Socialism DOES Work | Jeremy Corbyn | Oxford Union

[@Zetunez]

The argument is 'Socialism Does Work'. What Corbyn has presented are the benefits of socialistic elements within a capitalist system.

[@neilchapman5145]

I can assure you that’s what he was just telling you the beginning. The end stage would be a North Korea type regime

[@ArikHarv]

Nobody buys his lies nowadays

[@TONYxndHAWK]

Charliegmc just because Jeremy doesn’t advocate for something, doesn’t mean upcoming socialists won’t either.

[@charliegmc1712]

@@TONYxndHAWK communism isn't the collectivisation of the means of production, it is the collectivisation of property. Socialism is democracy in the work place, most socialists today advocate for a system that ables worker co-ops, stronger unions and retaining a market economy (while obviously decommodifying certain essential markets) it's not some USSR dictatorship where a brain surgeon earns less than a doorman like the right enjoy conjuring up

[@anarchist_dan]

How is it a "capitalist" system when the government controls damn near everything?

[@zarfvreex8260]

So the premise of his speech is "I'm here to defend socialism, not the countries that implemented socialism".

[@TheZeldoph]

He gave examples of socialist institutions that have existed in the country (like the NHS) which have been of benefit to society.

[@ChrisGeden]

Paul Ireland Paul Ireland they’re socialised, not socialist, and they’re funded by a capitalism, ultimately.

[@TheZeldoph]

@@ChrisGeden the modern usage of the word socialisms doesn't really mean what it used to mean. Socialism nowadays really means social democracy when most people use it nowadays which is what I'm talking about.

[@brumav9779]

@@TheZeldoph No social democracy were the ideas of New Labour (Blairites), not Corbyn. The socialism which Corbyn and many others follow is the same Socialism which there always has been, the socialism which ruined the UK in the 70s. The socialism which always results in injustice.

[@peaceandlove1255]

Paul Ireland And I can’t believe that the right have managed to convince people that social democracy=socialism

[@geralldus]

You need to create wealth before you can re-distribute it.

[@holdtightadele8017]

geralldus. There’s plenty of wealth😂 there are loopholes allowing billionaires to offshore millions of pounds UNTAXED. That’s where our money is! Tories hide that fact with austerity.

[@hlund73]

Wealth isn't money .Capitalists are only motivated by money. Monopolising supply; creating artificial shortages; manipulating currency markets; usury lending: these are the preferred tools of the capitalist. How else can you explain financial sector PLCs making double the net profit of manufacturers, agriculture...?

[@tectorama]

Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money.

[@geralldus]

@@tectorama Well observed!

[@DK-nx9ri]

And only free market has been able to create any wealth. No socialist country ever created wealth the capitalism did.

[@barrysimpson7666]

The meaning of socialism is being shifted. What hes talking about is social democracy. Socialism is the workers controlling their workplace democratically

[@chillwinston8961]

Cheers Barry

[@Conflictedhots]

"or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That's the part people don't like and also the more likely path for a nation... MUCH more likely

[@barrysimpson7666]

@@Conflictedhotslol that's not socialism. I don't care what anyone says

[@Conflictedhots]

@@barrysimpson7666 so socialism is defined by what you think, and only that. Got it

[@barrysimpson7666]

@@Conflictedhots socialism is defined by what socialists think. Not authoritarian politicians calling themselves socialists

[@leebrondum2643]

I think it's funny how the Tories come in full tuxedo but corbyn comes dressed up as mr bean

[@22ChampagneSupernova]

He also wears hats, people aren't wearing enough hats in my opinion.

[@johnstills8010]

+Sam Nyström A silly hat that's cost him many votes.

[@RapidBlindfolds]

+lee brondum The prime minister spends as much on one suit as he expects a homeless person to live on all year and you're telling me the way Jeremy Corbyn dresses is insulting?

[@leebrondum2643]

bea haxby did you know we have government housing in this country and benefits for people who have nothing, people who are homeless are either too lazy to find a job so beg on the street then go home to their government homes at the end of the day or have spent their benefits on drugs or alcohol and have been thrown out their council homes

[@RapidBlindfolds]

i have a friend who works in architecture and he tells me there are virtually no plans to build council housing and that the conservative government hopes to do away with coucil housing altogether in 20 years

[@joemetcalf2235]

Surely the lesson from history is that you need both decent socalised programmes and a market economy. Individuals pay their taxes for socialised programmes that benefit society and provide some equity. This includes Healthcare, Education and even the military and in return that healthy, educated society provides the market economy with innovators, business leaders and consumers. Though monopoly and inheritance unchecked advanced capitalism will lead to gross inequality, a lack of social mobility, a powerless population and the exploitation of the environment. Through an extreme socalised system there is little space to innovate, a lack of productivity, a disincentive of personal ambition and to much centralized power. So you need to balance a market economy, with socalised programmes and a system of regulation where decisions are made for economic as well as environmental and societal gain.

[@ucheudedibor6465]

Exactly. You’d think it was rocket science the way people talk about this.

[@magnontaur]

This, well said.

[@2013branth]

Should point out that monopolies, the ones that are the most harmful, can only come about as a result of protective government legislation.

[@joemetcalf2235]

Hi@@2013branth, could you provide a few examples so I can understand your point properly? In particular, which Government monopolies and how they are harmful?

[@2013branth]

@@joemetcalf2235 What I mean is that Government Regulations create monopolies. Special interest groups may push for laws and regulations that protect them while harming the competition. So Health Insurance in the US is the first thing that comes to mind. Each state in the US has different rules and regulations regarding health insurance. So say a firm from Texas wants to start selling in California, that Texas firm must then apply for Californian licenses, jump through the necessary legal hoops before being allowed to operate. By the time the Texan firm gets through all of that hoopla, it's already at a disadvantage compared to California firm(s) because of the time spent on meeting the requirements that the Texan firm is pretty much creating a new business venture rather than expanding their current model. Furthermore, their current operations have to cover the cost of the new operations in the hopes that it could pay for itself. In effect, Californian regulations protect California's Health Insurance Firm(s) from the interstate competition and vice versa. This has resulted in the US health care system is that of an oligopoly where one or two firms operate in a state, virtually without competition. mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopolies The next "monopoly" we have are brick and mortar restaraunts pushing for legislation that makes it harder for food truck operators to operate. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2XHdqeEe69kmNk Next, we have a different kind of monopoly which is arguably just as insidious if not more so. Public transport. Government is a monopoly in and of itself. kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3WkaXSvp9mHhJo Public Unions have pushed for so many benefits that it is more enticing to work for the government than the private sector. As a result, the private sector is virtually gone, and public unions run rough shot. And guess who foots the bill? The taxpayer. Apparently in New York, a unionised labourer makes $111/hr.

[@GMU8]

“The goal of socialism is communism” Lenin.

[@johnharvey4448]

John H Yes. The communist manifesto sets out socialism as a step to communism, the step even.

[@armstrong2052]

The gulag archipelago and planned chaos are destructive books against any central planning.

[@frederikholfeld868]

@john h i think you yet have to make your point.

[@GMU8]

Frederik Holfeld I haven’t made a point. I’ve written a quote.

[@frederikholfeld868]

@@GMU8 ah, ok. if that's enough for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@Username-lt7lt]

“Hey guys having some socialism in a capitalist system works” Title: Socialism works But that’s not socialism... That’s a capitalist system with socialist ideals...

[@anthonym8303]

But that's really all were arguing. Were not asking to become a utopian socialist nation. We simply want for the government to embrace more socialistic practices

[@yourdaddy9530]

Thats the one, american magats are thinking theyre gona be full blown socialists smh

[@Username-lt7lt]

@@anthonym8303 No shit I watched the video, however the title is misleading, did you not read what I said when I was critisizing the title and not socialism?

[@roguegenesis7020]

@@Username-lt7lt socialism is an economic philosophy not a political one, Bolshevism was the political philosophy It's just like Italian Fascists were capitalists and Fascists, both things are different

[@Username-lt7lt]

@@roguegenesis7020 Nigga if it was different then you would explain why instead of saying "It's different ok trust me even though nobody has ever said this it's different and I'm not going to explain why because I'm brainwashed and don't know it myself"

[@xander7ful]

What happened in the USSR & in Cuba, which copied it, & in satellite countries was Statist Authoritarian Socialism - micro-management by one leader at the top - not Democratic Socialism, which would be more Libertarian in nature. This is the distinction that Conservatives in the US & Tories in the UK like to leave out when they challenge you. They like to point at State Socialism as a failure so they can dismiss all forms of Socialism.

[@willmaclachlan8896]

Xander Taylor Stalinist Russia fair enough but I think Cuba is quite a success.

[@cr4yv3n]

Xander Taylor Ofc they leave it out, they would appear as the bad guys if it was showing democratic socialism works ( which it does btw ).

[@DimetriKhan]

Xander Taylor It was Karl Liebknecht who said that state socialism was an oxymoronic term that in actuality meant state capitalism. Socialism cannot exist as long as the state-as we currently know it-coexists. For that reason only libertarian socialism is the genuine ground of the working class movement.

[@GlennYarwood]

Xander Taylor To be clear, what Russia actually had and has is state capitalism, they never actually made the next step. They just took control of private businesses and said it was socialism without spreading out any of the power, eg the state became the capitalist

[@cr4yv3n]

glenn yarwood bingo

[@thfreakinacage]

A social program is not socialism. It's something that is financially achievable through capitalism! I don't like Corbyn one bit, but I will give one tiny modicum of credit to something. That roundabout joke at the start was pretty funny.

[@thfreakinacage]

@@BeeLeeBeats Yeah exactly, such social programs as health care and unemployment benefits are just the result of the generosity of capitalism. Socialism could not achieve these. While the generosity might still exist in people's heads, the financial generosity no longer exists.

[@samwight]

Then a regulated market isn't capitalism. You can't draw the line with one economic system and then not apply that same meter stick to the other one.

[@boulevard14]

@@BeeLeeBeats The true idea if socialism that society (the community) owns the means of production. What you described is an authoritarian branch of socialism.

[@jayjaywon]

@@asd-ik5er The USSR became a superpower through industrialization and taking advantage of its over abundance of workers. Industrialization became a wide spread occurrence due to Capitalist nations wanting to progress more. The USSR also gave healthcare and education yet the authoritarian regime still flourished. The healthcare was extremely bad and the conditions were said to be pathetic compared to the United States or Britain. It was bad due to the streamline in their nations aviation and research in order to accelerate their progression. To say that the USSR was a socialist success is like saying North Korea is a Utopia. While it seems true in some ways depending on how you look at it the truth becomes glaringly obvious if you look at the amount of human suffering and persecution.

[@lol-ff8di]

What do you mean a social program is not socialism? It's literally in the definition. Having taxes that pay for universal healthcare for everyone is definitely not a capitalistic idea bud...

[@cal4681]

Jeremy Corbyn is clearly a very passionate individual, but having watched this video and listened to the things he had to say, I feel no closer to understanding why or how “Socialism does work”.

[@BigBlueMan118]

What do you mean, it's working just fine in many countries in Europe and has done for a long time.

[@agentorangecb1]

I'd love to know where the poster is from and what their experience is. When you say "I am no closer to understanding" i want to ask "Who are you and what do you understand?"

[@adeel9321]

then please listen it again..

[@dmg3736]

@@BigBlueMan118 no country in Europe is socialist. They all are free market economies with a welfare state

[@BigBlueMan118]

@@dmg3736 call it what you want, I don't give a damn - we need: more even redistribution of wealth; inclusions of environmental management costs in our economy (free market carbon tax ideas are too small scale); massive government-lead investment in clean tech and research. We are running out of time to stop catastrophic climate change, and the capitalist market based system alone has not got the answers. "Countries in the non-Marxist-Leninist category represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the term socialism and in many cases the countries do not define what they mean by it. Modern uses of the term socialism are wide in meaning and interpretation." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

[@historiamilitaris5161]

Mr Corbyn forgot about the fact that British “socialism” was a huge welfare state which could not survive without capitalism. If he wants to defend “true socialism” he should be ashamed.

