Socialism Does NOT Work | John Redwood | Oxford Union

John Redwood gives his argument that Socialism does not work.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
John Redwood opens with a hilarious example of socialism failing by pointing out the fact that the President of the Oxford Union sits high above everyone else in the chamber, stating that these people will most probably become political leaders and so is a shining example that privilage is alive and well. He goes on to highlight the differences between traffic lights and roundabouts using them as metaphors for socialist and communist systems.
Filmed on Thursday 28th November 2013
MOTION: This House Believes Socialism Will Not Work.
RESULT: Motion Defeated
STAY CONNECTED:
Facebook @ theoxford...
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-unio...
ABOUT JOHN REDWOOD:
Leading figure of the New Right wing of the Conservative Party.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 190 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Rights managed by Oxford Media Associates www.oxfordmedia...
Filmed by Oxford Media Solutions www.oxfordmedia...

[@comodojoe59]

Did the socialists devolve their sense of humour to the state?

[@redwater4778]

You thought the story about the round a bouts was funny ?

[@cassidy99ful]

@@redwater4778 Good Lord Thanks for proving His point. Laugh Clown Laugh.

[@vojtasks]

lmao

[@kidluna]

To accept the premise that conservatives are funny is nearly impossible.

[@kidluna]

@CaptainJayOT steven crowder had that ine joke.. And who else are the comedians on the right?

[@HermanLabuschagne]

I kept wondering what Corbyn was scribbling. Then it struck me: "He is sketching out the design for a Gulag."

[@MagnumOpusYT]

Love it...

[@ridinggambit5017]

Just brilliant.

[@forgivemenot1]

I thought he was just taking down names of who to send there.

[@patrickmarquez9706]

No he isn't, he is making a list "Hmmm 1. John Redwood. He hurt my feelins."

[@forlorndream1400]

He already has the design, he's adding names to the list.

[@jonnybgoode7742]

Noticed a giant difference between the socialists and capitalists. The socialists can hardly look at the person with the opposing view while the capitalists rather enjoy it. Pretty telling

[@snowflakemelter1172]

Always miserable, scruffy, angry, bores, life's failures and bitter old men who when offered a peerage or union money immediately sell out their principles.

[@blue_ranger]

He has to maintain the image of scruffiness, I would say his followers would be shocked to realise his actual income and net worth, but they would still make excuses for that millionaire.

[@RoadRunnerLaser]

Jonny B Goode - Yes. There is a word for people who are intolerant of others with differing beliefs or viewpoints, and whilst the lunatic-left are so eager to throw around the word "racist", I am certainly not shy about pointing out in no uncertain terms that they absolutely are, by definition, bigots and that in general, their name-calling is nothing more than psychological projection.

[@joshtucker231]

The socialists arguments criticized THE SYSTEM, this guys argument criticized the socialists. Out of every one of of these videos, Id argue this one is by far the worst. He brings nothing new or interesting to the table, and instead says silly things like "socialists do not follow the dress code". His whole argument is based around the fact that the socialists are stupid. Would you be wearing a big toothy grin if you where in their shoes?

[@johnalbent]

It's their superior self-righteousness

[@itamaradio]

I will never understand why a person who knows anything about history would actually prefer socialism to free market.

[@taravanova]

Speaking of not knowing anything... Socialism and free markets are not mutually exclusive. The difference between socialism and capitalism is common vs private ownership of the means of production. You could, for example, have an economy of co-ops interacting in a free market. And as a point of history. Probably the best example of a laissez-faire capitalist economy would be Britain during the industrial revolution. At this time 86% of the work force were children working 16hr days with no days off. They were routinely beaten, malnourished, and the life expectancy for factory workers was 19 yrs old. Thank socialists and unions for the half decent working conditions you now enjoy.

[@rauminen4167]

@@taravanova Yeah... "Oh, think about the children!" "You're a bad person if you support capitalism because of the children centuries ago!" "I will emotionally manipulate the shit out of you until you bend your fucking knee to me!" Great arguments. How about the children working to death in China right now? Today? How about the children in Venezuela who were eating their pet rabbits? Then they made "starvation" as an ILLEGAL cause of death for children to fix the statistics. See? Two can play this game, and I'm afraid you're quite under-equipped.

