"Karl Marx Was Right"

Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
www.intelligencesquared.com/ev...
Filmed at the Royal Geographical society on 9th April 2013.
We can't say Karl Marx didn't warn us: capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. In their chase for ever higher profits, the capitalists shed workers for machines. The higher return on capital means that the share of profits rises and the share of wages falls, and soon the mass of the population isn't earning enough to buy the goods capitalism produces. And that's exactly what's been happening over the past four years of the Great Recession: ever increasing income inequality, leading to ever weaker aggregate demand -- temporarily disguised by an unsustainable credit binge -- leading to collapse. You don't have to be a communist to see that this is so. We should all be Marxists now.
Or should we? Every time capitalism hits an inevitable bad patch, Marx's name is invoked with wearisome regularity. But no serious economist or political thinker -- with the possible exception of Gordon Brown -- has ever suggested capitalism can break free of booms and busts. Once bust, as we've seen time and again, the capitalist economy has a robust in-built ability to restore itself. As for all the talk of growing inequality, hasn't anyone noticed that ordinary people in the capitalist West have enjoyed an astonishing long-term rise in their standard of living? We are not suffering an existential economic crisis. We do not need extraordinary remedies. We do not need Marx.
So which is it? Is Marx the voice we should be heeding? Or are his modern day apostles resuscitating a late Victorian corpse whose main contribution to human affairs has been the Soviet gulag?

[@01Tanthallas]

Why are these supposed “anti-Marxist” speakers talking of how capitalism has lifted people out of poverty and created a middle class as if it contradicts Marx? Marx would wholeheartedly agree that capitalism would do this...and also that it would lead to increasing levels of inequality, to the point that (real) returns to labor would not keep up with increasing levels of productivity that would be allocated to profit. Marx called the mechanism that would do this “fictitious capital; or parasitic capital”. This is precisely what occurred.

[@lindamohamed5296]

correct

[@johnlove2954]

Yes, Marx would agree with that. But Marxists disagree because Marxists lie.

[@tedvothjr.2426]

Gotcha, Steve, thanks,. Youre a better Marxist than !

[@ugaddasediss9540]

Steve Marangos . Start a business Steve. Secure capital and hire good help. Compete in the open market. Try hard to succeed and succeed or perish. Become a big business Steve. Not just a big mouth.

[@01Tanthallas]

Ugadda Sediss Wouldn’t this be ironic if I owned a business and pay more in taxes than you make in a year? It would...

[@MrUndersolo]

Someone once said, “We have socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor”. Seems about right...

[@kalanaherath3076]

Bernie reiterated it and Martin Luther King said it originally

[@KevinWildes2024]

@Marie so much irrelevant points and pivots. You're argument is terrible. Try staying relative to the topic lmao. Just spouting a bunch of points doesn't mean you're correct.

[@xxxfaze_cumshotxxx7946]

@@KevinWildes2024 Okay but capitalism has caused enough suffering to the point where you can't really defend it anymore, try watching a pro-communist video, the same reason communism failed was because of Mikhail Gorbachev and his awful policies, ironically the same person who SAVED THE WORLD FROM COMMUNISM. Just watch this, the entirety of it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5vafWSjiNeDgqM I'll know if you watched the video or not, I can tell by the amount of bullshit you'll spew. I don't even know why I"m trying, you're just gonna open up the video and then go to the comments and type "STALIN HOLDOMORE VENEZUALA 20 QUADRILLION PEOPLE PIZZA HUT"

[@themissinglink2163]

I would suggest the opposite is true. Why large corrupt companies push socialist agendas it to get bloated tax payer funded projects because they are far more profitable than anything in the competitive private sector. The Clintons were playing this game. Hillary would ensure a company got a bloated tax payer funded contract and a month later the company would pay Bill millions to give a speech. Both parties have been playing this game for years. Unfortunately this is totally legal uless you can prove intent.

[@KevinWildes2024]

@@xxxfaze_cumshotxxx7946 you absolute moron. The person I attacked was for capitalism. You dumb turd. You're reading comprehension skills suck. You don't even know what side I'm on. Wow you're trash.

[@davidleahy6141]

I am watching this debate 6 years after it was held and nothing has been done. The influence of transnational corporations on the political system is choking off any reforms necessary to overcome the ongoing problems.

[@kiwitrainguy]

And yet the people in the audience were convinced by that debate that Marx was not right, in other words that the system of Capitalism is not in need of reform. That was the most disappointing part of the whole hour and three-quarters for me.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

@@kiwitrainguy They vote rationally: for whatever they suppose will bring _them_ more money. When that is all that matters, you have ultimate alienation -- and ultimate instability. Be ready for a wild ride.

[@mornnb]

I don't buy Marx's solution though. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is corruption. Which is a problem under any economic system, socialism or capitalism. If we actually had capitalism the situation would have been solved by insolvancy of these transnational corporations, with the ones taking their place learning lessons, at least for a time. The question should be, how do we overcome the actual problem, which is Corporatocracy. How do we move from corporatocracy to an actual liberal democracy.

[@zacharyjohnson3771]

@@mornnb boooo wrong

[@MrPro897]

@@kiwitrainguy failures of capitalism don't prove Marx was right

[@thomasjamison2050]

I would like to see this debate revisited with the same participants today, or maybe we should wait until the next major financial disaster. Won't be long now.

[@marzbigman]

Hi I'm from the future. The financial disaster is here and we are fucked. Figure I let you know.

[@damianbylightning6823]

Why don't we wait until all Marxists grow out of their short trousers? Would be good to hear the confessions of pseudo-religious fanatics.

[@TheButterMinecart1]

@@damianbylightning6823 The number of disagreements within the left, and even between Marxists should be enough to tell you that Marxists are not pseudo-religious fanatics who unquestionably obey the words of Marx.

[@damianbylightning6823]

@@TheButterMinecart1 Clearly, you know nothing about the history or religion. I would, if I were you, pick up a book on the Protestant religion. I would pay particular attention to the paragraphs dealing with puritanism. Your naivete, willful ignorance and lack of insight made me smile. Are you an academic, by any chance?

[@damianbylightning6823]

@Whizper2me Dear touchy ad hom man, Marxism, my dear impressionable little boy, is not philosophy. It is a weirdo cult which worships history and 'morality' and uses mumbo-jumbo to deny doing this. It is and remains a reactionary revolt against the Judaeo-Christian tradition, from which it came. You can attach philosophy to any number of things - it doesn't make them philosophical or philosophy itself. It is as philosophical as Mormonism, Wiccanism or Scientology. It is a moral duty to point these things out. Also, offending Marxists is fun - not as much fun as annoying modern feminists, but modern feminists are not quite as dangerous or deluded. Like anarchism, it prefigured much of the political psychopathy which distorians label as 'fascist' and 'Nazi'. The ideas of modern political antisemitism, the Holocaust and other morally wretched and lunatic ramblings, can be traced to cults like Marxism and abarchism. Distorians don't talk about this - and use devices such as the 'left-right spectrum' and acts of omission to prove it. Grown-up morons and those whose balls haven't dropped, tend to be very convinced by such reasoning. Basic Marxist tenets such as its view of history have been falsified in recent decades and its absurd take on the labour theory of value is only believed by hard core people who show how clever they are by making a good case for manifest nonsense. Proving day is night is not something the intellectually normal do. Defending a tradition that helped mould modern political antisemitism, the Holocaust and 100 million deaths, is not something the morally normal do. Clearly, you have not engaged in any ad hom arguments and stuck doggedly to arguing for absurd propositions such as two named idiocies or the equally stupid notion that human nature doesn't exist, 'species being' exists - which is human nature, but only in a magical sense. No religion has asked its followers to believe anything quite that absurd. Ad hom and very touchy. Are you an academic and a very short male?

[@armadatint]

We’re taught growing up that ‘We the People’ have the power to affect radical change in the voting booth. But this is another fairy tale. Voting only changes the players. It doesn’t change the game.

[@joeldwest]

Only vote for candidate s that don't take corporate money, or billionaire money

[@bell4645]

victoria ann zabaras *that do

[@VocalBear213]

@@joeldwest and after being elected, they will

[@joeldwest]

Every so often the elites (the biggest psychopaths usually) of a culture being slaughtered en masse seems to be one of the few things that stave off an even bigger die-off of the population.