[@erhhsdhh2099]

I completely agree. He is so delusional. I am glad he didn’t become PM and Labour made a great decision to kick him out

[@IrishMexican]

Sweden’s pension system has become privatized, their lower income earners pay higher taxes comparatively to the US, and their business run more freely than the US. I wouldn’t call Sweden socialist.

[@swazilandandbotswana8856]

Daniel Padilla there is no minimum wage either

[@davestuddaman8127]

60% tax rate if you make over what 70-75,000? Fk that, sht!!

[@donaldcrawford5577]

may be, but they have a good social system.

[@jeppep95]

our pension system is a hybrid program. We pay more taxes to afford more services and we have bigger unions so that we don't need minimum wages to protect us from corporations. If you wouldn't call it socialist would you mind implementing Swedens economic policys?

[@sander_kijkt]

Togo Is Tiny. That’s fallacious propaganda. The wages are agreed upon between the unions and the representatives of the employers.

[@gmodrules123456789]

"We live in a society" Jeremy Corbyn -- 2013

[@fatalconceit8061]

Underated comment

[@lordspam2721]

Sounds like communist propaganda but I digress.... haha

[@abdelhalim5967]

No shit

[@Maperator]

"There is no such thing as society" Mergaret Thatcher -- 1987

[@cocothesocialist3690]

khang milton the duality of man...

[@blibberblib1805]

Corbyn, Corbyn for Labour leader. Please

[@NickSully94]

blibberblib why do you hate the Falkland Islanders?

[@donbarzinitut]

Nick Sullivan the one thing i do disagree on with him

[@oscarstrokosz2986]

Nick Sullivan Thatcher did until the Argies invaded. Her cabinet were almost going to scrap large assets in the Navy en.mercopress.com/2011/12/31/thatcher-was-warned-about-risks-of-navy-cuts-a-year-before-the-falklands-conflict Let's not forget the recent 20,000 personnel cut from regular forces. Oh but the Tories are still patriotic because "muh Thatcher."

[@NickSully94]

***** way to miss the point and launch a strawman attack. I'm not a Tory supporter, but this idiot wants to hand the Falklands over to the Argentines.

[@oscarstrokosz2986]

Just looked up this. My mistake for not knowing about this.

[@bigred5287]

Socialism does work Spends entire segment talking about what is in fact a social market economy, not a socialist economy.

[@felix776rt]

In all fairness right wingers constantly call people such as Corbyn or bearnie out as "socialists" to evoke a negative feeling without an arguement it makes sense to simply rebrand socialism for the sake of the masses.

[@blog251]

“Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.” Winston Churchill

[@felix776rt]

Yeah Winston Churchill also sent the black and tans into Ireland funny how he wasn't able to "foretell" what a collosal fuck up that would be

[@SandfordSmythe]

Churchill said he wasn't worried about his place in history, he was going to write the history.

[@paulpeartsmith]

Bingo. It could argued that we went too far in the 70's. We've gone too far right now. We need to steer left to stay level. The problem we have is that the Labour Party, playing the distorted game of the Tory media, have excised all the energy and policies needed to course correct. They are Tory placeholders now, not an opposition. There will be no transformation under them. It's going to get hella worse.

[@Kriegerdammerung]

Politics in Victorian era framed this view of Winston Churchill, that they did.

[@phill234]

Say it with me: Just because a famous person said it doesn't mean it's true.

[@andrewwells6323]

This was one of Oxford's most entertaining debates, very enjoyable.

[@tomrawley6549]

a comedy show, thats all this is

[@johnharvey4448]

@@tomrawley6549 John Redwoods analogy regards traffic lights / jams and socialism was good even with the comedy / attempted comedy taken out.

[@larrybarnhouse9989]

Only selfish idiots would think that it is OK for the Rich to keep cheating their workers out of $1.5 Trillion dollars in wages each year was OK! That is How Much these Corporations cheat their workers with low wages and No benefits every year! Why, do you think that American companies move to 3rd World Countries? They want to pay almost 0 in wages and Republican Policies allow Companies to pay 0 on the Billions in income and Profits! TAX THE RICH!

[@andrewwells6323]

@@larrybarnhouse9989 Companies investing in low income areas or poverty stricken countries is a good thing.

[@johnsheahan2437]

Makes a change for them to have a debate, they normally cancel anyone they don't agree with. Don't want the little dears hearing other ideas or opinions.

[@filipkostrba5931]

He actually didn't say why "socialism DOES work." It was just that fancy "this bad, this good" thing again, as all the others. You should change the title.

[@Somewhat-Evil]

I think they simply titled this video that way because Mr.Corbyn is attempting to somehow counter the argument that "socialism doesn't work" presented by earlier speakers in this video collection. I agree he didn't offer up anything beyond the tired "this bad, this good" argument as you put it.

[@filipkostrba5931]

@@Somewhat-Evil thank you, you're correct, there's a video on this channel titled "Why Socialism DOES NOT Work," probably presented by the previous speaker, as you wrote. Still not a totally accurate title, but it makes more sense now.

[@harpy5677]

Socialism in a nutshell is making everyone happy. It has capitalist values like having people being paid wages for their labour but what socialism want is that people get paid the correct amount of money for their labour. Socialism makes sure that all is happy and it works. School is socialist, the police are socialist, firefighters are socialist and our greatest thing in this nation, our NHS is socialist. If the torys has their way the poor would rot on the street to die as they would be no way for them to learn because schools would be privatised, if a fire happened, they would have to sit and watch, if they got mugged they wouldn’t be able to bring justice and if they hurt themselves they would just have to...die. If the torys has there way we would be living in the medieval times so therefore socialism works.

[@ncgzeal]

Socialism sucks at paying people at right amount particularly because without market you can’t figure out how much everyone should be paid.

@@pedropradacarciofi2517 also I'd say income inequality is the issue and that's usually what is happening in strong economies

[@pg-l4469]

I do love Jeremy Corbyn and I thought he did quite well in this, but I wish he would have actually defended the attack that the best thing to happen to the environment was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the restoration of private property and the capitalist shock doctrine... That's an insane thing to say and I wish Jeremy would have defended that on the merits of the question more than deflecting

[@tylerhurson8515]

Is this what passes for rational argument in socialist circles? There is nothing but appeals to emotion in this video. Where is the reason, where is the evidence? Demonstrate to us why socialism works, don't just whine about the oh-so-poor, oppressed working class.

[@Tarchoom]

Tyler Hurson Ahaha I am not an anarchist although that might change but Anarchocapitalism is the ISIS of anarchism and an oxymoron too but its adherants still like to masquerade as anarchists regardless.

[@Tarchoom]

Vote Starlight Glimmer for a Brighter Future! Well there is a village in Spain which voluntarily is Communist or atleast identifies itself as Communist for example. I will say once again anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, the state which protects and legitimizes private property as can be seen by the force of the state, the police will punish people of violating private property unless the state is the perpetrator , eg. fine people for trespassing.When the oh so "tyrannical" state is destroyed the defacto leaders will be the capitalists if this utopian system of yours successfully destroys the state without some strongman getting in control instead , How can the hierarchical structure of businesses and corporations by their very nature being totalitarian be amended to be anarchistic? Will the workers have the amazing freedom to choose only between having to work to get just 1 loaf of bread a day(Or rather get 20 cents an hour) to live or choose to decline and accept starvation cause there is no minimum cause muh freedom? Why is the freedom for an individual to take away everyone elses freedom to use the means of production considered such a brilliant freedom? Why is the paradoxical nature of private property one that is often ignored by ancaps? What if the workers and/or majority do not want private property and/or anarchocapitalism to be in power in their country? Will the capitalists/ancapitalists use their fortune to buy mercenaries to beat back these dissidents?

[@SoWe1]

Tyler Hurson to be fair he also has some false dichotomies, false equivocations and strawmen

[@herzwatithink9289]

Tyler Hurson You know the answer: they have a messiah complex. You also know that, when you scratch the surface, the people who are forever whining about "equality" are the biggest class and race bigots there are.

[@herzwatithink9289]

Vote Starlight Glimmer for a Brighter Future! These bastards would rather import the Third World to prove how "not racist" they are rather than help the Third World industrialise so that it too can become First World. Because that would be "imperialism" or something. And because, let's be honest, they don't think Black and Brown people are capable. They don't see past their own noses. Never have, never will.

[@ukpole1238]

He didn't even say that socialism works. Lol, he just said the principles and ideas are good. Why hasn't Socialism or communism worked anywhere else??

[@georgemorley1029]

Yes, I think his argument was rather flimsy.

[@georgemorley1029]

Michael G That’s right. “Pah! Cultural Revolution? Great Leap Forward? You call THAT socialism? You ain’t seen NOTHING yet! Next time, we’ll bump off half a billion - minimum!”

[@paulshaw4451]

It works pretty well in Scandinavia. I think you are confusing socialism and communism.

[@ukpole1238]

@@paulshaw4451 scandanavia?? Sweden is a shit hole, you seen Stockholm? It looks more like Islamabad

[@krazykatholic009]

@Michael G just make everyone not poor, it'll work! just take my word for it! just cause you're making $100k a year while everyone will make $20m a year means no one is poor and has less money!

[@EmilSosnin]

I'm so glad socialism is no more in my homeland (Russia), you wonder why so many immigrated out when the Perestroika happened. Capitalism is not perfect but it's better.

[@mikeissweet]

Life is not perfect- it's a brutal struggle against nature. Capitalism is the most efficient means thus far to take on the fight.

[@CombiHarvester-mo4jh]

Frankly socialism reminds me of my Mum - she always complained nothing worked and nothing was getting done. She proceeded to make her point by giving an example of something that was not getting done. I proceeded to fix this. In response, the next day she pointed out something else that was not getting done. I took to doing this as well. After rinsing and repeating this cycle, I ended up doing many tasks a day. I felt fantastically accomplished. My Mum, however, was literally not even an ounce different and still harangued me like I was the boy I was three years ago. I had to grab her by the shoulders and say look, Mum, I love you, you're doing a great job and that, but seriously I've literally built vast amounts of competence and discipline just so you'd shut up. The way you complain about me not making vast amounts of money, or how I haven't solved world poverty yet, is absolutely laughable. I accomplish every task in the house and you see this. So why are you now additionally complaining I haven't managed to solve your next whimsical problem? I know things will never be good enough for you, and you will continue to sit and demand more of this or more of that, while sounding like you know what's up when really you just know what you want, but really, I'm doing so well and just wanted a pat on the back so bad that you asking me to do this next thing, as if I haven't made huge progress, is just annoying. Socialism, is just like me Mum, and needs to be treated as such ;)

[@mikeissweet]

@@CombiHarvester-mo4jh Life in The West has become so bourgeois and easy. People like you work behind the scene to make things happen and others think the shit happens automatically as though it were the weather. Many feel persecuted for having to vacuum their own house and think the goods on the shelves at walmart have been bestowed by the gods.

[@seankelly378]

Ah yes , now you live in the great free society under Putin 🤔🤔

[@MrMiguelForster]

corruption makes all systems worse..

[@southwest3369]

A fantastic individual, and even if you didn’t like him or his political views weren’t for you it least you can admire this mans passion and effort for the working and lower classes! This man was just a little to early for our time in the world .

[@MMDelta9]

"you can admire this mans passion and effort for the working and lower classes!" Provided they aren't Jewish.