[@itamaradio]

@@taravanova Free market capitalism doesnt mean workers are not free to unionize and negotiate with management. The problem with socialism is the use of the government in order to compulsively force workers to unionize even if they prefer not to. The beating and abuse of children workers is a crime in of itself, so i don't think this is a problem that Socialism needs to fix.

[@sullyschwartz2365]

Jeremy S Thank capitalists (Henry Ford for example) for your weekends and benefits at work.

[@Aqsticgod]

thats because they are taught a faux history to indoctrinate, and then they dont bother to learn because it sounds enticing and its like a drug, being in the moral high ground i mean.

[@Felipe8522]

I'm a Romanian and I can confirm every word of what he said was true. You stood in line at the town store for chicken necks (a wonder when they got any) and you were lucky to get some. Bread was rationed but there was no national disaster to warrant any of that food shortage. My family managed to build a bigger house by making alcohol (palinca, traditional in Transylvania) and smuggle it in the region and our neighbor who had some party influence but was rather lazy threatened my father that he would raise his kids at our upper level of our house because the party could impose that on you. Your livestock could be confiscated if you had more than enough barely to survive, people had to steal crops from the state fields to survive (your land you had left was not enough to sustain a family). And so on, and so on, and to see "wise" people in capitalist countries arguing for socialism even now, it makes my blood boil for their arrogant stupidity.

[@stevenschnepp576]

Funny how I've never met an old Soviet who argues for communism, but plenty of people who've suffered under statist authoritarianism that argue and fight against it.

[@sledgiefd9070]

Felician Cadar thank you sir for sharing your stark reality, I hope you live the rest of your life in comfort having suffered under the Socialist Communist heal

[@username5502]

I’m so sorry that you had to live in a communist country, I can’t even begin to imagine the amount of starvation, poverty and suffering that people had to deal with.

[@carmelopappalardo8477]

To be successful meant you were an enemy of the state.....unless of course you were the state.

[@rv706]

But the smart people in capitalist countries are not arguing for an authoritarian communist dystopia: they're typically arguing for Scandinavian style social democracy.

[@liarliarliar6495]

Prune-faced Jeremy Corbyn is the very epitome of sour socialism.

[@amoskowitz0103]

Jeremy Corbyn is an embarrassment.

[@Shainito]

The Biggest Myths About Socialism kzbin.info/www/bejne/on-TeZ53a6aDgc0

[@littlepete6849]

THE LOOK ON STEPTOE CORBYNS FACE IS PRICELESS..FUCKIN CLASSIC!!

[@FlexBeanbag]

@@littlepete6849 kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJ7GaoF8m82rbZY

[@npet6842]

He doesn't even have the good grace to laugh at a few remarks . And he still won't resign ! Says it all really ............... Seventies socialist throwback . Who the heck could tolerate this person ?

[@Winnie689]

I love seeing the sulky faces on the Socialism Does Work panel when John Redwood is speaking. Priceless!

[@bighands69]

Harry Evans it is not ad hominem what so ever.

[@Winnie689]

Harry Evans Did you actually see the debate?

[@bighands69]

Winnie689 Why did you not.

[@callumharvey2808]

I think most would be rather sulky when they realised such a distasteful and arrogant man's job is to 'represent' British people

[@johnharvey4448]

His entire argument was not based on ad hominum attacks. The first 2/3rds was mostly to do with traffic lights etc.

[@RevivedRecords]

“Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or good or joy worth having” - C.S. Lewis

[@ArnoldFlibble]

I wonder if John Redwood resents the fact that he has to turn left at a roundabout.

[@animesis]

Sticking with his analogy, freedom requires some constraints to function. As Aristotle said, politics function best when you keep in the middle ground and avoid the extremes, the UK is socialist and capitalist, meaning we have free healthcare, but also the ability to be greedy and get rich benefiting the nation.

[@jonnybgoode7742]

@@animesis that's also why everything is so stagnant. Your healthcare isnt free. Nobody on this planet has free healthcare.