[@joeldwest]

@@VocalBear213 Then we tell each other and vote them out. I read the Chinese apply the death penalty for official corruption.I think it's a great idea. Maybe being forced to live a modest life must be part of the bargain when people elect to serve the public.

[@boeingdriver29]

Wish Richard Wolff was on the panel. He would have obliterated the opposition.

[@mjohnson1741]

That's exactly why they didn't have him on...it's part of the agenda.

[@Johnconno]

These public-school swine!

[@JustanothaGuy]

@@mjohnson1741 Or they didn't select him like the plethora of Marxist scholars they could have chosen, you are aware they're a lot of Marxist scholars they could have chosen but decided not, right? You are aware that there isn't grand conspiracy they just wanted the two scholars they decided because they were clearly qualified for the debate. There isn't a secret agenda against your heroes hiding under every rock.

[@marhobane3040]

Or maybe he wouldn't. kzbin.info/www/bejne/foXNYmqZabNsrKs

[@JustanothaGuy]

@@marhobane3040 No Jordan Peterson and his little fan boy didn't come close to refuting let alone addressing Marxism's fundamental principles, nice try though buddy.

[@hubertblastinoff9001]

So with two global economic crises in the span of not even a decade and a half, how do people feel about this now?

[@guyvert49]

it is socialist interventions which caused them in the fist place with their bankrupt Keynesian concepts & interference in the market

[@hubertblastinoff9001]

@@guyvert49 What about the crisis of 1929 which caused the emergence of Keynesian thought in the firs place?

[@CHBMovies]

@@guyvert49 how did Keynesian economics cause the Great Recession or the coronavirus recession?

[@stephenshoemaker6035]

@@CHBMovies These idiots are usually referring to the government bailouts of the "too big to fail" banks. They see the federal interference as a distortion of the free market. If the enterprises were going to fail, and we bail them out, the only thing we've done is helped a failing enterprise continue to fail. Same story for government lockdown of private businesses. What they can't (or, as I suspect, won't) see is that these measures were taken in order to prevent an even larger economic meltdown. And the only reason they think any of this is because they believe that capitalism works in a vacuum and therefor it compels businesses to act in the best interest of society. Also that the government is greedy and oppressive, and that the only reason we don't live in a capitalist utopia is because the government regulates and taxes private businesses and citizens. The real reason they think these things is because private interests control the media they consume under capitalism, and said private interests benefit from having an army of lemmings voting for deregulation and less taxes. Because Daddy Elon Musk is going to send them all to paradise on mars. They are, metaphorically speaking, bleeding out in the back of an ambulance and whining about the driver going too fast because it makes them feel sickly.

[@Olay16]

I feel pretty good.

[@AlbertSchram]

The motion is: "Karl Marx was right. Capitalism post 2008 is falling apart under the weight of its own contradictions". For the motion: Tristram Hunt [01:55] to [11:00] Robin Blackburn [20:48] to [30:02 ] Frank Furadi [37:36] to [47:04] Against the motion: George Magnus [11:05 to [20:40] Madison Perry [30:13] to [37:21] Judith Shapiro [47:16] to [56:08 ]

[@answerman86]

How is it falling apart? We are still back to being the strongest nation on earth once we got that America hating commie Muslim Obama out of office, What a stupid ass video. WTF "Karl Marx was right" the stupid ass lowlife philosophizing son of a bitch never worked a day in his life (was always supported by his friend, Engels) The application of Marxist ideology resulted in hundred and 20,000,000 people slaughtered in starved to death in the 20th century and these dumb son of a bitches say that Marx was right ?????????????????

[@rogerpope6057]

Ask people who were forced to live under communism what they think of communism.! These people are idiots.

[@nthperson]

Only in the third volume of Das Kapital does Marx come close to a more complete analysis of how socio-political arrangements and institutions secured entrenched, monopolistic privilege. Powerful, monopolistic interests have seen to it that they are the beneficiaries of systems of property law and taxation. The resulting concentration of income and wealth is, in fact, the result of laws that prevented the operation of competitive forces to the benefit of what the political economists identified as “rentier interests.” The “fair field with no favors” called for by Adam Smith as the essential basis for the operation of markets has been undermined by powerful elites. The system we call “capitalism” is really built on centuries-old “landlordism.” Landlordism arose when laws were changed to permit the purchase, sale and mortgaging of land. Agrarian landlordism expanded when peasants were removed from land in order to raise sheep and cattle, and the land was commercially exploited to meet the demand for minerals and other natural resources. Agrarian landlordism did not disappear; it merely evolved. Rich landlords acquired business interests. Rich owners of businesses acquired vast land holdings. Landed wealth, capital-owning wealth penetrated the financial and insurance sectors of economies.

[@answerman86]

@@nthperson I don't get it. Are you whining with all this gobbledygook that you didn't get and on the early early on and become a big rich capitalist? What your point? Are you having a problem with the fact that there are winners and losers in capitalism and the fact that you're a loser is making you a malcontent? The Commies have no right to take away God's gift to me of free will to make what I will out of my own life through my incentive, hard work and talent. It's best to not have a big bureaucracy taking their cut to run things with people that don't know what they're doing and would not have chosen what they do for their life's work. There is no system other than capitalism that has lifted so many people out of poverty and squalor. Marxism makes everyone equal all right, equally poor. (Unless you're a party member of the court) The only thing that is falling apart in capitalism is too much Marxism being injected into it. (And too much corporate conglomerates and their merging with government and that's a very definition of fascism) we don't want your God damn Fundamental Transformation to take us away from what the founding fathers envisioned and set into place by immersing us into Marxism. You know full well that the application of Marxist ideology has resulted in the slaughter and starvation 120,000,000 people during the 20th century. How lamebrain stupid you have to be to want to bring it here ??????????????????

[@Yor_gamma_ix_bae]

You need to head back to remedial summer school for English.

[@eskoelmwood5936]

The system is being propped up by artificial consumption via credit expansion, and artificial scarcity via planned obsolescence. The ultimate problem is that capitalism is absolutely dependent on consumption and scarcity, and since we are now being forced to drum up analogs for the two says a tipping point has likely been reached. The only answer to the current problem is to generate more credit, and scarcity. that is unless capitalism can somehow be separated from its dependencies without completely morphing it into something quite different. Marx was right. feudalism was the precursor to capitalism, and while it fixed many of the problems with the previous system, in other ways it just carried over other inherent problems. Indentured service was a major carryover, and it took world reformation to attempt to change the archaic act of owning people. Credit is the new manifestation of indenture. In many ways it is nearly impossible to forgo the acquisition debt through credit if you want to participate in the first world. Debt forces you to work in order to pay back your debts. Students in America can spend decades paying off loans. How do we change anything when the elite 1% own half of the worlds wealth? How do you get the 99% to band together to solve this problem?

[@mildredmartinez8843]

Great question. The propertied class had a great "coping" mechanism in 2008. Let the government bail them out. I'm sure they will come up with other coping mechanisms in the future when capitalism hits the fan again.

[@michaelbunner7387]

I guess the first thing besides replacing propaganda with the truth would help. A second thought would be to educate the masses starting with teaching the humanities,and civics would help The removal of the private central banks cartel of crooks conmen and theives and reeztablishment of economic soverinity

[@kiwitrainguy]

I see part of the solution as being carried over from the Environmental movement: "Think Globally, Act Locally". Avoid as much as possible buying things on credit, only update appliances (and that includes electronic devices) when necessary (I replaced my fridge-freezer in 2020 when it expired after its life of 36 years).

[@SolarFlareAmerica]

@@kiwitrainguy as good as that advice is for reducing personal excess, the "think globally, act locally" and other associated catchphrases are regarded by people I've heard as oil company propaganda, more failed "personal responsibility" talking points. It's also a clever way to offload their need to change to accompany climate change onto consumers, as well as being an even more clever way of pretending they are changing because they can put their money into eco-friendly ads and it counts as a contribution, lessening their carbon taxes and such. The fact remains that no matter how much we attempt to change our consumption habits, if oil companies can just keep shoving their product into stores and out-lobbying or out-competing ethical products and companies, little will change fast enough. Idk, it's still a good thing to think globally, but honestly thinking locally in the sense of getting together with your community and acting together as best as you are able is a much more achievable thing for the average person, and change is more evident. You can theoretically get together with your town and source local and import ethical products into your community, and can, if you live in an involved enough community, move to ban more harmful imported products from being sold there.

[@olympiahendrix4392]

Deep thinking going here! 5 years later, where do you stand with Wokism? Dying to know.