[@southwest3369]

@@MMDelta9 perhaps you should educate yourself on the situation in the Middle East currently and study the history of zionism before making such un educated remarks he’s also been cleared of what you are so say accusing him off most of it was a smear campaign by the right wing news and the opposition.

[@keithcole9904]

@@southwest3369 hes a filthy racist ffs....

[@southwest3369]

@@keithcole9904 please provide factual evidence that backs what you are saying 🤣?

[@keithcole9904]

@@southwest3369 maybe ask his friends "hamas" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Thank allah he will never back 🤣🤣🤣

[@chasefoster8092]

Government mandated altruism. You must be altruistic by command of the government

[@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739]

Funny that these socialists claim capitalism is evil....yet fail to grasp their own negative views being the problem. Socialism starts with the belief that humans are innately evil, selfish, and will not help others unless forced to do so. How positive and progressive a world-view eh?

[@dudefrombelgium]

@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 but its actaully a fact that people will not be civilized unless there is a certain set of rules or government. its also like this in religion. and any form of government has enforced this to some degree.

[@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739]

@@dudefrombelgium Then cite your source for this fact champ. You might be surprised to learn just how well intentioned those people are....and how the need for rule, be it through religious or political decree isn't something that needs to be enforced nearly as much as you think...and is really needed more to keep people working together to achieve a means. True leadership doesn't come out by force. It comes from inspiring people. Leaders are people who get others to see their vision. It's why Dr. King said "I have a dream" not "I have a gun, no do as I say". Ask yourself a question, do business owners only pay employees what they are forced to by law? Care to venture a guess as to what percentage of workers are paid minimum wage?

[@joaquimpereira4995]

@@dudefrombelgium Why was government and rules created in the first place then

[@dudefrombelgium]

@@joaquimpereira4995 to create order and context

[@0799davey67]

Did Corbyn say "im not here to defend Stalin and his strange views"

[@electricpants8194]

@@triplea7536 yeah stalins strange view that socialism means being allowed to starve and kill people

[@electricpants8194]

@@triplea7536 why are you acting like i said socialism was the collective suffering of twats who cant stand up to a government that wa set up to overthrow an authoritarian government

[@konstantinkelekhsaev302]

@@triplea7536 And what freedoms did Stalin strip ??

[@konstantinkelekhsaev302]

@@triplea7536 1. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of The Press were written into the constitution. 2.Religion was discouraged but never prohibited outright. 3. Economic Freedom ??? Before the revolution majority of the population could barely afford food, nevermind other things.

[@donaldcrawford5577]

well Stalin was just as bad as Adolf when it came to dealing with opposition. it took a long time before Gorbacov finally got in power. comparing uk socialism to Stalin is a bit like double standards.

[@amancalledjim5382]

Tbf, he has some balls going to Oxford uni knowing full well he will tax the shit out of these future high earners.

[@jodinha4225]

Socialists only want to tax land owners and businesses owners if e can avoid taxing actual workers.

[@user-gl2eq2ly4g]

Lack of self awareness and a brass neck ....= Socialist

[@chrisarcher6972]

@@jodinha4225 Bollocks.

[@Anon-y-mouse]

Why does he keep saying "I want to live in a society that..."? This isn't an argument, he spends half of the debate saying what he wants and the rest attacking the existing government policies, never once did he say or provide evidence of it actually working.

[@laughingtories1559]

These societies do exist, there are more societies in the world than the UK. Open your mind.

[@ojberrettaberretta5314]

bruh thats socialism they have no new ideas its all in the holy book written by the prophet karl marx and if u follow the book the ultimate utopia will happen trust me its like magic u gotta believe in it to make it happen ask the cambodians

[@roofkorean2067]

@@ojberrettaberretta5314 you said "holy book" and "prophet karl marx"? and the liberals call conservatives sycophantic to donald trump, how ironic! also "ask the cambodians, " and "its like magic" is stupid, theres a reason the first search result from cambodia is "cambodia human trafficking" and cambodia povery"

[@ojberrettaberretta5314]

@@roofkorean2067 sarcasm,my dear

[@roofkorean2067]

@@ojberrettaberretta5314 welp I'm sorry, i guess I couldnt tell when I wrote that comment

[@Higgins8]

The problem with socialism is that it makes everyone equally poor and eventually you run out of other peoples money.

[@gothicfan51]

The problem with stupid, overused quotes is that it makes the fools believe them and you eventually run out of them and are forced to defend your poorly researched positions.

[@Higgins8]

Gothicfan51 It's an oldie, but a goodie and it's right as rain. The only fool is you. Now get off your Capitalist iPhone and stop posting on this Capitalist video service. :-)

[@gothicfan51]

RangerAmbient Yes, because anyone who drives a Volkswagen Beetle is a Nazi and should just get out their NAZI car and stop driving it. Anyone who uses the Moscow metro is a damn Stalinist and should stop using this method of transportation, anyone who owns an old pre-revolution house is a damn loyalist to the British crown. *The problem with stupid, overused quotes is that it makes the fools believe them and you eventually run out of them and are forced to defend your poorly researched positions.* Let me guess, you are going to post another 'stupid, overused quote...'

[@Higgins8]

You're making a silly leap there. Capitalism drives innovation and change. Technology, if owned by socialist governments, would not enjoy nearly the amount freedoms and amazing evolutions that technology has experienced in the past 15-20 years or so. Capitalist markets let the bad companies and products die to make way for better products for the consumer. We are not forced to use products that don't improve. Capitalism gives us Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Amazon, ebay, etc. Capitalism gives us the freedom of choice. It forces corporations compete for your dollar by creating better products every year. Money is given to those that make our lives better and easier, not to those who don't contribute or to those that make awful products. And the best thing about Capitalism? If a corporation can't hang, it gets eliminated by the public driven marketplace. It's a corporate killer (when governments don't issue insane taxpayer paid socialist bailouts) and lets the good companies succeed. It also forces my small business to offer better prices, better products and better service to the end user, the general public. Well, it's Saturday night. Time to choose an awesome beer to drink. Maybe a small microbrew!

[@gothicfan51]

RangerAmbient *Capitalism drives innovation and change* That's why most advances were/are financed by the public money via the public sector... *Capitalist markets let the bad companies and products die to make way for better products for the consumer* Ekhmm, Time Warner, Comcast, Apple e.t.c Are these dead? No, they are not despite the fact that each offer a terrible service. That's because they have a monopoly of information, how could a consumer make an informed choice when he is lied via every mass communication medium. Capitalism doesn't kill shit, especially if there's a monopoly. *Capitalism gives us Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Amazon, ebay* The government gave us NASA which is responsible in some way or another for innovations used by all of these companies, Internet was built by the US military and expanded in CERN in 1989, you wouldn't post what you just did if it wasn't for public money, also the USSR won the space race by a mile and they sure weren't capitalist, so many innovations of the Soviets are now being used by the world(LED's, Space rovers). *Capitalism gives us the freedom of choice* You had freedom of choice in ancient times(Arabia), you could just go to a market and buy what you needed from a seller that you wanted, that's not capitalism that's TRADE. *It forces corporations compete for your dollar by creating better products every year* No it doesn't, why hasn't the cost of healthcare go down if this is the case? Why don't we see corporations popping up providing cheaper/better healthcare? A government act known 'Affordable Care Act' had to be passed to finally guarantee people that they will get coverage(once again government saves the day). *Money is given to those that make our lives better and easier, not to those who don't contribute or to those that make awful products* Yes, I can see all these bankers starving on the streets because they have no money... *taxpayer paid socialist bailouts* Wtf did I just read, YOU, CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS! Why would a socialist system of power, bail out a PRIVATE corporation? That's stupid and you know it! * Socialism definition= : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Meaning that lazy people are not getting money for nothing, it means that if you work, you get money, you get to live as you are a part of the Proletariat, if you don't then you don't get to share the resources. This is the constitution of USSR 1936: ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality. So the more you work the more you are getting paid.

[@HawkEye9644]

You want 8 to 24 hour wait time in the ER? Cause this is how you get it.

[@TheRugFace]

No, that's not true. If you have an emergency (er presumably standing for emergency room) you will be seen near enough straight away. The reason the waits are long for non emergency issues is due to tory cuts.

[@TheRugFace]

They didn't. They made cuts, so that it would become progressively harder for the NHS to function, until eventually they point to it and say "this is what the inefficiencies of public funding gets you" and then they privatise it, at which point we have a health care system analogous to the US which nobody wants.

[@The482075]

@@TheRugFace Beats having no affordable health care.

[@TheRugFace]

Wait what? We currently have extremely affordable healthcare (free at the point of service), and it can remain so, if not for nefarious powers who want to make it worse. The response to that isn't "Well a much worse healthcare system is worse than no healthcare, so we should just do nothing to the NHS".

[@The482075]

@@TheRugFace whic Country are you talking about? Also I wasn't suggesting that we do nothing to the NHS. I am suggesting that it needs improvement not scrapping.

[@SB-tp2jv]

Social Democracy, Public Welfare, and Social Justice may live long.🌹

[@james192599]

market socialism is what we need. workers self management via worker owned and managed cooperatives is the only way to cure our inequality.

[@OctopusDropkick]

Then like what happens when the 'market' cannot deal with the scope of a problem, have the state step in to set up or fund operations.

[@james192599]

LeeTubular well market socialism can allow for voluntary marxian decentralized planning and some area the cooperatives have a wide variety of tasks where they can be democratised as seen in Mondragón and other areas where cooperatives are prolific but in my opinion the ultimate goal should be production for use aka decentralized planning.

[@Tespri]

Then go ahead and build a business over that idea. Literally nothing prevents you from doing that in free economy.

[@james192599]

Tespri dude youve said this to me on another video and i responded to it stop trolling.

[@Tespri]

dinero rey I didn't reply to you. I replied to OP. Also you clearly have no idea what trolling is.

[@mguvendiguvendi3122]

That bastard stood up as he heard the word "oil" as if he's been commanded to do so. :P

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

First argument: We owe other things to socialism, so socialism is good. Doesn't prove its good in a different context however, because it could be said the capitalism element helps keep the socialism element in check. Its conflating two very different things. And capitalism benefits from worker health, you can work harder if you are healthy and happy. Second Argument: Feel bad stories about poverty. Theres poverty in socialism. Whats the point of this? False equivalence to Social Democracy? Or just villainizing Capitalism? It doesn't offer How socialism could work, its just saying well Capitalism has flaws, so lets get rid of it. Every system has flaws, we need to make a factual comparison and socialism fails on this end. And inb4 saying socialism hasn't been properly done before, thats a no true scotsman. And if its so easy to not get right, why bother trying and failing repeatedly? It risks too much. Third Argument: Basically 'Capitalism Bad' Which is his second argument. This is an appeal to emotion, not a proof for socialism. Fourth: Think about the environment etc. A valid point, but you have yet to demonstrate socialism can fix these problems, so, a valid concern, not a point at all. Then it got dismantled by response. Counter-Counter-point (response to response to 4): 'You clearly didn't read x' Back to theory, ignore reality. Not a point, others already addressed the shortcoming of theory and how it gets its predictions backwards, there hasn't been a rebuttal. Plus the Einstellung effect, theory is only convincing its not evidence. Plus nature conservations and endangered species efforts are not from socialism, in fact China isn't giving a care about endangered species at all.

[@robertomariartus8516]

Brilliant

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

I will say apparently Vietnam and Cuba are doing alright in some regards. But if we take a car that only runs every other day its still riskier than getting a car thats more reliable. And usually the countries which attempt to act on theory which become dictatorships is due to military installing a leader essentially. Which means also while socialism is a gamble it may only work for certain countries. So theres no guarantee the sacrifice would pay off. A lot more information is needed, factual information.