[@cspike9061]

@@animesis Every day I watch UK parliament videos, and in every one of them MPs complain about long queues and avoidable deaths in the NHS system.

[@TheAtticusFinch]

This comment is why KZbin exists

[@cspike9061]

@Mark Sesum thanks for that completely idiotic comment. why would you even take the time to write that? smh

[@reginaldscot165]

I loved the look on Corbyn's face, just fantastic to see him so unhappy.

[@herbiewalkermusic]

That’s pretty sad

[@PeterProf7777]

Capitalism is about "doing." Socialism is about "getting."

[@fredthedrummer]

no. the bosses of corporate companies don’t do anything but abuse workers rights to make profit. socialism is making sure everyone has enough to eat and live a healthy sustainable life and i fail to see why that is a problem.

[@PeterProf7777]

@@fredthedrummer You are correct. There are many corporations outsourcing manufacturing jobs to take advantage of cheap labor. I am with you on that. We now have a President that is attempting to undo all that damage from the past 25 years. Inherently, capitalism produces and socialism doesn't. And socialists can be greedy too. They may want lots of things but be unwilling to produce and pay taxes. This happened in Greece. Greeks wanted to retire with full benefits in their 50's and they didn't want to pay taxes. The greed of socialists in Greece was their downfall. Guaranteed incomes and social benefits make people lazy and free access to those benefits makes people tend to over use them and abuse them. The government can also be greedy. I worked for the government in Yonkers and my agency didn't do any work. Literally. We faked it. We got paid for doing nothing. That city five years later went bankrupt. In a capitalist system social programs are fine. They can be afforded. I am a proponent of a single payer CATASTROPHIC health care program. Even in Scandinavia, the economic system is capitalism. But the middle class in Denmark is heavily taxed and the upper class is not. The middle class is the chief beneficiary of those programs. An economy needs to promote entrepreneurship and production. Then that society can afford social programs. That is fine. Capitalism is about doing but capitalists need to learn to be more spiritual and caring. Adam Smith wrote about it in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and Charles Dickens who was a critic of capitalism wrote about it in his famous story "A Christmas Carol." Ebenezer Scrooge became a more caring capitalist. Dickens did not promote socialism. So the idea is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The baby is capitalism. :) Peter de Luca: Economist

[@brigitteschultz1552]

@@fredthedrummer Your thinking is toxic

[@kofola9145]

@@fredthedrummer Yeah, we want everyone to have enough to eat and live a healthy sustainable life. That is why we live in a free-market society and not Socialism. Because Socialism is the exact opposite. Starvation and misery. You know what? You have all those wonderful ideas. How about you start a company or a commune that provides them?

[@leeuniverse]

As Ben Shapiro has said.... "Capitalism is consensual sex, while Socialism is Rape." The reason this is a correct statement is that Capitalism works by mutually beneficial cooperation and agreement of services/products, socialism achieves the same means by FORCE instead, i.e. you do what someone says OR ELSE. Thus, you have consent on the one hand, and then you have rape on the other.

[@oldtimer5111]

Look at Corbyn, he's like a child who been told there's no pudding.

[@mateenabdul4593]

Well he better get used to it because under socialism there is no pudding anyways... or the main course... or the starte- basically what I’m saying is that there is no food. BTW I’m very sorry if that was cringe I was trying to be funny.

[@fluff6811]

@@mateenabdul4593 It was funny, you have been approved :)

[@mateenabdul4593]

@@fluff6811 Imagine being called “The dark Lord Sauron” and being such a lad 😂

[@fluff6811]

@@mateenabdul4593 From my experience you can’t be a tyrannical dictator without a little charisma to trick the matches

[@mateenabdul4593]

@@fluff6811 *Hugo Chavez has entered the chat*

[@johnreedy9098]

3:15 "They didn't tend to have cars in the communist systems apart from the people at the top who, uhhhh, stole most of the money" [AWKWARD LOOK DOWN TO THE FLOOR INTENSIFIES]

[@redwater4778]

The west would not trade with the USSR after the war . Big stab in the back by the allies.