[@Bigwave2003]

"How much free taxpayer money does capitalism need today to keep functioning?" Brilliant point on bankers who have their hands out for quantitative easing (free money thrown their way by the government).

[@roguespearsf]

@JaneFonda1942 that's why all these bankers should be hung

[@destruction1928]

@JaneFonda1942 an inteligent person, finally

[@Hamsterbtconly]

That’s what annoyed me the most there needs to be a delimitation between capitalism as a free market system and the fractionalised reserve bank system that has polluted western civilisations bring back a hard money and watch capitalism flourish

[@tankyjones888]

@@Hamsterbtconly capitalism regularly crashed and saw crisis under gold standards, in fact the procurement of gold itself was rather bloody.

[@shoobidyboop8634]

That's not capitalism. It's wholesale theft.

[@smujismuj]

What this debate illustrates is the oversimplification of the motion.

[@hlund73]

32:00 there is no conflict between Darwinism & Marx. Marx's description of the inevitable self destruction of capitalism is as Darwinistic as the demise of the dinosaurs - that must result in a revolution of social structure, or we must suffer social extinction. The lesson is that capitalism is flawed because we attribute capital, an abstract idea, with the impossible quality of not being subject to entropy.

[@JDG-hq8gy]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJe8p3-il72dlZo

[@freyfaust6218]

Agree... capitalism is an idea, not a reality. As an idea, it is quite a persistent one... but just as persistent as socialism I might add..

[@equinox2584]

@Ronald Reagan Capitalism keeps you poor because big companies are incentives to pay their employees less to maximize profits. In a lot of ways, Marx has predicted the future stating that capitalism is a self-defeating model and we are seeing that in the form of economic crashes every 10 years or so.

[@royhuang9715]

@@equinox2584 there is no point arguing with a neoliberal.

[@thegreatfomo]

Capitalism was very good in theory, just not in reality.

[@davesmithy8317]

I got pretty angry @50:16 when she said that people who "aren't being exploited" are bearing most of the burden while simultaneously"not being apart of the system". I listened to that 3 times and can't imagine the amount of mental hoops she had to jump through to actually convince herself of that.

[@bicyclist2]

This is how completely delusional and brainwashed most baby boomers and capitalists are. I completely agree with you.

[@papaluskask999]

She'll a shill for establishment

[@Edge81]

Also dodged the question, wether or not what we are living under, can be called capitalism?

[@Edge81]

She looks stupid now, with the criticism of the Chinese model. "So something needs to be done" but she asked people to vote against the motion.

[@eemoogee160]

@Ronald Reagan and trickle down economics helps those at the bottom, right Ronald?

[@quagmire444]

For anyone who wants a short summary of what the so called contradiction is, then here you go. 1. In capitalism, there are the business owners and the people they employ. You have an owning class and a working class. 2. The goal of the business owners is to make as much profit as possible. Much of this is done via minimizing productivity via cheaper labor whether that be paying workers less or just plain outsourcing jobs, automation, etc. 3. The business owners profit, but the working class suffers because they either have no jobs or wages that are far too low to keep them alive. The working class is the primary consumer of the products that the business owners are selling, so where do they get the money? Thats mainly the contradiction. This is one of the speculated reasons for the 2008 crash, which is that people kept borrowing and borrowing money to buy until their luck ran out.

[@prikipriki30]

@Ronald Reagan You are seriously deinformed.

[@yellowdogdemocrat1402]

Who else is here in 2020? Lmao

[@commander_expendable]

everyone who are in either intellectual sectors of the u.s or europeans

[@manudibash]

mee

[@kaushal09able]

Long live revolution....

[@Union-ep3cc]

Long live communism.

[@stevenmiller4329]

Who else is here in 2021?

[@NS-pr8is]

“I was a Marxist but I don’t understand anything about Marx” ok cool 👌🏻

[@masada2828]

N S - at least ur honest.

[@bigwes617]

@CWW Like, Manifesto was pretty much written to be easily digestable and dumbed down as much as possible, but that's the book they know the name of so that's the book they pretend they've read.

[@bigwes617]

@CWW Historical Materialism? Uh... you can't mine history or build things with it... history isn't a material... dumbass communists... 🤤

[@meganaxeliar]

The left claim Marx and don’t ‘cancel’ him for his rampant racism, sexism and all since without him they’d be aimless, degenerates of nothingness; simply bitching about gender pronouns, polygamy, open borders/muh diversity and all. In leftist terms, here’s some takes from Marx to which if he existed today, he would be deemed a muh far-right fascist/nazi: marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm + ‘On The Jewish Question’ - Karl Marx

[@NS-pr8is]

Megan Axelía Carrington-Ráðvarðardóttir doesn’t look like you read Marx and just chose to believe some quotes from rightist sources, and on the Jewish question is a criticism of studies which ignore the material conditions of certain groups of people. Even if Marx was a racist or antisemite, none of this is reflective in any of his important work or has anything to do with the ideology of Marxism.

[@zergnub7426]

marx also dealt with the idea that an object is worthless if there is no demand for it. it's called use value, and its in the first chapter of Capital. This bloke could have known it if he had bothered to read it.

[@miwi9883]

Labour and use value are not able to determine the price of a good because they don't explain the demand for a good.

[@zergnub7426]

@@miwi9883 indeed. Demand dictates the very conditions of one's labouring existence.

[@miwi9883]

@@zergnub7426 Only in capitalism, in East Germany for example much useless work was carried out because nobody was allowed to be unemployed or because of misplanning of the central committee.

[@zergnub7426]

@@miwi9883 That's true. When I lived in Moscow, they were still employing four people to stand in an empty shop with no customers :)

[@mishapurser7542]

"But then people will explain anything" is the epitomy of dishonest rhetoric, and not an argument.

[@kingofbadgers3019]

Or it's just a pretty clear outline of an assumption she's working from; the USSR was Marxist.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@kingofbadgers3019 Soviets were still a form of Capitalism, they continued to use money as Rubles.....Marx was not in favor of discontinuing the use of money, simply some control of the distribution......Communalism would be an action that abandoned that habit.....

[@stevelenores5637]

Like I said in an above post. Under the right circumstances anyone can stand up at some moment in time and shout, "See, I told you so!". Proves nothing except opportunism.

[@olympiahendrix4392]

word salads never make sense. Financial audits do.

[@qamarkhan4531]

If Richard Wolff had been on the panel, the outcome would have been very different.

[@antipositivism3128]

Qamar Khan Jordan Peterson would wreck him.

[@mucura1]

@@antipositivism3128 No way. Petersen doesn't have the intellectual qualifications in the subject to even come to the table. His expertise is elsewhere.

[@andrewfarrell1816]

@@antipositivism3128 when Wolff and Peterson were both invited to talk at the same university, Peterson dropped out by massively upping his fee when he found out that he would be debating against Wolff.

[@antipositivism3128]

Andrew Farrell That’s utterly speculation. You can talk about what he did but assume intent is usually a losing battle.

[@frankstraw3077]

to be fair If R Wolff could go on the panel then I wouldn't have said lets get Thomas Sowell on the other side. Jordan P is great, but he addresses the issues from of a a social perspective. Wolff, correct me if I am wrong is an Economist and most of the argument being about capitalism etc, I think having another Economist would make for better opposition. Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman... then lets see the outcome. : )

[@urbanundergroundmusic5322]

2nd dude is like: "We have some inconsistencies in the way the slave auction is conducted which can and should be addressed through regulation etc." The problem, however, is the existence of a slave auction itself and not how it's being run.

[@olympiahendrix4392]

Every time you buy something because it is cheap, you lower the value of the poor sod who made it! He might as well be a slave. the solution is to value each other and each other's labor! That is more expensive. Yet, none of the "activists" speak of this. Too busy exploiting through propaganda I think!

[@lefrise5]

So, in a nutshell, they seem to all agree that we need change, systemic or not...

[@freyfaust6218]

the difference perhaps, is whether you think revolution and the delivery of all aspects of social undertaking to state administration is the pathway or not. I do not. The cultural imperialism and the violent confiscation of property and life that socialists/communists espouse, the banning or outright extermination of people on the basis of their opinions and beliefs... this does not change the problems engendered by authoritarian rule, only the names of the oppressors.