[@一粒仙丹]

answer your first : We owe other things to socialism, so socialism is not bad. second: as your saying,Every system has flaws, we need to make a factual comparison and socialism fails on this end. HOW? which evidence shows that the socialism fail ? NO proof just saying it fail ? that's not right way. AND the poverty, the poverty was everywhere in every country. And only the socialist country make a decision to eliminate the poverty and they work for the goal in real. third: no answear, you can feel it during this pandimic. fourth: Do you know how many trees are planted on the earth by the socialist country ? Do you know how many deserts are treat by socilist coutry . The enviroment problems are solving. The data is there , the captalism doesn't believe it, but the fact doesn't care . The socialist country is raising on the stage of world. It become wealty and powerful .

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

@@一粒仙丹 1. thats like saying your parent gave birth to you so they are always right 2. shifting burden of proof, you need to prove its competent where its about to be applied 3. wot 4. usa has more help to endangered species, so? If you can provide larger sets of data I will take a look though. 4.1. I am not a capitalist, I am an anti-extremist.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

@@rleften5788 Yeah it kinda is state capitalism. Been having more discourse since I made these replies. But, a person cannot become a pianist an athlete or a writer overnight. You gotta struggle, and will inevitable hit roadblocks, and fail if you try to succeed too quickly. Same with communism. So it depends then, on what we are giving up to try to work past the failures. What sacrifices are made. And communism, sacrifices a lot just to risk failure. It wants to change basically everything. I think studies should be done, and even then I think geography may influence which type of government is best per country or culture. And culture can shift naturally from economic efficiencies, like the industrial era. It takes time to work out the kinks. But its not sacrificing *nearly* as much as trying to change all of society. Culture follows economic change, and economic change is best when done naturally. And its usually something people don't predict afaik.

[@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207]

For all who are interested in HOW socialism works, I recommend you watch videos by and with Prof. Richard Wolff, a marxist professor of economics.

[@matthew5386]

Or parenti

[@bigmonkee639]

Thanks,very helpful

[@BAAWAKnight]

For all who are interested in the fact that socialism is impossible, I recommend you read _Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth_ by Ludwig von Mises.

[@bigmonkee639]

@@BAAWAKnight damn som , how you even finding this stuff? True intellectual right here.

[@BAAWAKnight]

@@bigmonkee639 I'm a student of the Austrian school.

[@paullanfear5762]

Capitalism generates the wealth that can be apportioned (some to the NHS). In a lefty world there is no motivation to energetically develop a business (wealth/tax), and thus less wealth to be apportioned. Redwood's analogies were good, Corbyn deluded... socialism will only work if everybody is 'nice' and we all pull our weight. If everybody was 'nice' we could also save a fortune on law - police, lawyers, judges, courts, jail, etc. Unfortunately not everybody is 'nice' and socialism generates laziness because 'somebody' else will take responsibility to get stuff done.

[@tajatajat]

Just mention Socialism and everyone thinks of the most extreme form of it and thats it in a nutshell to them

[@ilunga9489]

Just gonna leave this here then.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nprKq6OArpKpZrc

[@TTuoTT]

It's not even the most extreme form of it, it's state Totalitarianism which called itself "communist". It has nothing to do with Democratic Socialist tradition

[@davidwilkins683]

What we have seen over the last century shows what it is....and millions paid with their lives for it! It will never succeed, because it stifles peoples ambitions!

[@davidwilkins683]

@j hill Ask the millions who died under "socialist" regimes?

[@davidwilkins683]

@j hill I clearly pointed out that socialism killed millions....under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, etc etc

[@shantanukhandkar]

Please Britain, don't make this person your PM.

[@keighandyer3893]

He's taken the few good things that socialism has given us and is using them to represent socialism as a whole, there's a difference between injecting select socialist ideas into a capitalist society and having a socialist society, he shouldn't be conflating the two

[@csquire9465]

Absolutely!

[@futokarin9745]

Yes, this guy needs to read more. The government doesn’t need more power

[@futokarin9745]

That’s the problem though bro do you know where you are and who would be responsible for properly implementing the things you want? Everyone you know would suffer. They would just see power they don’t care about you

[@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304]

@Comrade Saul | Anti-Malarkey Front You mean a 'vanguard party' made up of genocidal degenerates like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin?

[@Z0R0zeenee]

Soviet Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov stated that during their time in the USSRs central planning, copper factories took 1000 kw hours of electricity to produce 1 ton of copper. While in west germany it only took 300. A cement factory took twice as much energy as a factory in Japan. This is just one example of the many inefficiencies in central planning. All of this equates to lower standard of living. Rent control also creates shortages. These simple economic concepts are seldom understood by socialists or they are and ignored.

[@DOCTORDROTT]

It does work, if someone else pays for it

[@Macen]

The country should pay for a better life of its people.

[@ethancate8462]

@@Macen what if the country cant afford it? After a while when everyone gets the same pay and an unemployed person earns as much as a dentist then nobody wants to work and it will fail

[@toast4443]

The 1% should pay for it. No person needs billions upon billions of pounds.

[@ethancate8462]

@@toast4443 oh so we can just steal their hard earned money? America is in a great place right now since trump has been elected. If I were super rich and in a socialist country, I would move away. It's just not fair

[@firstname4865]

The children who were never told no

[@miac.7514]

Who came here again in 2020 after Covid-19?

[@tyyyfu5573]

🙋‍♂️

[@user-go3jv8rw7i]

After?

[@appleslover]

@@user-go3jv8rw7i during*

[@zak7338]

it's making it more and more obvious that he's right

[@Jamal-jv8yc]

Name me one country where Socialism has worked.

[@chrisarcher6972]

Finland.

[@oisirfla-m.707]

Todos.

[@ltaylor3033]

Burkina Faso

[@emmanueljesulola3343]

Hey Jeremy, how’s Socialism working for you now?

[@SH-ii6uo]

Emmanuel JESULOLA He’s still got his principles and beliefs, as do most who supported him. That election didn’t prove socialism was bad, it proved people are idiots who think that Brexit is more important than the NHS whose crisis is only now truly being highlighted.

[@mrpetsupplies]

Great word salad... now beyond pointing out the flaws of capitalism... how can socialism do anything better.

[@vc8749]

@@person10 Socialism might be able to control capitalism but it certainly can't control itself. In Socialism, or any system of government really, the incentive is for those with a monopoly on force to increase their power. In capitalism, the incentive is to provide something valuable in order to increase profit. You simply can't run a successful business without providing something as valuable as what your competitors provide. Note that having competition is a vital part to that equation. If government regulators make it harder or impossible for competitors to challenge you, then you only need to worry about providing a good enough product.

[@xXJeReMiAhXx99]

@@person10 no

[@vc8749]

@@person10 In principle I agree that competing governments would work well, the problem is that its hard for people to leave what they are comfortable with and actually try those competing governments. This means governments are able to get away with far more than they should be able to. Right now there are multiple governments that people could get up and go to, but as you note many governments do little to actually compete with each other and many even make that process burdensome with immigrant controls, paperwork, cost, or flat out denying the ability to do so. If open borders were more common and if governments were closer to the size of cities (so people would be more willing to move), then I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but at this point that's little more than fantasy.

[@Lodatzor]

@@vc8749 *"Socialism might be able to control capitalism but it certainly can't control itself."* Then how come every successful nation in the world utilizes socialism in a mixed economy? Socialism can control itself just fine. The trick is to not equate socialism with the authoritarian regimes of the Communist bloc, because that's not what socialism is. It's a principle of economic distribution, whereby some is collected from all to provide services for all, and typically we skew those rates of collection to favor the least wealthy. *"In Socialism, or any system of government really, the incentive is for those with a monopoly on force to increase their power"* No, it's not, and that same monopoly on power is what upholds your property rights in the first place. If not for the state, and the various institutions which comprise it, to whom exactly do you appeal to help protect "your" property? The man with the larger stick can take it from you any time he likes, without a police department, justice system and laws of the land in place to back up your claim of ownership. You already rely upon that monopoly of power in order to secure your freedoms. *"In capitalism, the incentive is to provide something valuable in order to increase profit. You simply can't run a successful business without providing something as valuable as what your competitors provide."* That's not at all true, and advertising as an industry exists precisely for this reason. Advertising can easily persuade you to buy an inferior product. And the point you make about competition is undermined by history. For instance, antitrust laws were created in the US because capitalism unfettered by regulation trends to monopoly, and state power had to be wielded directly in order to break these monopolies up. When you can buy out your competition, then you don't have any competition, which is exactly how Standard Oil became as powerful a monopoly as it was. In order to protect the marketplace, the state had to intervene. Government regulations exist to protect the consumer, and the sanctity of the competitive marketplace. They don't exist to try and reduce competition.

[@chromechromechromechrome]

Lodatz He never said you shouldnt have taxes, to think that the goverment shouldn have any power is stupid

[@tooyoungtobeold8756]

He talks of unnaccountable multi nationals but still supports, unnaccountable EU Commisars.

[@Mishkola]

Clearly you don't understand that only good people will ever get into government.

[@hlund73]

@@Mishkola Do either of you understand that EU commission members are appointed by their national governments? Ours was appointed by David Cameron. Do you also understand that they are accountable to the European parliament in exactly the same way our government is to ours at Westminster?

[@tooyoungtobeold8756]

@@hlund73 And?

[@tooyoungtobeold8756]

@@Mishkola LOL, thank you.

[@tooyoungtobeold8756]

@@hlund73 I noticed the the word 'appointed'.

[@diegogbr1]

Socialism is capitalist, benefiting from peoples ignorance.

[@keithwhite2177]

Hi from the USA. While it is true that millions of Americans don’t have health insurance. But no resident of this nation is ever denied access to healthcare. I have relatives and friends who have been treated for cancer, prenatal care, child birth, abortion, injuries etc who got these services at no cost. Several were unable to work and received supplemental social security income. If you have assets you may be billed hundreds of thousands of dollars but before they can take your home you can declare bankruptcy and the debt will be dismissed or modified. Most importantly no resident is denied access to healthcare.

[@jackalexander9078]

Going bankrupt as a result of needing medical treatment--this is acceptable to you?

[@keithwhite2177]

Jack Alexander - I care about people getting health care and needed treatments which are readily available and never denied in America. Depending on your symptoms you can see a doctor and be treated on the same day. A big problem here is people who have the resources to buy insurance but refused to buy it. When confronted with a major health issue they may get it free, discounted or make modified payments.

[@rafaelgill7600]

@@keithwhite2177 Absolutely true. a third age neighbor crossed the border from Mexico to the USA completely illegal with his nephews, who helped him. He became very ill from the trip and was treated completely free at one hospital in Houston. It's sad that in México, people tend to see those who get there (illegally) as "heroes", insted of ones that didn't do enough in their own country.