[@vanbeet5105]

It's always someone else's fault; our system is perfect,it's just other people's fault that it has never worked

[@jonnybgoode7742]

@@redwater4778 communist made products were dog shit lol.

[@stevenschnepp576]

@@redwater4778 I'm sure you've thought very deeply about that, and have answers to the question of the quality of product, the millions of Soviets starving to death, and the fact that the USSR was only ever an ally of convenience, not a real friend of the West.

[@redwater4778]

@@stevenschnepp576 A system of taxation or an Ideology of governance do not kill.

[@gummywurms226]

"The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money." - Margaret Thatcher.

[@redwater4778]

Who are the other people?

[@StrangeAttractor]

the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. What rock were you hiding under in 2008?

[@redwater4778]

@@StrangeAttractor Yaa The peoples money as we bare all the tax burden.

[@MoiraJones]

Ours!!!

[@redfalcongamer1422]

@@StrangeAttractor I was there in 2008. That was a direct result of the government telling companies and banks to do things that were mind-bogglingly stupid which no sane business owner would've done, and then trying to bail said companies out of the mess that the government itself put them in in the first place. So, 2008 was a result of government meddling in the economy. Like Socialism. You think more of that will fix it? Hell no!

[@jjhearn]

If only he had toppled Major perhaps we'd be a free-er country

[@skyedavies1042]

Jeremy Corbyn's sigh at 2:40 just sums up my feelings about this guy.

[@T800System]

Rob Davies Yep. Same 'ere.

[@jonathanowen4075]

Rob Davies 2:57 is hilarious too.

[@9avedon]

+Rob Davies Perfect ,the true face of a thieving socialist elitist.

[@largesatsuma]

+Rob Davies Corbyn has no sense of humour. He can't laugh at himself.

[@jilliandennis2576]

+Socksandfrogs Of course they are achievable....we already did it after WW 2.Where do you think the NHS came from....us the people.

[@Sheo2049]

So does he even make an argument or does he just shit talk?

[@johnalbent]

I think you know he does 😉

[@kenalgar8908]

I got here after googling "highway code"

[@benjaminellehaugemadsen7113]

It's always wonderful when rich, entitled people state that everyone have the same opportunities.

[@bjornhattan6026]

John Redwood went to private school on a full scholarship and grew up in a council house, a far cry from the likes of Corbyn...

[@ThatLeftCat]

​@UncappingBadger Nowadays, you almost certainly need a degree/ go through university to get a job. Universities Make you Broke with their enormous fees (Don't ge me started on exploitation of staff and students). You are in debt until far later in life. We don't think everything should be handed to us on a silver platter, we just think those who pay huge amounts to get a degree for a job and work should get paid equivalent to how much work is done. If You own the company and you sit around while others do the work to generate money for you, why should you get more money? If we alll refused to work for you, your business would just collapse! Also, Jobs available have gone down as business don't want to hire new people, if they can just pile more work on the people already there, and maybe (if your lucky) Give Them a moderate pay rise.

[@ThatLeftCat]

@UncappingBadger I do believe that experience should be taken over a degree. Experience of showing you are a good worker though, should not prevent people who have not had time to prove themselves as good workers to get a job. I believe that degrees should be adapted to show that you have the ability to put the theory into practice. Also, I agree that some CEO's Have put a lot on the line to make their business successful, but that still does not in any way excuse the exploitation of workers done by all successful companies at some point.

[@chrisbrookes7422]

@UncappingBadger Sounds all good on paper with what you're saying problem is in todays world when young people start off looking for work no employer wants to take them on, So they're left in a position where they're constantly looking for a job but have no experience. but at the same time nobody is willing to take them so they can't get that required experience a horrible catch 22. Also I must say that not every young person wants to start work at McDonald's and why should they? It's all well and good working your arse off and starting from the bottom then moving up the ladder through the years, but in todays economy with sky high prices and low wages people are working harder and longer than generations years ago, yet earning/achieving less so I think people are right in questioning Capitalism especially right now where its clear its not as good as people thought.

[@Shyhalu]

Socialism: "This is the best you will ever get, you can't be a better person - therefore you get all this stuff you haven't earned for free" Capitalism: "Do better."