[@liquid_lover]

@@freyfaust6218 this is exactly my problem with these shortsighted criticisms of socialism. You can't generalize every leftist as having the same bloodthirst as the people who have led past Soviet countries. You just can't. There are many denominations of socialism which want to get there in many different ways, which depart from the dominant Marxist-Leninist tendencies (single-party "democracies") of the Soviet Union and other socialist states. Some are reformists (democratic soc), but others are revolutionary (rev. soc). Some reformists emphasize party politics and acknowledge the heavy role of the government (state socialists/democratic soc), while some think that unions and syndicates are an adequate third-party to effect change (anti-statist socialists: anarcho-syndicalists or libertarian soc). Some want to dismantle the government entirely for more democratic institutions (libsoc/anarchists/ansynd), some want to preserve markets (market socialists/market anarchists/mutualist), and yet others want to do both (libmarksoc). And it's clear that some statists and MLs permit the state to own the means of production, but ansynds, market socialists, mutualists, etc (left-libertarians more generally) think that power is the problem (gathering from anarchist/left-Marxist theorists) and prefer decentralized/worker/community ownership of the means of production. Socialism isn't a monolith. A lot of us at this point recognize that the Soviet Union was a despotic failure. Other theorists and leftist activists have devised their own ideas of organizing society while still upholding main socialist principles of worker ownership. You can't even begin to criticize them without actually being specific on the type of leftist ideas that you criticize.

[@paddywhack9261]

One of the most civilized panel debate that I've seen in too many years. But no apparent solid solution/s were put forth, unless I missed something, it was more like: "We'll see." Well, yes, we *will* see. But this rapacious form of capitalism is eating its own young.

[@thegreatonecometh200]

Automation will kill capitalism cause it will put millions out of work

[@royhuang9715]

There never will be solid solutions produced by human ever. Capitalism was a solution to feudalism, does it looked solid? Human can only replace one shitty system with another hopefully less shitty system.

[@paperfart3988]

The problems under capitalism would be way worse under any system based on Marxism

[@DFMoray]

There will be slavery until we are all masters of Love.

[@yourdedcat-qr7ln]

@@paperfart3988 I disagree

[@jasonwang1162]

apr 2020, i fear the answer is more than clear now

[@Luke-tt3dt]

It's rare that I agree with 100% of what a person says but I can't find fault with a single point made by Robin Blackburn here, he's a brilliant man who gets nowhere near the level of publicity that he deserves

[@furchtegottgellert4865]

True, in a free market one would expect to see american troops with foreign weapon systems.

[@googleisillukinati8071]

Mwo is epic

[@ilovetech8341]

Weapons are a funny thing. Things are most peaceful when everyone has the same weapon.

[@kie-skatemods4141]

American troops do have and use foreign weapon. They use the 9mm Beretta M9. It’s made in Italy. How about that for free market

[@bcshu2]

So let’s think about this for a second. A country decides to utilize weapon systems from outside their country. In turn a conflict emerges for which a war occurs. That countries supply line is shut off. Doesn’t seem to be so wise. There are very reasonable justifications why, for the interest of national defence, nations prefer to not be reliant upon outside nations for the very supplies necessary in times of war.

[@kie-skatemods4141]

bcshu2 you clearly don’t understand why and how the US got and bought the 9mm Beretta from Italy

[@TroubleMacher]

Am I the only one who is baffled by seeing Tristram Hut defend Marx merely 2 years before he started inciting resistance against Jeremy Corbyn who is not nearly as far left as Marx

[@justinwubble1419]

Watching from 2020, in the next major recession.

[@ryanhendricks426]

Just wait, 2020 still ain’t over.

[@cabapmc]

@@ryanhendricks426 lmao

[@megasalexander927]

2021, inequality is even more.

[@martinko4086]

@@megasalexander927 yes, YOU are NOT equal to ME . Do you have any problem with it ??

[@djctai9288]

you were wrong, my portfolio up 500% lmao.

[@sirherbert6953]

The 4th speaker has to reread Marx, because he is very much wrong. Marx did not believe that wages would fall under capitalism, he believed they would rise as he states in wage labor and capital. He misunderstands the labor theory of value, something Ricardo and Smith believed. It is not necessarily a theory of prices, even though there is a relation and Marx makes very clear that something like use value exists and only labor which contributes to the enhancement of use is truly productive. His points on dialectics and evolution also eems quite misplaced. As longevity and a certain graduality is not excluded by Marx.

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

I wish folks would take time to consider what kind of society evolves from a system that rewards greed, ruthlessness and selfishness whilst penalising the lack of such characteristics.

[@patrickortiz2898]

Foolishness you dont have to be any of those things and still provide for your family and yourself. Of course people are free to be like that but under communism you are not free at all so ill settle for the occaisonal ass hat that a group of supposedly smarter people telling me how and where to live thank you very much

[@olympiahendrix4392]

we are in it till our necks now! and it got to stop!

[@williamrockwell9705]

Human reality is not going to just go away because you have a government managing the means of production. You will just give those people even more power.

[@itsoktobehappy461]

I’ll take a bit of greed over losing all incentive to do anything all day

[@haloljt]

the second speaker against the motion states that marx was wrong about value - but he wasn't. Marx explicitly states in Das Kapital that important distinctions have to be made between use value and value - value being what this economist refers to - the purely social value of a commodity. Marx writes about how the labour time and the value derived from it isn't equal to the social value the commodity in question gets assigned. He wrote about how gold, while of high value, never got the same value as the labour time could have shown.

[@Luke-tt3dt]

There are two aspects of capitalism that I believe this debate completely neglected to address. 1) The tendency, within capitalist systems, for wealth (and therefore political power, in the form of media control, lobbying and cronyism), to become increasingly consolidated over time, and the tendency for larger monopolies to swallow up their competition - competition being a necessary condition for markets to create wealth and prosperity that benefit humanity as a whole, and therefore for capitalism to be sustainable in the long-term. 2) Capitalism's need for endless, exponential growth, in order to make it worthwhile to hold and invest capital in the first place. This is a mathematical and logical impossibility - infinite growth cannot be sustained with finite resources. For those two reasons, I believe capitalism will eventually fall and be replaced by a better system. It probably won't fall in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes. And Marx was perhaps ultimately wrong about exactly *how* capitalism will collapse under its own contradictions. But ultimately, I believe the core principle of Marxist dialectical materialism will prove itself right, given enough time.

[@Ciph3rzer0]

God. Can't stand listening to unimaginative capitalist bootlickers.

[@bobover6474]

Your never going to get a good debate on capitalism from millionaires.

[@deusbeowulf6039]

"It's finding ways to keep itself going outside of the free market"... Tax payer funds for corporate bail out has joined the chat

[@Matt-jw2yo]

It's hilarious that Judith says that the tackling of inequality in Latin America by the likes of Lula Da Silva is "low hanging fruit". I feel sure she'd have a different opinion if it was a right wing government overseeing such incredible positive change.

[@eggizgud]

She teaches at LSE! But I guess her students get to sharpen their thoughts thanks to hers.

[@ncrtrooper1782]

The fact that he's right is sad. I wish it wasn't the case that capitalism is horrible, but it is. More people need to accept that and join the new Internationale.

[@annahelenwerner668]

Wake up

[@goldiz1978]

The same people sabotaged capitalism. I wouldn't trust them either way.

[@aswidener]

What is sorely lacking in debates of this sort, is a true definition of capitalism. Bailing out massive financial entities is not capitalism. That's closer to fasicsm - government control of private entities. Socialism and communism are state control of private resources. Another way to put that is force. Force of some collective against the free will of individuals. Capitalism in its simplest guise is absence of collective force. I am free to engage my resources in any non-forceful manner that I see fit provided I do not aggress against another. I am free to engage in any exchange that I wish, provided that my counterpart is also not forced to participate, but in turn engages out of his free will. All you who agree with "Marx is right" would unwittingly usher in a new totalitarian regime and squash human freedom, innovation and joy.

[@englishgoddess8238]

Happy you been to China ? Korea ? Russia ? Socialism is being a slave there’s a reason they want the system to change we will be total slaves and have no freedom.

[@guts1258]

@@aswidener You unironically did the “Socialism is when the government does stuff." meme.

[@smujismuj]

Did any of them discuss the effects of economic growth and the corresponding increase in consumption of resources, which Capitalism requires, on the environment?