[@Chilltothend]

Socialism and Government is not a good mix. A socialist system of governing, becomes fat as a sow. Socialist governments are heavily bureaucratic in the want of more tax dollars to run the government state socialist enterprise through inefficiency, and incompetency- an expensive waste. If people want to be part of an altruistic community, they should come together and create a social enterprise through a non profit business. They could together raise capital to fund the non profit business, and invest the proceeds into real estate for community housing in the goal of supporting the socialist community, through the investment infrastructure of everyone's talent and skill. The social businesses should be democratic, with a leadership elected among the best in talent and skill, and most of all, altruistic as above ones self interest. The social businesses philosophy- "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander", would make everyone equal partners, benefiting equally. Capitalist businesses could benefit through the social enterprise, I describe. All businesses require trained, skilled labor. Its often an expense for a businesses to train people, along with other business costs, such as, an entire gamut of regulatory tax that has become a costly means of doing business for employing workers. Businesses use capital to leverage other businesses as a form of price control. McDonald's for example, can buy an entire field of potatoes, for nickles on the pound. A social business could use the leverage of its workers, to leverage living costs. Ten workers who put their wages together, could pay for a house in cash, without the need of a bank loan, an interest savings that would allow them to buy up more homes with cash. Within 30 years, about the time it takes to pay off a loan, the 10 workers would have more than 10 homes- that's leverage. Instead of a social businesses buying a house for every working individual in the community, they could purchase land and build a unit that would be similar to a resort community of vacationers- with all the amenities; a pool, a gym, a club house, a theater, a restaurant, and whatever else is agreed upon with the community. The efficiency in the use of combining everyone's salary and wage, would allow for working individuals to not have to work a grueling 8 hour shift, 261 days a year, with the most minimal time to spend with their family. There are too many people who can't take a vacation because they can't afford it. Speaking of vacation, a social business could leverage a vacation resort, cruise ships, with labor. The workers would want to do their best, so when they are on vacation, they are treated the best. When private businesses have well-rested, happy workers, ready to jump into work, and not jump on the clock, they would have productive workers. I'm concluding this for questions. I have been thinking about this idea for many years, all the ends and outs, for the most part. There are others with good ideas, and It would be nice to hear them. Perhaps there are people who are talented and skilled, who could help make the social business a reality. Oh, one important thing- how to fund the start of this endeavor. Got it figured out too. I came up with a fund raising name- Two Mocha's. There has to be a million people, at least, that wouldn't mind paying the price of two mocha's, $10 dollars. There has to be a million people interested, its a matter of getting their attention. One million people donating, would be 10 million dollars a month, 120 million dollars a year. I was thinking also, a few people out of the million subscribers could have their names drawn, for a paid vacation, or paid education, or some of the first individuals in the community which will depend on talent, skill and drive, to ensure the social business develops quick enough.

[@eb.e.1649]

Long read

[@johnsteele4795]

How the fuck are you going to raise capital for a non profit business, dick head! ffs the illogical left minded idiots of this world....

[@johnsteele4795]

This guys an idiot with schizophrenia who thinks you can raise capital for a non profit business, among a myriad of anomalies in his looong rant, laughable, a waste of typing!

[@4megii]

@@johnsteele4795 why are we idiots for having an different opinion.

[@nicholasbaum8776]

Corbyn never explained why "socialism does work", he pointed out that some select socialist ideas work and are beneficial in a market economy.

[@mrtrench6784]

I wouldn't even go that far. The thing that is special about the NHS is that it is free at the point of use, not that it's nationalised (which is the socialist approach). The UK, as a capitalist country, has decided to provide healthcare that is free at the point of use. Churchill (Conservative) was planning an NHS but lost the election so Attlee got to implement it. In my opinion the NHS might well be more efficient and deliver better outcomes if it were more open to free markets (and still funded by the taxpayer so free at the point of use).

[@matthewkopp2391]

Market economy is an independent concept from socialism and capitalism. There was market socialism in Yugoslavia for example.

[@amazoniaamazonia7225]

So refreshing to hear the voice of an honest politician, such a shame this country has been at the mercy of the tories with there flawed ideology and the that fool Johnson.

[@tonyjohnmcmullen]

The Tories couldn't have done it alone. It was the Zionist lobby and other Jewish people in every aspect of media. Including mainstream news, news references on radio and TV, references against Corbyn stitched into current comedy and popular programming on all mainstream channels. Also, The bought. and, other Jewish people that spoke against him. Continuously. Because his manifesto included recognising Palestine.

[@CanadianMonarchist]

An honest politician who refused to admit he was at a cemetery honouring the Black September terrorists?

[@Josh-rn1em]

So capitalism isn't perfect. Some things like medical care being socialised is good. But that doesn't make socialism overall good. Much more problems with full socialism than with full capitalism

[@Josh-rn1em]

@gold-and-black-anarchy literally no information other than a young person's opinion. I shall plant it in my field of fucks. So far it lays barren. Maybe yours shall sprout? But I don't hold hope.

[@angelbarajas9180]

@@Josh-rn1em Are you a classical Liberal?

[@Josh-rn1em]

@@angelbarajas9180 yes. But also Australian and would be broke if we had American style healthcare

[@igboman2860]

@@Josh-rn1em the Australian system healthcare of combining a socialised system and a private healthcare system seems fair to me.Socialism is weird

[@Josh-rn1em]

@@igboman2860 socialism isn't just free healthcare. Socialism is a complete governing ideology. We have a great system in Australia because we see things differently. We are fully capitalist but as we have always been a predominantly working class society and all in this together, we had good unions and spokespeople. So we have choice. Public or private. And excellent minimum wage. About $25 an hour or something

[@MrSarki]

The British electorate seems to think otherwise

[@jaywogan168]

Well, Corbyn did pretty well in 2017 election. General election is voted on many issues so you can't just put it down to socialism vs capitalism. Their real mistake was their Brexit stance in this election I think.

[@huskerdude1227]

The British Electorate overwhelmingly supported Corbyn's policies when polled and he came within 2000 votes of becoming PM in the 2017 election. If it wasn't for the msm smear campaign against him and the Labour Party staffers who sabotaged the election campaign, he would probably now be into his third year as Prime Minister. The election in 2019 was primarily a Brexit election and Keir Starmer's undemocratic second referendum policy was a major reason for his loss.

[@jaywogan168]

​@@huskerdude1227 Oh, I didn't know much about this. Do you know how they forced Corbyn into accepting the second referendum? Did they just convince him?

[@jakubholic8769]

No arguments, just attacks? Poor. Saying one extreme is bad, doesn't make any good reason, to support opposite extreme.

[@bryanbradley6871]

Its funny how he ignores the downsides of the British health system such as how the government decides who lives and who dies. The family has no opinion to keep their love one alive nor can they take that loved one to get treatment in a different country like the US once their love one is in the Hospital (so the UK hospitals are basically prisons for the critically sick/injured)

[@Decemburrrrrr]

Had a numbnut argue with me and said USSR and Maoist China were examples of successful socialist countries. Like what do you even say after that?

[@DIGPLatinodriftking1]

A. That guy clearly didn't study history. OR B. USSR no longer exists and Maoist China is now CCP... And we all know how thats going.

[@mrquasar2922]

China economy only grew because they embraced free markets

[@Schdcdd]

@@mrquasar2922 China does not have a free market, it's called state capitalism.

[@1997lordofdoom]

Yeah, you talked with an idiot, all Authoritarian Leftists have to do, is talk about Cuba and Burkina Faso, which are clear examples of successful Socialism to own your illiterate ass, but they keep talking about Stalin and Mao. I guess if they had brains they wouldn't be authoritarian but still smarter than Capitalists.

[@A_WC_C]

@@1997lordofdoom in Cuba, people literally have no way of getting medicine in their hospitals. You can ask any Cuban down in Miami or Tampa Bay about life back in Cuba, and they will tell you that they're in America for a good reason.

[@RealOGfikey]

All the capitalist trolls in the comments intentionally twisting his words to be capitalism-friendly: 🤡🤡🤡

[@vardendela]

the sad thing is they aren't trolling

[@martinarnold5239]

The spectacle HF Daniel hanaan lecturing on issues of fairness when he's not only in favor of demolishing the NHS (he's even been interviewed by hannity in America) but sports the horrendous TTIP

[@billgiles3261]

Poor old Jeremy, rejected by the electorate comprehensively in favour of Boris Johnson.

[@Prog4Prog]

Bill Giles haha exactly! It’s on a par with Clinton losing to Trump. Can you imagine how he and his tardy nonsensical wench Dianne Abbot would have coped with this crisis? Perish the thought.

[@Leonnicko]

@@Prog4Prog Because the current lot are doing a splendid job aren't they Clamby?

[@Prog4Prog]

Leon Nicks Yeah what a total cluster f***, utter calamity. The place is run by clowns!!

[@Prog4Prog]

Sbaeneg I think you’re the one whose failed to understand. There’s more than 2 parties or ideologies, you know. I despise the left and our current gov.

[@sbaeneg4738]

Clamb_J I am very much aware that the Liberal Democrats exist it’s just that they haven’t been a major political force in ages and any other political party is minor and has no chance of winning

[@amyytyler9040]

I can completely understand people being socialist in like the early 1930's during the worst years of the great depression and before socialism/communism had actually been realized in country's around the world, but for anyone in this day and age to actually believe that socialism is the answer to make things better is just absolutely incomprehensible to me. After seeing it fail over and over and over, after seeing what it does to the people living under it everytime. For anyone to truly believe that any one party government will ever result in anything but corruption, totalitarianism, and oppression for it's people is nothing short of insane. When a country has to literally build a wall to keep it's people IN then it's has obvious fails it's purpose

[@kofola9145]

Socialism: From each according to his ability. Free market: To each according to his ability.

[@sammieg-wing8336]

kof ola your oversimplified notion doesn’t consider variables like inherited wealth and inherited status opportunities that make people wealthy and powerful based on factors that are not “ability”.

[@kofola9145]

@@sammieg-wing8336 You are right, it takes no ability to inherit wealth. It takes all the ability to keep it. As many once rich have proven over the course of human history. It is not me who oversimplify things.

[@holdmychook]

@@kofola9145 to say that underprivileged citizens who were raised in poverty are just inherently less able or talented than those born into wealth who were given every opportunity to thrive, even if not very 'able' at all, in a society thats sets up the rich for live is just wrong. If born into wealth, gaining more may be an achievement. But you have to be a major fuck up to lose it.

[@kofola9145]

@@holdmychook Ok then. Tell me what decides the wealth of the people. Why are people poor and rich and everything in between. I am listening. And to not waste time, tell me how did Andrew Carnegie and any other poor peson become rich.

[@_Azagoth_]

@@sammieg-wing8336 thats because life isnt fair and equal and never will be. some always have more advantaged starting points than others. but dont compare yourself to someone else, only yourself. its up to you not where you start but where you end, according to your ability, both talent, and mental motivation and commitment (hence IQ and trait conscientiousness are the best rough estimators for career success, for example). telling yourself that everyone else is doing well because of privilege is the most efficient way to mentally block yourself from making your own situation any better, just making it worse for others.

[@Aleksamson]

Children in Us colleges screaming Socialism and not knowing what they're talking about is one thing, but this is member of parliament and leader of major party. Strong social safety net has nothing to do with economic system ! It's NOT socialism ! ''Eliminate poverty and injustice - a different world is possible'' Sounds like wishful thinking...hence Utopia

[@LEFTFIELDMEDIALTD]

My family were all saved by the NHS - in fact all the people I Know have had their lives supported by the NHS, which is effectively socialism in practice.

[@sammclaughlin5159]

Another moron conflates communism with socialism

[@headburgerlax9682]

What do you mean by wishful thinking? You don't believe in eliminating poverty? You don't think that justice for victims of fraud or huge property inflation is a realistic thought? Honestly I'm curious, are you saying people shouldn't strive to accomplsih such goals? Because if that's the case, never mind you being concerned about Corbyn's membership to parliement, I'd be more worried about your moral integrity when voting.

[@Aleksamson]

@@headburgerlax9682 Eliminating poverty and injustice -was there to put it in context. You should concentrate on the second part. How He would do those things. I'm all for eliminating poverty and injustice, but when he talks about ''a different world is possible'' he means Socialism (and Communism) After so many failed attempts -that is wishful thinking. ''I'd be more worried about your moral integrity when voting'' Talking equality -you probably heard about the difference between opportunity and outcome. So i'm all for just /equal opportunity. Pushing for equal outcome is not only unrealistic (wishful thinking) Propagating that kind of stifling (murderous) system which inevitably results in misery...that's Evil. So I'm worried that so many young people in the west think that Socialism is a good thing. ''never mind you being concerned about Corbyn...'' He's talking about justice, fairness...social safety net ! Which has nothing to do with economic system ! I'm all for strong social safety net...with free market, private property -profit. He's spreading falsehood ( corrupting western youth) promoting unrealistic -unsustainable terrible (Evil) system, under the guise of justice, fairness -equality.