[@fredriklvoll5789]

Socialism: "you get you basic human needs fullfilled, and your labour isnt exploited by someone above you, and you democratically controll the workplace" Capitalism: "Fuck you, give me your labour or you will die from starvation"

[@reduceparticles876]

@@fredriklvoll5789 Someone didn't get a job to receive personal income.

[@ashemrus]

@@fredriklvoll5789 Socialism: you get you basic human needs fullfilled as i see fit but never anything more. And you don't have choice on anything including where and how you work Capitalism: Go and work or you will die from starvation. You are free to do either in any way you see fit Here, i fixed it for you

[@fredriklvoll5789]

@@ashemrus I think you should do more research about the different kinds of socialism and how you control the workplace INCLUDING how you work! NOT that people are forced to coerce with the boss. Also who the fuck said you cant choose where to work? In a market socialist society the only difference is that the workers arent exploited, since they own their own labour and control the workplace. In a communist society you are not held back by poverty unlike under capitalism. Also you arent very "free" when you choose between working a shitty job, and starvation. Your also not very free to choose where to work under capitalism, as most of the time there is one or zero options to where you work, this is especially true for people with low skill jobs.

[@koalasquare2145]

Capitalism: your parents were poor, so fuck you. Work a minimum wage job with no benefits and then go bankrupt when you can't afford healthcare. Do better. Socialism: here have some education and some healthcare too. We want you to be able to contribute to society.

[@tubularbill]

Redwood is a brilliant Conservative mind. He would have made an excellent PM.

[@oliverdesvaux]

Good mind yes, but Not sure about that comment

[@jamma246]

Where were the arguments? This is just a bunch of flawed analogies, ad hominems, and some bullshit at the end about how a socialist state stops people being able to buy things. There are plenty of capitalist states where most cannot buy things too; poverty is the reason for this, not democratic workers' control of their workplaces.

[@andrewdevine3920]

+jamma246 'Socialism doesn't work because I'm a knob end' is what i heard.

[@jamma246]

Wow, I'm convinced. That's the end of that then.

[@jamma246]

You realise that socialism isn't about taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, right? It's more about worker's democratic ownership of key national resources, aiming for a world in which workers are paid fairly for their labour rather than capitalists gaining the lion's share just because they happen to have possession of vital industries. There is simply no reason for people to make millions from exploiting the energy market, or from cartels running the train network, and it has been consistently shown that these things run more efficiently in the public sector. And poverty _everywhere_ in France? How hyperbolic. The US is full of _very_ poor areas. I'd way rather live in France than the US.

[@jamma246]

Funny theory which doesn't stack up to any evidence. By way of example, public healthcare always outperforms private. In fact, the US spends 2.5 times that of the UK per capita on health care. This isn't transferring money away from people, quite the opposite, it's transferring money away from those who would wish to monetise and exploit a necessary public service. But yeah, keep waving your flags and being irrational.

[@zeogold]

+Admiral Nimitz boy is that ever true

[@TheZ1A900]

Fantastic, John wiped the floor against Jeremy !

[@das81]

Let's see if "humour" can save from the Corona Crisis...

[@shreyarishi2720]

@@das81 lmaooooo that one was actually good, i can actually imagine one of them unironically saying 'laughter is the best medicine' to your comment 😂😂

[@davidvarley1812]

Interesting how they discuss everything except what socialism is, its foundations and implications on society. They don't explain the capital machine or internal commerce and trade in the 19th and 20th century. They fail to mention Social Democracy and its origins and motivations and use it as a argument against the socialist ideas. Both sides give poor, unconvincing arguments and are not good examples of modern Oxford Union debate performances.

New Labour ruined Britain for sure .

[@GyitMulhaneski-GloriousYears]

New Labour ruined Labour for sure.

[@digbycrankshaft7572]

@SelfGoverned unbelievable bullshit. The city of London managed to resist conquest by William the conqueror and was subsequently permitted to manage its own affairs henceforth. The UK has always been financially raped by the city of London which is managed by a protestant oligarchy namely the corporation of the city of London which is subordinate to the privy council which is in turn controlled by your unelected, unaccountable protestant maggot Elizabeth Windsor.