[@justicenow999]

What I find curious about this debate is that none of the speakers addressed what the inherent contradiction in capitalism is. There was not a mention of surplus value, or what I like to call excess value. The inherent contradiction of capitalism is the result of a sizable portion of the wealth being taken by stock market players who add no labor value to the product. They simply live off their proceeds. This is the case with stocks and also interest charges. They both create excess value which unbalances the economy. In order for capitalism to survive it must constantly expand, grow, in order to exploit new markets in order to cover the excess value. Capitalism has survived up until now by expanding and exploiting the far reaches of the planet, including "communist" China. But once these markets are saturated, this will be the death toll of capitalism as we know it. Hopefully, we will see a new market where loans and investments are made thru publicly owned banks and financial agencies which will charge a minimal interest rate. Worker owned cooperatives will thrive. Cooperate boards will be populated not by stock holders but by worker/owners. Excess value therefore will be eliminated and this new economy, which I named "free enterprise socialism", will thrive. One more thing. Capitalism has survived in some measure due to the flexibility and cooperative spirit inherent in a functioning democracy. The democracy in the USA has been slowly eroded by the influence and domination of big money. This is nowhere more apparent as in the Supreme Courts decision on Citizens United. Defining corporations as "people" as referred in to the Constitution is hastening the implosion of capitalism by removing democratic safeguards.

[@kickasskdf]

Giving power to those who have not earned it will be the wasted potential in your vision. The co-op boards you are talking about are already in place with any company with stock options. Money and power are correlated to adding value in capitalism. Also dividends and interest are not wasted or excess in capitalism because with interest you are loaning money to somebody to fund them adding value and with dividends from stocks you are partial owner in a business so adding a partial amount of value that the business is producing.

[@andrewx7806]

@@kickasskdf what you wrote is true but what I wrote is also true. Excess value causes inflation. Inflation leads to debt. Debt leads to capital accumulation and inequality. Excess debt can crush capitalism. Stock holders are not co-op boards. They have essentially no say on how a company is run.

[@kickasskdf]

@@andrewx7806 too much debt can definitely cause recessions and depressions in capitalism and is a problem but also is a needed balance to the growth capitalism drives. Kind of like a reset button. The wealth inequality is less of an issue for me because not all people add the same value. Imbalances definitely occur though. Good points overall, just a tough discussion to have on chat rather than over some beers haha.

[@charleswilliams624]

I will not lower myself to watching this. In 72 years on the planet none of the rivals to capitalism has given any power to people in general. My conclusion is all the other "ism"s have caused more deaths that are in effect wholesale in large numbers. Most particularly they crush emotionally and physically any resistance to their inefficiency. Truth be told no one on this debate can solve how to fairly have a system of work that benefits benefits people equally. It is beyond the ability of with man. History is replete

[@olympiahendrix4392]

Brilliant! Justicenow999. Merry Xmas to you and yours.

[@smujismuj]

What doesn't get mentioned much is how the essential pull of the profit-motive-mindset makes every entity you do business with an opponent. That kind of potential-antagonism runs under everything we do.

[@freyfaust6218]

That is simply untrue. Most business is pacific. Someone does a service for you that they themselves price... construction, repair, maintenance, transport. You agree to pay them what they ask or you look for someone who offers the service at a price you can afford or think is fair. Its called VOLUNTARISM, and it is the only modern barometer for morality.

[@iart2838]

Capitalism: creates wealth for whom? That's the key question. Marx never disputed this, his aim was that the wealth needs to be distributed. Those who produce wealth are not rewarded, but exploited.

[@AbandonEarth911]

Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.

[@stevemora7845]

Very well put!

[@papichulo4171]

Not profits, people.

[@ceoofantifa6245]

We can only hope

[@bicyclist2]

Capitalists will call this Communism. And use all there money and power to prevent this from happening.

[@freyfaust6218]

the problem is... who will hold them for us? Administrators? Centralized power always resolves as unaccountable.

[@DipakBose-bq1vv]

When I was a student I read the Harrod Model which proved mathematically that capitalism is basically unstable.

[@nguyenhoanglong420]

i agree with ya about capitalism is unstable!!!! I think at least it's better than the heaven of workers!!!!

[@powrobe2]

@@nguyenhoanglong420 Explain how it is better than anything.

[@nguyenhoanglong420]

@@powrobe2 well i have studied communism and socialism in university!!! All of them are just talking about how a beauty is socialism and communism!!! And how beauty is that ideology of that socialism and communism!!! That's all i have learnt from university!!! And i feel like a something it doesnt exist!!!

[@powrobe2]

@@nguyenhoanglong420 I feel like you are a liar. I never mentioned an ideology...just material fact. If you refer to Staliinism as socialism, you truly are a university idiot. Try reading. Try to challenge yourself or just be a malleable moron.

[@powrobe2]

@@nguyenhoanglong420 I bet you used to pay your mother for her breast milk. You stay a capitalist puritan. Your education was worthless.

[@kurono1822]

capitalists: "capitalism is great, because capitalism is good" critics of capitalism: "we see that during the past decades, inequality has increased disproportionately and capitalists tend to abuse power to get governments do as they say, this is clearly....etc, etc"

[@lesegosibiya6829]

kurono1822

[@CynicalBastard]

@minecraft creeper Enjoy all those right-wing problematics increasing.

[@nicoruppert4207]

@minecraft creeper Libertarian socialism has entered the chat

[@grosstoastie1216]

Communist advocates: "The bourgeoisie are all dicks and we want the communists to give us freedom! Actual communists: Alright everyone! No freedom of religion! No free speech! No rights outside the right to follow your totalitarian overlords or that'll be another mass genocidal, frenzied display of power and mass starvation to keep you all in line! Eh, fuck it. If you're a physically healthy political dissident we'll forcibly harvest your organs from you while you're still alive because honest, hard working slaves need your heart and liver more than you do!

[@AndersonRandom]

The Wildest part was watching the 300 people vote "Against". The ones for the motion gave very detailed explanations with examples while the ones against the motion could never grab on to anything concrete. But I guess that's what you should expect from a room full of wealth and privilege.

[@tusharsingh4543]

Socialism isn't the government doing stuff. You can still have state-run capitalism. Socialism is about the democratic ownership of the means of production by workers, whether that's in the private or public sector.

[@z3020979]

To be honest, I don’t mind bailing out the banks, but the bank should pay back. Tax money is tax payers money.

[@PrimusPete]

yes definitely, I don't quite understand why they haven't yet paid back the trillions we have given them. If you or I ever went bust, would the gov't just give us money? nope. It's a real scandal and it's causing so much trouble in the world. Outrageous.

[@sandracalderin6115]

@@PrimusPete agree it should be paid back!!

[@sandracalderin6115]

@Vexalord you souds like Spanish vocabulary in regards of Marxism .the day this country becomes Socialist Marxism I'M GOING TO STOP WORK SO YOU COULD TAKE CARE OF ME AND MY HOLE FAMILY, and going to call all my relatives that still lives in my original country to vome over the border so you could take csre of them too

[@sandracalderin6115]

@Vexalord that is right we should all be free to work for whom ever we want the state country should not dictate my life that should be my decision.and if you want to slave your self for the community other people that should be your decision but it should not be imposed up on any one freedom over anything

[@sandracalderin6115]

@Vexalordanthropology is the study of human behavior has nothing to do with decision of human, some people are responsible other irresponsibly some are industrious ,others their priority is trying to blame other for their lazy behavior and try to get others to take care of them, that is the reason their is no equally of out come. think everyone is responsible for the life they want for them self and their family( of course as human we have the responsibility to care for the sick ,handicap, ..) but all of us work and should buy our health insurance through work place not the government , because then we loose freedom .the government took over to much power in one place no balance , it life have to balance and the direction of our lives should be our

[@therealzilch]

Karl Marx was right- about some things. He was wrong about others. Same goes for Adam Smith. What many true believers on both sides don't realize is that the world is not that simple, and that simple political outlooks are not likely to work very well.

[@therealzilch]

***** Indeed. It's a balancing act, isn't it? Too much capitalism and it's dog-eat-dog, and too much socialism and there's nothing for the dog to eat.

[@FletchforFreedom]

+Scott Wallace While it is certainly true that Marx was right about a tiny fraction of what he said as Smith was wrong about a similarly tiny fraction, I am curious as to what aspects of capitalism do not work well or make things too "dog-eat-dog".