[@Aleksamson]

@@LEFTFIELDMEDIALTD -''My family were all saved by the NHS - in fact all the people I Know have had their lives supported by the NHS, which is effectively socialism in practice.'' I'm all for strong social safety net. (being effective in practice) But social safety, regulations, control...has nothing to do with economic system ! You can have all that and more and still be (effectively) Capitalist country.

[@josephinemullar7857]

My great grandfather in the maternal Irish side of the paternal family was one banged up in prison for fighting for socialism over 100yrs ago. His name was James McLaughlin.

[@josephinemullar7857]

Who is the ignoramus continually ringing their bell when Jeremy at every syllable spoken by Jeremy?

[@jimusgrimus]

Be proud of him Comrade

[@johnharvey4448]

If he sincerely believed in it and fought for it that's honourable.

[@joesheridan9451]

It would seem he passed his stupidity on

[@ForeverBennett]

Neither system in it's purest form really works. You need to find a healthy balance.

[@ИванИвановИванович-т1ф]

The "purest forms" are just concepts. It's useless to call everything that is not the purest forn of either a "mixed economy". It's a scale and the argument is between the socialist and capitalist ends here.

[@tommasomasaracchio3788]

Capitalism works without any socialism. It already did

[@CurtHowland]

I haven't seen this many straw-men since The Sorcerer's Apprentice in Fantasia.

[@laughingtories1559]

Keep watching cartoons, politics seems too hard for you.

[@matiasrisso5917]

@@laughingtories1559 And there's another straw-man hahah

[@seaNonVal]

Matías Risso you’ve out witted an Eton prat there 😂

[@ChattyCinnamon]

iPeteEE Can I just say, calling each other comrade will actively turn people from socialist ideals.

[@ChattyCinnamon]

iPeteEE I’m not the one running.

[@usov656]

"Socialism does work", says the guy who benefited from and still lives under capitalism, having never actualy done a single experiment in socialism, much less socialized his own wealth. Its easy to talk about socialism when you want to do it with other people's money.

[@billclinton3862]

USOV you say this when he looks like Mr bean on stage

[@michaelregis1015]

@@billclinton3862 Don't disrespect Mr.Bean like that, chief.

[@billclinton3862]

Michael Regis my name says it all

[@Gbonejohn1974]

its never worked in any country ever ...its a grim existence for all but the leaders

[@CrowdPleeza]

These Capitalism vs Socialism debates keep overlooking the fact that most developed countries have mixed economies. So it's about how much more or less you want of each?

[@hannah.r6613]

these debates are always frustrating because they always repeat the same points and look more to the history of socialism rather then what it is! "look at Venezuela" "look at north Korea" "look at china" not only is that communism which is a variety of socialism not all socialists are communists, its also so annoying because instead of looking at what socialism actually is they look at all the corrupt and false "socialist" states, when i argue about democracy or capitalism we don't think about all the extremely poor countries they call themselves democracies even though its just a façade

[@hannah.r6613]

@@pedropradacarciofi2517 well fuck you then, rude asshole

[@NitroNuggetTV]

@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Intended outcome vs reality of outcome are two very different things and a lot of people cant gasp this basic reality or strait up refuse to accept it.

[@hannah.r6613]

@@pedropradacarciofi2517 ah ok, well sorry for lashing out

[@lhcphysicfreak]

From what I discern from his speech is that Socialism is the way forward and Capitalism is evil. Why the former is better and the latter is worst he does not say other than giving rhetorical answers that can be easily countered off. For example... Corbyn queried the origins the concept of NHS. He then argues that it was the socialist thinkers that came up with that idea. This is nothing but an attempt to color himself and the political ideology he's representing as good and if one is to read deeper, one may even find his statement to be utterly self-congratulatory while at the same time incredibly condescending to those that subscribes to capitalism. He is basically saying capitalists don't give a shit to people and are irredeemable heartless bastards. Funny that the largest donations are all given by rich people in large capitalistic corporations. But I suppose he'd argue that that's because those are socialists in the first place. George Orwell talked about socialists in his book The Road to Wigan Pier and the great thinker had convincingly pointed out that socialists are really just pro-industrialists. After all, socialist ideas cannot work without an industrial complex (Means of Production) churning out daily consumables at a fraction of the labor cost usually needed. Corbyn also claims that capitalists are greedy people that desire nothing more in their life than the number of zeros in their bank accounts and therefore Capitalism should be eradicated. I'm not sure about the former but I have something to say about the latter. Insofar there is a means of production, inequality is inevitable. Walter Scheidel, author of The Great Leveler, certainly made a poignant argument - the leveling out of inequality, as far as he could learn from history, can only be achieved through the destruction of the society itself. The book also suggested that inequality is so prevalent that it almost appears to be natural, that it is the eventual inevitability of a productive society. The author did not say that inequality is good but he did say that there's a much deeper reason behind it than the character-assassinating slander Corbyn so adamantly threw at those that disagree with him. As such, Corbyn's statement about the ridding of Capitalism is in fact a fundamental contradiction to the progression towards the socialist ideal. The aim to eradicate inequality is really a suicide at the societal level. He should, if he does care for the citizens of UK, practice socialist ideas insofar that it doesn't collapse the productive means fueled by capitalistic ideas. Capitalism isn't ideal and the inevitable nature of it to generate inequality is quite dangerous. Capitalism is like fire. Use it wisely and you will prosper. Misuse it and you'll get yourself burned. Socialistic ideas are needed to buffer out the harshness of reality. What we really want is to stop people from dying prematurely so that they can compete with one another to generate the best possible creative output. We also don't want the individual to be so encumbered by inequality that they see no way up. Inescapable inequality will breed resentment and resentment is the fuel to burn down the society as a whole. i.e. Red October revolution, French Revolution. Capitalism also does feed into human greed. The aim to produce and make money often make a company blind to everything else. One such case is the production of junk food. Companies spent millions to research how best to make you addicted to certain foods. They make you addicted to it - like they actually lab test it to see how you will have the highest probability to buy another pack! Talk about ethics here. While you can argue that the free market ensures the emergence of competitive companies that offer different variety of food (i.e. soy-rich, healthy, organic, GMO-free, etc), it is hard to prevent market domination by a single Ultra-large company that single-handedly controls every single niche in the consumer's choice simply because they can. Nestle sells you diabetic-inducing ice cream while at the same time selling you healthy low-calorie granola bars in the next aisle. While this isn't necessary a bad thing on its own, its sheer size is a powerful force and as with many powerful forces, it is susceptible to corruption. How often have we seen governments changing policies and enacting laws and capitulating to the companies' demand all in the name of 'increasing jobs' as if its entirely for the public's interest and not their own? We have even seen a fair share of insidious deeds done by large corporation too such as the sugar-scandal, Intel's anti-competition strategy and the unfortunate cases of radon girls. Frauds? Enron, California power scandal, Madoff Scandal and the 2008 Housing Financial crisis. Capitalism isn't the holy grail. Neither is Socialism. Here's how I see it - it's simplified, I know. Capitalism focuses on production. Socialism focuses on distribution. In short, the world can't operate properly without both. The key is to find the balance. How much socialism can be sucked out of the productive capability of capitalism to cultivate the health of the population without collapsing the entire structure of capitalism altogether? (like what Stalin, Chavez, Mao, Polpot, Kim and many more did). In retrospect, capitalism should be subordinate to the interest of the people rather than the blind uncontrolled self-serving nature of the unregulated free market. Capitalism that doesn't go for sustainability (fraud, anti-competition practices, aggressive business tactics, unethical practices) should not be endorsed as it will only cripple the society.

[@tessa1238]

George Orwell despised socialism and communism. Read Animal Farm.

[@susa3500]

@@tessa1238 Orwell was a socialist...

[@tessa1238]

@@susa3500 Read Animal Farm by Orwell. He despised Communism and Socialism.

[@susa3500]

@@tessa1238 He did not like how it was implemented in the soviet union. That does not mean he wasn't a socialist

[@susa3500]

That's what Animal farm is about

[@hollydabral]

There will always be some who are rich and some who are poor, no matter if it's under Capitalism or Socialism or Communism. It's all a matter of how you get there. With Capitalism, those who are smartest and work the hardest benefit. With Socialism and Communism, those who are closest to those in power benefit, while the rest live in poverty. I'll take Capitalism any day.

[@deansimpson7694]

"With capitalism, those who are smartest and work the hardest benefit". Then please explain why we in the UK currently have a PM who is the exact opposite of this? And your idea of socialism being only for those closest to power, do you know anything of the Tory party? That pretty much describes them and their Ilk of voters. Your description pretty much covers most western governments, and socialist they most certainly are not.

[@dylanmurphy9389]

Every state needs central planning

[@theprofessor1484]

Every time that he gives a speech, some organisations send their finest people to try and bring him down. When they loose they call him all sort of names.

[@nottoday2131]

actually

[@AlexFlanderzzz]

*lose... Can you not see the irony in your own YT name?

[@ozzie2612]

like when he kept torys in power by losing G.E

[@CiscoNov1947]

We are now at 97% debt against GDP after 30 years of it and parts of the uk look like third world country... So no... No it doesnt.

[@andromidius]

You know the quality of the counter-argument (if you can even call it that) when someone declares that the NHS isn't egalitarian. By what standard, when the system is designed to be available for everyone regardless of wealth or position in society? By its very definition its egalitarian! And that's to suggest private healthcare is somehow egalitarian, despite the fact America proves that the very poorest people can't afford it and the very poorest tend to be those from minority groups? Yeah, what a pathetic argument. I'd not have even responded to such a foolish blithering retort.

[@skaruts]

Social healthcare harms the poorest. It's more expensive than private in two ways: 1- you're paying for it everyday for your entire life, even when you're not needing it, and 2- the price you're paying isn't only to cover the hospital, the doctors and the medicine, it's to cover all of those plus the bureaucracy and large salaries of all the politicians behind that bureaucracy. And you're paying more for a system as incompetent as to have you wait in line for months to get treated, because state services are always that incompetent. That harms the poor, because perhaps if they weren't paying for it everyday they'd have money to pay upfront at a private hospital. But even if they didn't, there's plenty of ways to make the unaffordable affordable. Everyone has a roof over their heads even though houses are unaffordable for mostly everyone. Private healthcare wouldn't be even near that level of unaffordable.

[@bige8949]

Egalitarian is just the new word for an ignorant idiot.

[@timeWaster76]

I am poor and I live in America ... my healthcare if free at the point of service and over 65 years... ...

[@camdavis9362]

@@skaruts except we Americans pay much more per capita for healthcare than European countries with a universal healthcare system

[@skaruts]

@@camdavis9362 yes, but your healthcare isn't private. It's much like taxis in europe: it indeed exists in the private market, but it's completely controlled and strangled by government. And that's why it's overly expensive, just like taxis in europe always have been, as Uber has been showing us now. Americans are actually paying twice for healthcare: the bills at the counter, and the taxes every year. US gov's healthcare spending is on par with those of europe. That shouldn't be the case at all in a private healthcare. US healthcare is the ultimate government fuck up.

[@TrophyGuide101]

Socialism works when you redefine it to exclude the core tenent of socialism (workers owning the means of production), that is what I gathered from Corbyn here.

[@elizabethmunson2129]

What happens when socialized housing becomes generational?? When there is no incentive to move up? And tell me what developed country does not have free schooling for all children ??

[@elizabethmunson2129]

Gregory Jones didn’t I say the developed world??