[@grahamsmith7054]

Great Speech from Mr Redwood-Destroying the Socialist Morons & Indeed Corbyn.

[@redswanmusic3627]

This is literally the worst argument against socialism I've ever heard. He spends half of the time talking about an irrelevant metaphor, and never once addresses what actual socialism is, merely criticising totalitarianism.

[@markanderson6639]

Great to watch Jeremy Corbyn's reactions in this video. His facial expressions are an excellent argument against socialism. Who would want to be ruled by such a person?

[@slimlegs6298]

You’re shallow

[@markanderson6639]

@@slimlegs6298 if not wanting to be ruled by the likes of Jeremy Corbyn makes me shallow in your opinion then I will embrace that shallowness. But since Jeremy Corbyn's tenure as Labour Party leader is now history the point is irrelevant.

[@markanderson6639]

@@waving-curve Jeremy Corbyn''s core ideology needs to be challenged. It's a malignant ideology.

[@EOTA564]

Corbyn is a humourless twat who takes everything too seriously. Reminds me of the common room bores at uni. Watch the Commons footage in the video ‘Thatcher’s Last Stand Against Socialism’ and you’ll see even Jim Sillars and Dennis Skinner charmed by Thatcher’s performance even though she was their mortal enemy. I’m sure Corbyn was sitting in the Commons with a face like a bulldog licking piss off a thistle throughout all of the entertaining exchanges.

[@frederickdavidson270]

John Redwood stands up and prepares a delicious roast

[@magiccards88]

Nice speech, but he's not arguing against socialism, he's arguing against authoritarianism. He doesn't seem to understand the difference

[@robhulson]

Where has socialism been instituted without authoritarian policies?

[@DaveKarl]

2:40 - lol at Corbyns sigh of anguish toward Redwood...

[@teddyirons8240]

Corbyn seems like a genuine guy, but boy does he lack a sense of humour! LOL

[@henrydupont9181]

He is an A grade twit. And that's not my opinion, but the electorate's...

[@frazerguest2864]

Teddy Irons : That’s odd, as to me he seems like a very dangerous, anti-UK Marxist.

[@jackparker6908]

''The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money'' - Margaret Thatcher

[@TB-md1uj]

jack Parker the problem with pissing on Margaret thatchers grave is that eventually you run out of piss

[@koalasquare2145]

Socialism is a dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat are the working people. Working people produce things. Who's money are they taking? Their bosses are the ones taking the workers labour, exploiting them into jobs where they are not free to keep the fruits of their labour.

[@pizzaDhut]

Corbyn's face........priceless

[@rmeighen1]

well noted it was priceless no smile totally bemused.

[@NathanJennings1222]

I laughed at Corbyn's mug so hard my neck hurt.

[@razzberry6180]

He looked ready to burst into tears 🤣

[@dawnbroker5156]

Roasted the young men at the beginning.

[@peterpoertner7042]

With Capitalism, bread waits in line for the consumer, with Socialism, the consumer waits in line for bread. Which system sounds better?

[@lorrycamill941]

The English knows that socialism doesn’t work ,they remember Mintoff ,one choclate brand ,one car brand ,no private hospitals ,no Mc Donald’s ,and so on

[@william_marshal]

The Tories claim to be the party of good economy but the fact is ... 70% of Britain's debt (now over £2 Trillion) was accrued under the Tories, a lot of that debt was to pay for tax cuts for the greedy rich. For most of the population things have only got worse in the last 10 years. So when are the Tories gonna start showing us that they can run the economy better than socialists, so far they've had 10 years with no improvements whatsoever !!!

[@samlievesley2008]

it hasnt resulted in the death of over 45 million people tho has it

[@akoluxre-uh9nv]

ใช่ค่ะ ตามมาจากทวิตเตอร์

[@KrayzListerine]

9:40, 'if you want to see the smart people shop', sorry? Sorry? One more time please? This despicable toff equating shopping at Harrods with intelligence. Absolutely sickening that this guy is an MP.