[@therealzilch]

FletchforFreedom That's a complex question to answer, of course. If I had a comprehensive understanding of exactly what the problems of capitalism are, I would probably be writing my own sequal to _The Wealth of Nations_. But what seems to me to be a problem with capitalism as practiced in the US today is that too little money is going into infrastructure: roads, schools, police, health, basic research- all the stuff that a society needs to keep functioning healthily. Capitalism could and does support infrastructure voluntarily- to some extent, but not enough, in the States, to prevent all kinds of social ills that are not as big a problem in more socialized countries, such as Austria where I live. For instance, if you think homelessness is a problem for society, and not just a responsibility of the homeless, then you will have to admit that American capitalism is not doing a very good job, compared to, say, Austria. Public health and public transportation are also vastly better in the EU than in the States. That's why I think capitalism needs to be tempered with socialism, if you value living in a society where you can, say, walk through a park at 3 AM and not have to give a thought about your safety.

[@FletchforFreedom]

+Scott Wallace This, good sir, is why I asked. So frequently, as in this case, the so-called "problems" with capitalism are either nit capitalism, not problems or not either. Your list is almost exclusively a list of items that have been largely monopolized by government and, thus, have nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. Beyond that, on what basis do you argue that "not enough" is being spent on these things or, for that matter, that anyone has either the authority or wherewithal to make such an argument. In fact, it is easily arguable that too much money, particularly public money, is being spent on those things. Private roads have been particularly successful and were the historical norm. Public schools have been literally awash in money and that's a big part of the problem. Private education, which, BTW, made England the most literate nation on the planet entirely without government help. has always been hugely more successful than public schooling ... and less expensive. Whether or not police forces are underfunded is a matter of debate. As to whether or not it is the chief problem facing police forces today is not (not a chance). The relative effectiveness of policing (and the safety at 3 AM is completely unrelated to capitalism vs. socialism and no correlation between such effectiveness and the economic system exists, so that comment is but a non sequitur). Health care in this country, largely due to government interference with the private system is hugely overfunded in areas where the finding isn't needed. Basic research, thanks to capitalism, is the most robust on the planet ... in the private sector where it belongs. The private sector has always more than made enough resources available (including in charity, for that matter) than government ever has. So why is this a problem with capitalism? Again, the case of homelessness is one of the absolute success of capitalism and the failure of government. It must be remembered that capitalism was solely responsible for the massive improvement in worker pay, working conditions and prosperity (including the effective end of child labor) over the last three centuries. It has proved to be the most effective and enduring anti-poverty program ever conceived by the mind of man, effectively eliminating poverty as it was understood just half a dozen generations ago. Homelessness in the US (massively overestimated as it is) is not the result of a problem with capitalism (or poverty) but is related overwhelmingly to mental illness and addiction and stems largely from the poor treatment of US veterans by the government and the government's role (beginning about 50 years ago) in making it ever more difficult to get people the treatment they need (think mainstreaming that put so many with mental problems out on the street even from private facilities). and don't kid yourself that Austria (or any other country) has solved the homelessness problem because it isn't close to being reality. That "public transportation" is better is based on the (indefensible) premise that transportation is necessarily separable and that "public" systems are worthwhile. The latest private sector solution (Uber and similar services) could well spell its death knell to the benefit of everyone. As for health care, the US, despite the enormous hit it has taken from Obamacare, is still the finest in the world (regardless of your income status - long discredited WHO rankings notwithstanding). If you get diagnosed with a serious illness (or need access to diagnostic equipment or treatments) you'd better pray with everything you have that you're in the US - you;ll live a lot longer. Adjusted for instant deaths from murder/accident (which say nothing about the health care system) Americans have the longest life expectancy on the planet. So far your list is a great beginning on why capitalism should be embraced and socialism, completely abandoned. So, do you have any ... valid .,.. criticisms of capitalism?

[@DieFlabbergast]

+Scott Wallace This is so obvious you shouldn't have to say it. Unfortunately, the world is FULL of people who see only in black and white. When belief strides onto the stage, rational argument might as well take a day off.

[@JustMe-uc1lt]

What a brilliant debate: erudite and thought-provoking. I enjoyed each and every speaker immensely immensely. Thank you.

[@leonardmoriarity3612]

Capialism is. By by.

[@Rotebuehl1]

@@leonardmoriarity3612 Simply let's see...

[@williamparker1085]

more useless blather

[@lindalarsson1436]

@@leonardmoriarity3612 Whatever WEF is in charge

[@lindalarsson1436]

Iits a very old video 1O years ago. Dec. 2022

[@SovereignStatesman]

They will never get the point, that consumer-choices is meaningless without choice of GOVERNMENT.

[@tusharsingh4543]

"Value is based on demand" only exists in a theoretical world where price fixing and inelastic demand doesn't exist. I doubt many people want drug companies to needlessly price gouge life-saving drugs or other healthcare services. This completely ignores the supplier's wants when it comes to assessing what they want their goods and services to cost and taking advantage of how desperate a consumer is obtain their needs, aka save their life.

[@psychonaut689]

I wanted to challenge this point too. I think value is based on many things. Their is a difference between value and price and cost. Economists often see value in monetary terms.

[@kiwitrainguy]

OPEC play this game as well. They reduce production of oil so as to increase the price of it.

[@mornnb]

Well, your example is one in which we have given a company a legal monopoly over a drug, see for a market to function there needs to be competition. If you outlaw competition a market doesn't work. I'd argue it is not so much a criticism of the idea of demand as value as it is a criticism of the idea of intellectual property.

[@mornnb]

​@@kiwitrainguy I very much agree with the comment in the debate that capitalism is a system of cooperation. OPEC knows that if they push the price too high they will destroy demand. OPEC's survival hence depends on their customers survival, so they have to carefully select a price that is a balance of their concerns that also doesn't financially destroy their customers.

[@itsoktobehappy461]

Thank God you have that drug cost example from one mixed economy country.

[@elioftheforest]

Needs redebating to account for last 7 years especially 2020

[@equinox2584]

@Ronald Reagan Trump supporters were the smart ones? Biden is insane? Biden is currently passing a plan that will give hundreds of thousands of jobs while also fixing the infrastructure in America that has long since needed fixing. Trump wanted to protect us from space isis, Trump wanted to well actually I am not sure what he wanted to do because he didn't really do anything during his 4 years other than kill over 200k people will corona.

[@equinox2584]

@Ronald Reagan What massive inflation? The inflation that was originally caused by Trump's stimulus bills? But now lets look at what Biden is doing, he is passing an infrastructure bill that will create thousands of jobs and fix the long broken infrastructure in America. He is doing more in his first few months than Trump in his entire presidency.

[@phanthomwizard9435]

What is the difference between an oppressor and a communist.

[@stevenmiller4329]

Seven years later and socialism is becoming more and more popular as billionaires get richer and homelessness rises.

[@coliv2]

Karl Marx, given the constraints of the knowledge of the XIX century, was incredibly accurate about the consequences of capitalism. One may disagree about his views of the ideal society, but his critic of capitalist was spot on.

[@bd9267]

he was incredibly wrong about capitalism, wages for workers dramatically increased instead of stagnating

[@Krooksbane]

top wow uhhh, the last 40 years prove you point wrong and Marx’s point right

[@jeffmoore9487]

coliv2: The inequality between the CEO's and the workers, between the first half of the 20th century and today has risen exponentially. Maybe 10,000%? top wow is probably reading critiques of Marx rather than Marx. The post WW2 boom might have caused Karl to write another chapter? But who would expect an 19th century economist to be able to teach 21st century economists the correct lense for understanding capitalism and the culture it has created for humanity. Not bad!

[@redrxses13]

But Marx said that the working class will be richer but so will be the 1% and the inequality between the two will rise dramatically.

[@jeffmoore9487]

Ian Standio: Marx preached that the only way the workers have a decent life is for them to organize and fight the bosses. When an economy is run by the workers, inequality will all but disappear. There has never been a economy run by workers.

[@donnygv27]

The capitalist guys do not understand Marx. It appears as though they've either gotten their Intel from other peoples' summaries of his works, or they selectively read some of it and actually didn't understand the perspective, mindset and therefore positions, which is totally fair if you've only gone over his work a couple times. it's pretty dense once you get past the basic, surface level calls to action of works like the communist manifesto. There's nothing wrong with not understanding Marxism, unless you're going to try and speak at length on it. As a result, they actually end up, at a couple points, arguing in agreement with his actual written beliefs, and I find that very amusing

[@sirherbert6953]

The 4th speaker really made little sense. Marx did not belive that wages would fall. He believed they would rise only at a slower rate then the prodit on capital as he states in wage elabor and capital. He misrepresented the labor theory of value, which surprised me since he is part of the Adam Smith institute who himself was an adherent of the ltv. Marx very clearly states that use value exists and that it must be different in order for trade to accure as well as that only labor that contributes to use value is productive.