[@laughingtories1559]

What has happened with privitized housing is unprecedented increases in homelessness. Right wing nutjobs may be happy throwing their children on the streets but don't force it on everyone else Elizabeth.

[@EJFF.]

Elizabeth Munson What incentive do you have to move up now under capitalism?? You do realize that socialism doesn’t mean “give white peoples free stuff!!”?? You have to work, but instead of working for useless currency you work so your society can benefit as a whole, and you’re rewarded with food, shelter, clothing, housing, more free time, free education, etc.

[@BenStevenson-c4z]

Socialism Does Work Jeremy Corbyn is Speaking the Truth 🌹

[@agentorangecb1]

Dude has massive confidence.. calling these guys out to their faces

[@mjbull5156]

Massive confidence in a bullshit philosophy is not a positive.

[@xmfclick]

Dude is a millionaire socialist living in a big house in one of the most desirable areas of London. You won't see him taking in refugees from Ukraine. Talk to an older person who was born in an East European country under the thumb of the Soviet Empire - they will tell you exactly how equal things were under Socialism: a fantastically wealthy elite (national leadership and their cronies), a wealthy upper class (Party leadership at local level) and the masses living in misery; plus rampant corruption among those with government jobs and widespread theft from the workplace among the rest. As someone once said, socialism is good in theory but doesn't work in practice - capitalism is good in practice but doesn't work in theory

[@adventureaviator9702]

@@xmfclick Actually I have talked to Eastern-European colleagues who grew up in the Warsaw Pact and nostalgia aside, they miss many things not limited to housing, employment, healthcare and generous holiday time. The same people expressed sadness at having to leave for western countries in order to build up enough wealth to retire back home (something they never worried about.) So take that propaganda you've been fed out of your head and stick it where the sun don't shine.

[@sahar1213]

@@xmfclick im sorry to burst your bubble, but we have unfathomably wealthy elites under capitalism. amazon workers pee in bottles to make more money for jeff bezos to buy a mini yacht for his super yacht to hold an helicopter.

[@xmfclick]

​@@sahar1213 :: As you don't seem to have much idea as to how the world really works I have to assume you're either a young person who's still idealistic, or an older person who just hasn't travelled much or read any history or watched National Geographic or the History Channel. In the so-called Communist (actually Socialist) countries there are _always_ mega-rich elites. They get rich by corruption and stealing their countries' wealth. They mostly hide their riches from the country's population, buying gold, diamonds, property, yachts, artworks and keeping them hidden in other (Capitalist) countries, and they send their children to top universities in Europe and the USA. In Capitalist countries there are also mega-rich elites. Some of them have inherited wealth, a few may have swindled their way to wealth, but I'd posit that the majority earned their wealth through business. Take Jeff Bezos: he had a business idea, started a company, wrote software, borrowed money (at risk, if the business failed), employed people (now many thousands of them), paid taxes as required by law, and became incredibly wealthy because people freely exchanged their money for the goods he was selling. To address your point about Amazon employees not being given adequate working conditions: if Amazon is breaking the law then they should be prosecuted by the relevant authorities; if not, the employees should petition their elected representatives to change the law; and, ultimately, the employment market will resolve the problem one way or another (at the moment it looks like mass illegal immigration is working on Jeff's side, unfortunately). And if Jeff buys another yacht to house his helicopter, that means he's just given employment to a shipbuilding company and a helicopter company -- which, in turn, were started by somebody who had an idea, took the risk of starting a company, borrowed money, employed people, etc etc. In Socialist countries you don't get all that. A political leader (probably unelected, at least not in a genuine election) tells a government bureaucrat to set up a company making, say, buckets (because everybody needs a bucket). The bureaucrat calls his brother and his cousin-in-law and agrees to make them the directors of the company and give them government funds in exchange for a kickback for himself. The relatives go to the local Mayor and do a deal whereby the municipality builds them a factory in exchange for making the mayor's son the factory manager. The machinery for the factory is supplied by another Government company but they can't supply all the machines that are really needed because they haven't been allocated enough iron this year. The factory managers and foremen are friends and relatives of the "owners" or of the Mayor or of other influential people in the town, and the rest of the workforce come from the town or surrounding villages and work where they can because being unemployed is illegal. They don't have the right to strike, or the police will come and beat them, so they work for whatever the company offers and they pilfer from the factory to make enough to get by. As the joke goes, "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us." You think I'm making this up? No, this is what actually happened in Soviet-era socialist countries all throughout Eastern Europe, as told to me by my relatives -- and the model applies (with small modifications) in current socialist utopias like Venezuela, North Korea and China. In a capitalist (market) economy, people get rich by the free exchange of goods and services for money; in a socialist (government-directed) economy, people get rich by having "connections". So, @sahar, don't apologise for bursting my bubble because I don't _have_ a bubble, just a clear idea of what Socialism means in the real world rather than the fantasy world of dreamers like Jeremy Corbyn,

[@james09995]

He means well. His heart is in the right place and his objective laudable - unfortunately socialism is not the way to go about achieving his objectives. It always ends in catastrophe. Capitalism can fund socialist projects/programmes but socialist projects do not need to tie us to socialism/communism - and surely that is the lesson that has been learned in history

[@EDMTips]

Indeed. A classic case of "The road to hell...". I think that's what makes it so dangerous...is that, on surface, who wouldn't want all that the doctrine promises? However, when you look a little closer (or put it into practise), oh dear...

[@ZephLodwick]

The fatal flaw of Soviet style societies was that they put all aspects of production under the control of a massive bureaucracy. Economies are too complex for any single entity to run, as Ludwig Von Mises noted. People like Pyotr Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin foresaw (correctly) that the Bolshevik revolution would lead to little more than neo-feudalism. What many of these 'socialism can never work' people don't realise is that there are multiple ways that you can have socialism. You can have a fully free trade market system where enterprises are run democratically. There enterprises exist right now. I certainly wouldn't support government control. Systems like these have been proposed by thinkers such as Pierre Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, and Kevin Carson. Whether this is socialist is a matter of opinion; I don't like calling it socialist, but a lot of other people would. But if your biggest problem with an idea is what it is called, then you might agree with the idea.

[@Aspartame69]

Its just that it never has.

[@mauricedrew3150]

Public education, social security are amazing human achievements!

[@elgravital3268]

Yesn't

[@EliasRoy]

@@elgravital3268 Yes*

[@josefschiltz2192]

A resurgence of the basic human nature that brought together our unique civilization in the first place. If it wasn't for that sense of mutual cooperation, courtesy of our mirror neurons, which enable us to see ourselves in others, mutually beneficial society wouldn't have even started. Capitalism, if it isn't reined in by conscience, eats away and consumes the very human foundations that support it! Both giving and grabbing are human nature, but if they are not held with precision and the grabbing presides, we are in a very grave danger of losing the ground that we all, without exception, stand upon and that of humanity's future.

[@wiltordgunter9539]

Tell that to all the kids who can't do math at grade level in Baltimore public schools and all over this nation. Tell that to the accountants splitting hair to make sense of the Ponzi scheme that social security has become.

[@stobeszx9674]

Yeah...produced several generations of unemployables......

[@thedroid6462]

Corbyn advances no argument about how Socialism would work better but simply falls back on criticism of the current state of society.

[@batel520]

He didn't say one single practical reason why we should adopt socialism. All he says is theory. It is a beautiful theory I have to admit... Remove injustice and poverty and live as a collaborative community. The sad part (he didn't mention) is that the theory never happened (and never will) in the real world, because when you give all the power to the government (a political party) they just "forget" all this wonderful principals of equality. Instead, they use it for their own benefits. It's just history. And if you don't like history, just look at Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba. Here, in KZbin, you can search for real and up to date footage of this countries. Not hard to tell things are not going well for those people.

[@holdtightadele8017]

Juliano Calabresi If you have followed Corbyn throughout his career you’d realise he has a legit passion for helping those people he’s the one politician I can think off who isnt a greedy tax dodger

[@thomassmith2227]

You're right, I was tempted by Corbyn politics at this election (2019). He talks a good game, brexit muddied the waters a bit, but essentially socialism was rejected. A small part of me regrets it, I would've been an interested observer of socialism in practice.

[@NyalBurns]

I don’t like how Jeremy Corbin Argues on feelings and uses it to gather crowds.

[@universal1014]

@@evan2173 values like importing the third world strait to britian

[@RobertJones-st3wj]

A man who stuck to his principles. No wonder he was kicked out of the Labour party.

[@wotmot223]

Humans are good or evil, kind or cruel. Political systems are efficient, or not so, it is who runs the system, and how.

[@jetrpg22]

Who benefits most directly from running a system, those who will not take much from it or those who will use its power for their own?

[@legaliseme]

jetrpg22 it depends on how its being run, but if its arseholes like clegg and camoron who are running the government then it will be them who benefit the most directly from running the system. However i somewhat doubt Clement Attlee would've benefited the most directly from setting up the NHS and the welfare system, as he would've had enough money of his own to pay for private healthcare and he wouldve had a pension

[@jetrpg22]

legaliseme No im sorry, how something is being run is not an answer to who would theoretically benefit the most (ie what kind of people). Because its going to be run as who is running it, and thus its going to be run as who most benefits. But i can say this money is often power, it lets you sway people, but only in that it buys good and services, ifg you can give out free goods and services you have done the same thing.

[@legaliseme]

I have given you a direct example which proves that you are talking rubbish. Clement Attlee was the son of a lawyer, attended a prep and public school before attending oxford, gaining his degree before eventually qualifiying as a lawyer. Please explain to me how a man who was independently wealthy and was able to afford healthcare and not worry about any need for welfare, making himself and other like him pay more tax and subsidies in order to nationalize the health service and bring in the beginning of the welfare state in order to support the poor, was serving himself in anyway?

[@jetrpg22]

legaliseme " I have given you a direct example which proves that you are talking rubbish." Where? Your literally making the argument that because people are well to do that they would have no reason to seek money or power. Thats your argument. Its a statement mind you not an actual argument. How about fact that you don't understand, "But i can say this money is often power, it lets you sway people, but only in that it buys good and services, ifg you can give out free goods and services you have done the same thing." Did providing promises of free stuff from stolen from other people win him votes? Did being prime minister elevate his states and most likely his pocket book? The real question is why is it so hard for you to formulate this line of thinking. Typically it would be because your not very bright (which i seriously doubt), you have grown up in a world without corruption and abuse of power thus unexposed (which i seriously doubt), or you are avoid such line of thinking because it undermines your desired shape of reality (which i would assume, its called avoidance). Do kings promise bread for the peasants (everyone) so that they might have free food? No they do it to maintain control. Does Caesar offer circenses (entertainment) to the populace so that he may be entertained? No he does it to appease those who might usurp him. So when you ask for what ever possible reason would a leader, who was rich themselves, might steal from others and provide the populace with a boon, i have to ask are you serious? Even more so already answer the question, as quoted near the start of this post from above.

[@trogwillow3805]

Anyone else watching this this post 2019 election with a 😅?

[@UtrinqueParatus1349]

Rule, Britannia!

[@its_just_that_yeah]

Soooo good!

[@lordofthebigots]

Lol

[@antony9384]

Damn straight

[@4megii]

This country is messed up even more now since Boris is Prime Minister now.

[@moriahgamesdev]

The point about past Marxist, Eastern European environmental degradation is ridiculous, because we are not Eastern Europeans and we do not live in the naive past. It's the equivalent of pointing to the Victorian free market and suggesting that conservatism leads to smog, Smallpox and slavery.

[@RepeatBennett]

“Socialism is when the governmenment does stuff and the more the government does the more socialister it is”-Karl Marx may not be worded perfectly but is on those lines, why does the economy always do terribly under socialist regimes in comparison to capitalism and how come the rich become more numerous, the middle class richer and more numerous and the poor richer? socialism isn’t needed and very often leads to governments abusing their power which has resulted in around 100,000,000 deaths in only the 20th century. friedrich Von Hayek said that “if socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists”

[@willnitschke]

If they had functional brains they won't be Socialists.

