and balances will be in place to protect the workers from what they normally have no control of whether it be, the company decides to replace workers with machines to increase profits or take the business overseas to escape taxes or for lower wages. China is a great place to move a business for cheap labor.

[@Hunterchuck]

@@djplexiglass Point 2) Yes mondragon and other big coops have become more like a private business due to the pressures of the global market. The global market is run by private enterprises so it makes sense that if your business is big enough to need to rely on the global market, then you have to cater to the market demand. It's sort of like how shareholders who get to dictate how a business is run due to their substantial investment into the company. The company cannot legally do what it wants, but instead has a fiduciary responsibility to make the shareholders more money. it's really easy to look at the gaming industry and how much the shareholders of certain publishers have been muddying things up and tarnishing the developers reputations. Point 3) Monopolies come and go yes, but you can't ignore how damaging it is to small businesses and customers overall. And yes the monopoly question is definitely related to my point of restructuring these dominating firms. The problem is that most people have no choice but to work for these firms because they dominate so much. And if people really do not have a choice in the matter then it makes perfect sense to give the people a say in how much power we want to give these companies. Do we continue to allow them to control the population through their witty marketing ploys to make consumers believe they need the products when they don't; And to control who gets to work and who doesn't by choosing who to hire and who to fire? Or should we democratize the workplace to have more accountability and allow people to enjoy the fruits of their labor? I know which one i'd choose! if businesses want to hire more people to increase productivity and profits then that is fine and dandy, but they will need to give people the right to invest into the business and assume ownership of the work they do.

[@jayfelsberg1931]

I suggest Professor Gordon read "Blacklisted by History: by the late M. Stanton Evans to get a better view of the 1950s

[@leggomuhgreggo]

I stopped at 38:12 when Gordon makes a homophobic remark, following a hostile and factually incorrect statement about Bernie Sanders and his wife. Some of his points were good but I think it's a pretty shallow presentation overall, even besides his lapse in character.

[@ceecee6679]

what remark?

[@ethimself5064]

@@ceecee6679 Ya, what remark??

[@3D6Space]

It was mentioned that Trump is trying to get hospitals to post their prices for surgeries and such and it would save Americans billions per year. Another benefit includes that Doctors could take a huge step up from amateurs that are just "practicing" to professionals that do what these current bunch of amateurs don't do.

[@shaynesmith4327]

Yeah, nice words but the covid event has shown the real power of government and the nature of the people and how they truly view individual rights, personal choice and personal responsibility

[@vladdumitrica849]

Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented. Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

[@rlunnerstall]

Brilliant, Thank You Sir🌈

[@OH-pc5jx]

Wait... based Hillsdale?

[@OH-pc5jx]

...sadly, it would seem not

[@TheWhitehiker]

Radical chic becomes radical freak! Thanks much, John.

[@pauldegregorio6432]

Ah! Medicine! My wheelhouse! You ARE right about hospitals and insurance companies and their omertà. Not so with physician charges and collections. I would be happy to share with ANYONE our somewhat embarrassing fee schedules for office visits and procedures but that is illegal. It violates Stark laws as they apparently could be used perversely to “entice” patients (specifically Medicare and Medicaid patients). Insofar as there are now many MDs employed by the Hospital Industrial Complex, you are somewhat correct in assigning blame but the AMA is toothless if not colluding with government in its opposition to physician’s best interests most times. Their membership roles continue to diminish as the AMA, like so many other advocacy organizations becomes “sell aware” and advocates for its own bottom line.

[@rkba4923]

Too bad there were so few young people in the audience.

[@wildernessofzinn17]

They're outside waving the hammer and sickle flags.

[@drewhamilton4103]

Thanks for the video but this guy's beliefs are a trash fire of anti socialist think tank produced talking points. Not a fan

[@pauldegregorio6432]

“SELF aware”

[@Bitterrootbackroads]

But, but, but, all those examples, they just didn't do it quite right, we'll get it right NEXT time!

[@Hunterchuck]

Such a funny joke. Sadly when you are confronted with the cold hard question of "What about those so-called socialist countries were actually socialist?", you've got nothing to say. But keep up the funny jokes!

[@debbieramsey-hanks3757]

On. target

[@gg_rider]

Quote: “The state will not be able to solve all problems.” “The state as the head of investment, accompanied by the private sector - that is the model of socialism we have.” That sounds like what America does. Invest in aviation, privatize. Invest in Internet, privatize. Invest in other high tech, privatize. America even invested in advanced farming techniques, ag colleges. That quote was Evo Morales. In my opinion, most of the real reason for socialist foment is deliberately-engineered mass poverty, and falsely calling that "free markets".

[@chantelsmith9442]

Ask Schifty about Liddle Kidz, Yuli from Ukraine, Soros, Ed Buck and Standard hotel helicopter accident /muratic acid

[@ethimself5064]

Most successful economy in the world?? Try again

[@lawrencemiller3829]

Part of the problem is the definition of socialism. Socialism is the government owning the means of production. A young adult told me that definition is communism. The problem is they call Scandinavian countries socialist, when they are welfare states. The next problem is these people who want socialism, who actual want a welfare state, support socialist politicians who would take the means of productions. For example, senator Bernie Sanders Medicare for All outlaws private medical insurance on page 8, Sanders wants a monopoly, socialism, God forbid!

[@benedeknagy8497]

True. Social programs in Scandinavia are only possible due to the well working market economy.

[@LouieKaboom]

It's both. Socialism leads to Communism.

[@leggomuhgreggo]

>The problem is they call Scandinavian countries socialist, when they are welfare states. What do you think welfare is? It's the pooling of social resources for public good (where the good's "means of production" are controlled by some social institution) i.e. socialism I think part of the confusion stems from vague usages of "capital 'S' Socialism". You might say that social monopolies are not appropriate for "x" industry. Generally speaking the test for such questions is whether market failures are sufficient to render supply/demand signals incoherent. I encourage you, or anyone else who's interested, to look into "market failures" and "public utilities"

[@digaddog6099]

@@leggomuhgreggo a socialist sees social democracy the same way that a democrat sees a constitutional monarchy. The king, in this case, is the employer. Most socialists also consider public ownership not that different from private ownership, since from the perspective of the public service worker, they're still at the bottom of a hierarchy they have almost no say in, and the wealthy have been shown through multiple methods to have undue influence on our democratic processes.

[@patsirianni7984]

What is so appealing about what word Socialism to entitled youth of today and that is simple FREE.

[@asdfghjkllkjhgfdsa8725]

Alex berenson | marijuana, mental health, violence Why are the comments off? Wouldn’t want any kind of open discussion about your propaganda now would we? Seriously what problem could possibly arise from having comments on? There’s no reason there’s no justification. It’s sad

[@jaymills1720]

This speaker is grossly undereducated and certainly NEVER read Das Kapital or Wealth of Nations

[@stephandrobot6546]

The guy that laughed at "one man killed and ate his wife" says all you need to know about the kind of people that take any good out of this drivel...

[@TheWhitehiker]

You misread the speaker and the audience.

[@toolboxtidbits5674]

Um... Um... Um... Anybody count them?

[@DavidMorley123]

I "like" most hillsdale programs. But this guy's defamation of Bill Gates is repellent. I think Bill Gates is, in his dotage, very altruistic in the best meaning of that term. Contrary to Ann Rand, altruism is a natural and fulfilling activity.

[@overlord8658]

If this were true, he wouldn't be as rich as he is. I believe he is self serving and helping others is a by product of. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

[@offcourseoverland]

This comment didn't age well....