[@ericmacrae6871]

@@sirherbert6953 I have recently started to study Das Kapital and the one thing that I am noticing is that all the criticism against Marxism are all fallacious arguments. but hey what can we do right?

[@TheButterMinecart1]

I bet the people who disliked didn't actually watch the full video.

[@mattgeer4778]

workers unite!

[@kirklazenby1]

This aged well

[@smujismuj]

One thing these discussions rarely touch on is that there are billions of people whose lives are effected by decisions made in board rooms. I'm trying to think of when I have ever heard people at this level discuss whether or not these board members have any moral right to that power.

[@incaseinever]

In communism (from history) there are no boardrooms, only one person decides.

[@zacharyb2723]

we mostly agree that they don't

[@Luke-tt3dt]

The Divine Right of Shareholders

[@zagyex]

Marx provided a valid critique of capitalism. But building an economy and social system on a critique is a fatal mistake. So the motion makes little sense.

[@paddywhack9261]

George, on the anti- side, talked about pump-priming by the gov't, and one of the pro-side said that production has been flat since 1960: not true, it's the gains from increased productivity that the shareholders are receiving as dividends, and management receives as bonuses, golden parachutes, etc., but nothing goes to the workers, true since at least the 70, attributable to the Carl Icahn style of predatory capitalism, hostile takeovers, pension fund raiding, deregulation, etc. Both argue, in essence, that capitalism needs the State. What's going on now cannot go on.

[@SalmonFume]

It's actually a simple law during the Reagan area that made that possible. Republicans don't wanna repeal the law for obvious reasons, yet there is a majority of them who also think it should be fixed is some 'conservative' way. So they can sell it to the people. So what they're now thinking about is giving tax cuts when the company does not transfer x amount of percent to their shareholders. All of this is a futile exercise ofcourse since capitalism is doomed.

[@xxxfaze_cumshotxxx7946]

@@SalmonFume They hoard everything they overproduce, and still wonder why poverty and hunger are things that exist.

[@RobTomp]

It seems that a lot of people commenting on this video do not understand that "Marxism" does not equate to authoritarian, top-down economies and political systems like that of the former Soviet Union and communist China, etc. While those economies have been called "marxist" and "socialist", there is a fairly wide range of "socialist" economic models. Marxism is really just an analytical perspective and critique of capitalism.

[@CjLegend]

Its easy to 'misunderstand' something when it is the only segment of that thing (ie authoritarian communism) being expressed In other words, give me a real life alternative to top down socialism (one that has actually been implemented)

[@earlysda]

Marxism is evil.

[@thorthewolf8801]

​@@CjLegend yep, for all the talk about how previous attempts werent "real" communists, they were in fact the most real communists, the ones who actually existed.

[@3Zeddy2]

"That is what we are arguing about" oh no, you don't get to claim you are debating when you declare man's self interest is immoral, and that in order to be moral you want a gun pointed in his face.

[@richardmayger2716]

I’ve heard nothing about the distribution of surplus which is the key point of Marxism

[@ceoofantifa6245]

No l, it's historical materialism

[@sabineliebherr5765]

Would you please name the name of this malevolent lady who made the last contribution?

[@MM-du7je]

The first guy really destroyed any semblance of debate, everyone else seemed like they were backpedaling from there.

[@trstenik100]

the first guy is total moron

[@bilanmali7081]

Not really. The first guy had to luxury to puke whatever he wanted because he never foresaw what could be coming next

[@MM-du7je]

@Ronald Reagan Oh geez do you post on /his/? Stop misusing hyphens.

[@haniqassim]

What gives the perception that capitalism works is its use of foreign colonialism and war.

[@ilovetech8341]

And communist based societies don't have war? Even the native Americans fought against each other.

[@xxxfaze_cumshotxxx7946]

@@ilovetech8341 they don't? a communist society wouldn't even need an army, what you saw in the USSR was a struggle to stay alive after what America tried to do. War goes on to this day and had communism taken the world by storm we would actually fucking CARE instead of just saying that this is rEaLiTy and hUmAn nAtUrE.

[@haniqassim]

@Ronald Reagan We as humans haven't reached a successful social system yet. All what we know have it's pros and cons. Recently though, communist China is winning against capitalist US.

[@lokeshkumarray7560]

It is time we had a debate on: 'Have both Capitalism & Marxism failed society? What then should be the philosophy going forward?'

[@rubentala4762]

Yanis Varoufakis says we are seeing a new system being born inside capitalism: techno-feudalism.

[@aza091234]

Real Democracy in Economy man, that's how the world will get better.

[@grb1969]

While a direct-democratic economic and political reform is necessary for social stability, it remains systematically insufficient to alter the in in sustainability of a commoditized, monetized, and financialized free-market economy. At minimum, a direct-democratic monetary system would be necessary for economic stability; but also may be insufficient as a methodology of managing the social order towards the goal of sovereign self-governance.

[@ChristopherBruceTheMightySword]

I myself am a personal self-defined high-priest of Carlinism (the belief that George Carlin had the answers to the Universe.)

[@ivandafoe5451]

OK then...give us a really, really funny comment on the topic.

[@tybofborg]

The two fundamental classes of our society are called the Big Club, and the You Ain't In It.

[@theaubad1006]

Christopher hi. I think by your title self given name. You are a self delusional narcissus. Trust george carlin? Yep heres your sign.

[@drrydog]

Carlin was smarter than Marx, and it wasn't even close.

[@ChristopherBruceTheMightySword]

@@theaubad1006 you aren't even able to spell narcissist correctly, so I don't even want to hear from you. As to the name, it was bestowed upon me, not self-given. I simply had no problem accepting it. That, I'm afraid, does NOT define me as narcissistic any more than accepting a nickname. Try again.

[@mogo-wc7xw]

FOR THE LAST TIME, KARL MARX WASN'T RIGHT, HE WAS LEFT.

[@JamesJohn-tg2jg]

He was Left & Correct.

[@Akshayattr1]

it pains to witness that by now tha is 2020, marxism is seen as tragedy and capitalism is seen as ever great. right wing populaism and propoganda has run too deep on social media mostly among teens who do not understand economics.

[@caydcrow5161]

Bro just take a fucking look at the 20th century Moa and Stalin? Fascism and Socialism are terrible bro. Capitalism has made more people wealthy. People that are poor in America live better than moist people in all of history

[@Akshayattr1]

@@caydcrow5161 brazil, congo, ghana, indonesia, india, south Africa, egypt, pakistan and majority of whole world is a proof that capitalism doesn't work. These countries are capitalist and their gdp/capita and human development index is such lower than almost all socialist countries like USSR, china, cuba. This is evidence. Capitalism created wealth only in the first world because of colonialism which looted and profited all money from whole world. Colonialism and imperialism were two wheels of capitalism used to generate wealth for the minority.

[@Akshayattr1]

@@caydcrow5161 majority of capitalist countries are poorer and underdeveloped than socialist countries. Socialism made two super powers and economic giants like USSR and china.

[@caydcrow5161]

Akshay attri it’s funny all th countries you named at the top have something in common besides what you call “capitalism”. If you can figure it out I’ll give you a cookie

[@Akshayattr1]

@@caydcrow5161 sure. When something doesn't work label it socialism and when capitalism fails just that isn't capitalism. Hahaha you're great man

[@hamptonkearney3888]

so these guys think if you're poor, you should not have the ability to climb out of that, and that you should have to bow to the big central government with at least half your earnings. freedom is more important than profit.

[@ristrellaconti1005]

The thing is, that Marx was a philosopher, not a prophet--although he saw himself as one. He sands as an interesting indeed very compelling critic of capitalism. But to take s philosophy as holy writ, as the inevitable truth is in fact do his philosophy a disservice by making it into a quasi religion. Better to read him as we read Dickens, as a savage critic and just leave it at that.

[@enghockonn8028]

Karl Mark was Right to call for"Worker of all land to unite,you have nothing to lose but your chain"

[@genathing903]

“I don’t know what to call this, I think there’s a role of government in banking, but capitalism is not collapsing”-Ms Shapiro. W the actual F??!!