[@PeaTearGriffinACJ]

Everybody here so affraid of left wing ideas and socialism 😂😂

[@stonewall-mz7yl]

Adrian C that’s because we have had a VERY successful system that has not been socialism or left wing. There is a reason we are the richest nation on earth. There is also a reason our median income is really good while also having a MASSIVE population. We also have a very impressive economic mobility compared to other nations.

[@PeaTearGriffinACJ]

@@stonewall-mz7yl The UK has many SOCIALIST based, left wing systems in place. So you are wrong there first of all. Would you like me to name them for you or can you do your research?

[@stonewall-mz7yl]

Adrian C ok? You have them? That doesn’t mean they are efficient or effective. Or that they couldn’t be done more efficiently or effective elsewhere. Feel free to name some.

[@PeaTearGriffinACJ]

@@stonewall-mz7yl and that can't be said for Capitalism? It is flawed through and through. But you make a perfect exaple of the people I mean in my initial comment. You are affraid of socialism because it has been misconstrued during the cold war, but you do not pay attention to how flawed Capitalism is. We need freedom and regulation. A balance between powerful business and society controlled organisations like government. You wouldn't want to be governed by Apple would you pal? 😁👍no country in the world is completely Capitalist. Why? Because Capitalism FAILS by itself. Just like Communism.

[@PeaTearGriffinACJ]

@@stonewall-mz7yl well I.e. NHS as a unprivatised org. The education system, as a public, social domain and not a business, benefits and income support. Many more but its worth doing some research on this honestly

[@pannihto7588]

I'm glad to see so many sane people in the comment section here

[@RoadRunnerLaser]

Dr. Kaii - The UK's education system has already become overrun with Marxists and they're indoctrinating kids with leftie propaganda as early as they can. This is one of the reasons Jezza wants children to have the vote - so that he can benefit from their votes before they wise up and throw off the brainwashing.

[@Deeda1021]

There’s that premise of “the pie not being big enough,” that fatalistic idea, when capitalism proves to be otherwise the more people participate.

[@thepersuader4188]

This was nor a defense or case for socialism, but simply a criticism of capitalism.

[@alienluke3256]

Do you want to live in a society where there is good health care for everybody, where there is protection against poverty and every child gets to go to school and everybody is wealthy and has the job they want, etc etc...? Socialist: Yes Comunist: Yes Capitalist: Yes Other: Yes Does socialism work? Definitely I can not get it from this pointless, rhetorical speech.

[@McFarland67]

@Mr Slavinator “socialism worked in Cambodia” yea it’s not like pol pot murdered 1/3 of the population of Cambodia. And put Cambodia forever in the dark age as Vietnam and Thailand advanced into modern society.

[@wafercrackerjack880]

@Mr Slavinator Aer you stupid? China got richer because of capitalism. Before free trade, purely communist China was so poor they killed millions of people. The other countries you mentioned are still far from being a success story.

[@kamisensei1616]

Capitalism does not offer any of this at all… there is no good health care under capitalism take big pharma and the number of veterans undiagnosed and untreated in JUST america. You dont get to have the job you want under capitalism, you have a facade of freedom under capitalism and are CONSTANTLY exploited.

[@poggers213]

@@McFarland67 Then he was overthrown and the country became prosperous. Why doesn't anybody talk about that?

[@McFarland67]

@@poggers213 also true. But pol pot forever put a mark on Cambodia

[@deathguarddavegoogley2022]

Of course, the whole ‘socialism vs capitalism’ frame is a false dichotomy. Both systems, taken to their raw extremes are a murderous nightmare. The true answer is a mixed model. Some things need to be state owned (like natural monopolies providing essential, universal services) and some things need to be privately owned.

[@tsim4703]

Why is free market capitalism murderous?

[@deathguarddavegoogley2022]

Because the weak, the poor go to the wall. No welfare state, people starve.

[@tsim4703]

@@deathguarddavegoogley2022 don't think that can be described as an act of murder. Besides charity and charity organisations would be greatly enhanced in a free market setup. Agree with you on natural monopolies though.

[@sueelliott8085]

I agree with many of Corbyn’s aims, however, the British economy is like a supertanker, and if you try to turn it around too quickly it will sink. Also, I would dispute Clement Attlee and the 1945 Government was Socialist in the truest sense of the word. Attlee was very conservative in many ways. He was certainly not a Marxist and supported the Truman Doctrine, which aimed to stop Soviet expansion.

[@SandfordSmythe]

Some automatic reflex to tie socialism to Soviet Russia?

[@saskk2290]

Truman wanted Germany and Russia to destroy each other. Not because of principled anti-communism, but US unipolarity

[@hunsler1006]

Could you imagine how today's press in Britain would paint Atlee as a far left communist in today's political climate 😂

[@KW-rb4vf]

Name a single successful socialist regime in a democracy *IMPOSSIBLE*

[@KW-rb4vf]

@regurgitated memes if you define successful as people got fed up of them after one term and voted the tories in again

[@michaellin7165]

@regurgitated memes UK 1945 - 1951 is one of the best examples to illustrate why socialism does NOT work, has never worked, and will never work.

[@alex_flynn]

Revolutionary Catalonia?

[@air2091]

@@alex_flynn it didn’t work

[@GreenMan1999]

''We have a planned economy. We have a welfare state. We have inflationism. We have central economic planning by a central bank. We have a belief in deficit financing. It is so far removed from free-market capitalism that it’s foolish for people to label it free market…” - Ron Paul

[@alinebaruchi1936]

Thanks for bread crumbs You are the best Jet people

[@alinebaruchi1936]

The things we all have to do Girls are geniouses Advanced They are all prep But religious shit is getting all over the roof

[@mhansen111]

I can start a farm in communist Vietnam (or any business) much easier than I can in the US. You don't have to OWN the means of production to institute socialism - you can do the same with regulation and taxation as we found out in Covid. The gov't can stop any business/church they don't like. My Vietnamese father in law who fought on the side of the communists said that the Viet people would rise up in rebellion if they were ever taxed like I was in the US. This is how socialism creeps in and before you know it, you're already there. But there will be people like this moron who will ascribe all the problems to the free market when every single thing he's talking about as an evil is the result of the socialism that was forced into our economy by mostly inexperienced educated and naive idiots (as it always was).

[@fernandoluis53]

6 years later, we found out this commie lost.

[@jzgamer3284]

It says in the description that he won tho

[@ajbc6952]

mate you calling him a commie is just cringe.

[@sofnaji]

Hes a socialist not a communist

[@EON314]

1. How does socialism work if you have people who don’t want to contribute? 2. Why would the pursuit of education be bothered if everyone would be working for the general economic improvement of society? 3. How many people that make brands like Nike would go along with socialism if they don’t make substantial profit? 4. How does socialism handle corruption? 5. If 80% of businesses are small in U.S. wouldn’t that hurt the business owner (who’s not rich) that incurred the investment and risk? 6. Would it eventually become communism because you would have to have government enforce this mass economic change in society?

[@KASTRO1o]

Elijah 314 I would hate working harder than someone but then getting paid the same amount regardless of effort. Without capitalism Steve Jobs wouldn’t have been successful and make profit to advance the evolution of phones to stay ahead of other companies which pushed the company to great success

[@EON314]

Jango Mango Yes as well Bill Gates to make the best (or at least most used) OS in the world thereby making Microsoft one of the best technological companies to exist. Socialism doesn’t give anyone incentive to do great things nor does it punish laziness

[@KASTRO1o]

Elijah 314 well said, people need to stop feeling entitled for money they haven’t worked for, they think these programs are free but in retrospect that money will always be generated by capitalism and hard working people it just doesn’t appear out of nowhere. The rich do not need to be made poorer but the poorer can easily be made richer

[@azrieldawson7377]

Nobody ever says that people should make equal pay...I’ve never heard this from anyone except capitalists. Instead, it’s just a guarantee of certain minimum standards (healthcare, housing, etc) now to answer questions. 1. How does capitalism work if you have people who don’t want to contribute? The answer is left with either the answer of denying them the same mutual aid or presenting the ability to produce your own contributions independently. Similar issues still exist in Capitalism. 2. This question perplexes me, why do you view education as primarily for economic profit rather than on interpersonal growth and understanding of history, math, language, etc? 3. If they don’t then they’re broken up by the collective, private businesses don’t exist, it’s democracy in the workplace rather than a dictatorship. Profit is removed and replaced with the motive of passion, values, essentialism, and “profiting” from your own labor accordingly. Profit and markets are not the be all end all solutions and are often shortsighted in the grand scheme of universal impact. 4. This question is touchy and depends on theory. There are theorists like Rudolf Walker, Murray Bookchin, DeLeon, etc who have come up with their own theories of how to both put Marxism into practice and root out corruption which was seen most prominently in the authoritarian type governments such as the USSR. Some are libertarian, some anarchist, some direct democracy, etc. It really varies. 5. How would the workers in a cooperative mode of production utterly destroy the lives of small business owners? Hell, how could that be any worse than the likes of large businesses stomping them out? Most small businesses do not last regardless of how good it is. 6. Communism is the supposed end goal of socialism. A stateless, moneyless, and classless society...it’s utopian and would never exist in any of our times even if suddenly the world went socialist, not even in our great grandchildren’s generations. If it ever did, then we would have to socially construct it over time through conditioning and etc. This would be an agonizingly slow process.

[@EON314]

@@azrieldawson7377 You should look at the left's arguments more often because that is exactly what they want along with healthcare that the rich or more wealthy end up paying in taxes. Nothing is free in society regardless of the economic system input and the government cant just make the services free because they have to get the money from somewhere. 1. Socialism works like a machine with a bunch of gears turning, if a bunch of the gears in the machine decides not to work for whatever reason it causes more strain on the other gears eventually causing the machine to be broken 2. Nobody goes to school just to learn for fun they do it to earn a spot in the job market. Socialism would take away the incentive for students to become the top earner by getting the best education. 3. Those businesses would leave and go where people would buy their shit, the idea that people should be paid more than they think they are worth is ridiculous from a business owners perspective. Alot of office jobs hire people who complete their work in half their shift time and spent the other half doing nothing. 4. There will always be corruption because it is an irreplaceable part of society. So I'll give up on that one 5. The business owners incurred the risks to put that business together, when socialism happens it takes private ownership and gives it to the workers basically kicking the balls of the guy who did all the work to give those people jobs in the first place 6. Slow process? No you can take the kid out of the capitalist country but not the capitalist country out of the kid. People (especially business owners) will rebel against this notion meaning government intervention will have to take place. Doing so leads to communism

[@krumplethemal8831]

Socialism is an attempt to make everyone equal who are in fact not equal. Some people work hard, others work as little as they can get a way with yet want to be treated like they are hard workers. Not every career or job is the same, some are more dangerous, some require less physical demand and while some require so little effort you can barely even consider it a job. Yet socialism wants to treat them all as if they are the same type of work. Who is going to do a dangerous or dirty back breaking job if it pays just as much as a job where you get to sit on your ass and type out a few letters or answer a few phone calls? The biggest most important thing to consider here. NO socialist country has ever invented anything. The ONLY place you get innovation and invention is in capitalist countries.

[@bloodwargaming3662]

Lol ofcourse people aren't equall a billionaires children are much more gifted than a poor labourers children right bcz the billionaire can bribe anyone and set their children's life which a labourer cannot

[@krumplethemal8831]

@@bloodwargaming3662 sure wealth can be leveraged to give advantage but this isnt a wall. There are people who came out of poverty who are now wealthy, they didnt get any financial advantage starting.