[@whatwhat678]

If the system was capitalism then yes it would be failing . The problem is that the government has so much of its dirty interfering paws all over it that it’s hardly capitalism that is failing. It’s the governments role that is failing. But of course the proletariat is too dim to recognise that.

[@equinox2584]

@@whatwhat678 The proletariat is however enslaved by the individual because we have a system that prioritizes money over people, this is a core fault of capitalism that cannot be fixed by removing government, which would only make this worse. The government's role should be to protect the proletariat and they fail at this as well also a fault of capitalist lobbyist.

[@LeftIsFascist]

Let's compare 2008 to umm idk..the entire 20th century.

[@questworldmatrix]

Until Reagan and so on dismantling of a lot of checks and balances, there was the New Deal and things like Glass Steagall.

[@heidimelcarek3677]

As this first statement of the proponent of capitalism is speaking, saying that the problems are fixable - all I can think of is 'well, we tried that...it didn't work...obviously'.

[@1972hermanoben]

Anyone have any idea please when we can expect to see wealth trickling down to the rest of us? I’ve got a bit of holiday saved up, and I’d just like to be able to plan ahead.

[@jiangangqi5991]

capitalism survives when productivity is low

[@jayvis123111]

Both of these positions are SUPER fact left in the united states and I'm a big fan of that.

[@loganmartin4435]

It honestly just goes to show how far right america has become when even the position of reforming capitalism in the face of its collapse is a an extreme position.

[@whatwhat678]

@@loganmartin4435 Are you serious? What the hell do you mean “reforming capitalism”? A socialist president dishing money out to special interests is nothing to do with capitalism. Big banks too big to fail, decreed by government, is not capitalism at play. The federal reserve bank arbitrarily deciding how much money costs is not capitalism. You do know that socialism and communism is defined by government controlling the means of production, right? Just so you know, 2 + 2 still equals 4, but Jack Dorsey and Zuckerface, bezos and Pichai are doing everything they can to change that fact.

[@equinox2584]

@@whatwhat678 America is very far right economically we take in lots of taxes and yet we do not have universal healthcare like the rest of the developed world, we may have lots of wealth but all our wealth lies at the top while the working class suffers for the gain of the one. And your definition of socialism and communism is wrong, socialism the definition is the workers owning the means of production and communism is an extension of that philosophy that also adds a stateless and classes society, communism is a perfect utopia it will never happen like that we will always require a state.

[@KrutoiPersonazh]

The further kid exists from Soviet State in space and time the harder he suffered from it's tyranny)

[@billyb4790]

Just because capitalism isn’t perfect does not make Marx right.

[@dashboardkid21]

Bring this back next April. 10 years, a pandemic, the largest transfer of wealth ever! How would people opinions change?

[@dashboardkid21]

Also this place with people in the middle class, of course their opinions would be skewed "Against" Had this place been filled with paupers or at least an equal amount of both classes, the results then may have been different.

[@catsaresocute650]

It is so brilliant to hear how wages would not be driven down towards the level where workers could no longer well afford to have children or would choose not to have children. Becuase CLEARLY that is not happening (/sacasm)

[@unclefester9113]

In this context - I suspect that Intelligence is being misused.

[@RonzigtheWizard]

Not misused, MISSING.

[@JaD-mq3cr]

You can't get a monopoly in a free market without government intervention. Free-market (laissez-faire) capitalism isn't the problem. Government intervention is

[@papaluskask999]

Capitalists " on it best system " it was major economic system which led to not one but two world wars.

[@psychonaut689]

Loved the debate. I think this question needs to be asked more often. However, I'm not sure I've heard much that helps me answer this question. The notion of different models of change was an interesting aspect I hadn't considered before, i.e. Hegelian vs Darwinian. My view is that these models are not mutually exclusive. There should have been some identification of any current inherent contradictions and an analysis of where they have lead recently, or are leading.

[@wandererxman1]

I actually worked out the exact deflation that was going to occur in the prior market crash in 2008 based on expected corrected growth curves. The problem is the assumption of unlimited growth and the current system doesn't allow for the changes which need to occur for resources to be used in such a way that there is more than enough for everyone.

[@jerrykitich3318]

I thought he leaned left

[@spirosmoutsatsos4590]

Converse with the gold fish or lip reading for understanding in depth?

[@alfabravo80]

Well worth a listen.

[@markofsaltburn]

Frank Furedi: brilliant, playful, inscrutable. He could have taken either side in this debate and been equally persuasive.

[@PastStory]

The people advocating for capitalism in this debate didn't have any arguments. They just asserted their opinion without backing it up with any evidence nor concrete examples.

[@nightoftheworld]

32:18 Hegel never said “thesis, antithesis, synthesis”, that was Fichte, it is a misnomer. Hegel’s view was not mechanical but organic. He criticized T/A/S as implying that contradictions or negations come from outside of things. Hegel’s formulation was “abstract, negative, concrete” or “immediate, mediate, concrete”, emphasizing that contradiction is inherent in and internal to things. The formula A/N/C suggests a flaw/incompleteness in any initial thesis-it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error, and experience.

[@nelsongonzalez4533]

It sounds familiar 😌 history repeats itself. Things like machines replacing humans in factories and other industries is happening now as it happened during the industrial revolution.

[@freyfaust6218]

every technological advance has opened new markets, refuting the idea that technology will put millions on death row. The expanding population, decreasing prices, increasing food security and access to basics and luxuries for the global population throughout this century is a clear refutation of luddite intransigence.

[@equinox2584]

@@freyfaust6218 Yeah the machine argument is pretty dumb the only one thing I can think that will really have an impact is self-driving trucks, they can drive all night perfectly without any stops this will remove truck stops business the truckers business, and many others which will probably result in a net negative but you never know with this stuff sometimes you think that will happen and then the opposite occurs. Though if we have all these recourses in such an abundant quantity why can we not share the love with everyone rather than locking in a pay wall?

[@freedomordeath89]

@@equinox2584 Not necessary. Cars destroyed the horse-drawn industry. All the "stops and rests" for horses employed thousands of people to mantain the horses, feed them etc (not just drive the cart/horse). Those jobs disappeared with the car. New jobs appeared. Jobs are not limited as socialists think, jobs are the natural result of people having free time and needs to satisfy, you will always find a job as long as there's a good environment for it, the role of the state is to create the environment for jobs, jobs will come along. Socialists instead want to create artificial jobs that are not needed.

[@equinox2584]

@@freedomordeath89 I never said I thought there wouldn't be jobs because of new tech I was just saying that I think the trucking industry as a whole is the thing most likely to cause problems in the future. We should not be manufacturing jobs and I am a socialist lol.

[@freedomordeath89]

@@equinox2584 YOu are probably not a socialist. Most people use the word without knowing the meaning. You are probably a social democrat which is really different.

[@kleinefuchsdavidson11]

Midway through this video, I now think of Capitalism as slowly crumbling away as the result of its coping mechanisms to fight back the crises carried out and executed by the growing technological advancements. Though Capitalism itself will not collapse entirely yet, it will eventually become unrecognizable as technology continues to advance and create new problems.

[@Knubbelbubbelbubbel]

The points on the 3 pro-capitalists were laughable. Human nature, it will sort itself out, just let it roll. Pure status quo ideology!

[@InArgCroitheGoDeo]

32:47 Marx & Engels never ignored Darwin’s theory of change. They acknowledged the fact that humanity is subject to the same natural laws as any other species but also that humanity is unlike any other species in that we have the capacity to transform and create our world through our labour in a way that goes beyond survival and reproduction. Marx said that humanity, like all beings, is in a constant battle against natural forces for survival. Technology or our ability to ‘outwit’ nature determines how we interact with each other and with nature. The Marxian dialectic is both evolutionary (via the forces of production) AND revolutionary (via the relations of production). I’ve never been sold on Marx’s stagism, but to believe that capitalism is the final stage of human history is just naive and ridiculous

[@doctormcgrail]

An easy debate to win. I would have paid those speaking against the motion £10 each and then told them to shut up, since they are now my employees. If any objected saying they did not want to work for me, I'd point out that they have more choice and freedom than most. As Adam Smith points out, love of money (the desperate need for it) motivates most people in a commercial society. Almost 2 hours of 6 well-educated intellectuals speaking about Marx but not one mention of 'waged labour' in a political sense - where one person tells another what to do, and then expects them to spend their life doing a boring, monotonous task so that they might have 'opulence'! That is, you waste your life at the behest of others chasing baubles and trinkets as some kind of 'compensation'.