[@WillandTony]

***** i think he means smart as in presentable. If he isn't his still kind of right, most rich people are generally pretty clever.

[@aerialexplorer772]

***** I think you'll find the average intelligence of those shopping at Harrods is higher than those shopping at M&S.

[@ambrosethekat]

AerialExplorer if that is the case, why? Is it because children of the wealthy have access to better education? Why should some children be taught differently from others, give every child the same opportunities. Otherwise the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, it's a vicious circle... I mean a vicious roundabout.

[@aerialexplorer772]

james harris It's because the children of the wealthy have smarter genes, and have been brought up by their parents from year zero to work harder and smarter. No "poor" person is ever excluded from entry to the rich world - it just means they have to put more effort in to get there. It is a question of how much do they want it - many poorer people are happy with their lot and therefore don't have the motivation to improve. Every year there are plenty of rich people who blow all their money and end up having to work for M&S and send their children to state school - thereby freeing up space at the top of the tree for the most worthy, and them joining the ranks for the "poor"- there is a steady cycle of people from poor to rich and vice versa. Well apart from the Royal family perhaps, though even then you get people like the Duke of Windsor who gave it all up for a woman.

[@ambrosethekat]

Oh you're being sarcastic, jokes brother! That was good!

[@johnchristopherdelegero1728]

Capitalism is socialism for the rich. And it works very will for the rich. Offcourse . Capitalist freedom is at the finger tips of inflation and debt. Your free as far as where your money can go. Offcouse the rich has lots of "freedom" because capitalism is socialism for the rich living the rest in debt, to whom you can guest.

[@samuelrobinson205]

I thought this speech was pretty insulting, given how many people suffer under capitalism, that he didn't even bother coming up with any coherent arguments but just played for laughs and treated the whole subject as a joke.

[@johnlott7151]

Socialists are more money driven then capitalists. Never met a person that talks about capital or finances more than a socialist, in their minds, people always have too much or too little. It's money 24/7

[@steliosmitr8245]

+John Lott so what?

Stelios Mitr Thinking exclusively about money is never healthy.

[@meb280]

Only in Socialism would they cry out against the evil, greedy Capitalist, only to have that same person be put into a bureacratic position under Socialism with all of the levers of power - laws, rules, regulations, taxation, etc. - and trust them to be an angel.

[@fredriklvoll5789]

Are you talking about marxism, becouse there are something called market socialism that isnt a planned economy. There will actually be less bureaucracy since worker rights will be protected internally.

[@Iarlen]

This is actually the best one out of all of the speakers. What magnificence! Humor and yet he makes a clear cut point!

[@zylo999]

Charisma 10

[@darev6780]

''Multi-Culturalism / Cultural Appropriation. It's getting more and more difficult to support both !!'' *Ex Liberal here

[@Sorain1]

Yeah. One of these must be false, as they are mutually exclusive. Either no culture is sacred and I'm free to do whatever, or every culture must be respected and I may only partake of my own.

[@jayvis123111]

"Feudalism is clearly the most successful system, look at these princes I have gathered and placed on golden thrones." The success of capitalism shouldn't be determined by the wealth of the privileged but instead by the wealth of the least privileged. This guy literally does the fucking "you criticize society yet you participate in it!" What a joke. Not to mention obviously conflating socialism and authoritarianism, very intelligent. Also no, the idea of... roads? What? No it actually doesn't make any sense. The closing is, again a conflation with authoritarianism and socialism.

[@ИванИванович69420]

Socialism requires authoritarianism. Tell me what happens when a large segment of the population doesn't want socialism? How do you solve that?

[@jayvis123111]

@@ИванИванович69420 The socialists succeed and create their own "state" separate from the capitalist state. Unless of course, actually it's the capitalist nations that would violently oppose a socialist movement. I solve not everyone wanting socialism by letting the socialists try it out and not invading them. Which is historically what happens to socialist "states" and states, capitalists invade them or put crippling sanctions on them and try to assassinate heads of state.

[@ИванИванович69420]

@@jayvis123111 1. Every time socialists gain power in a country, they vehemently violate the property rights of EVERYONE. Case in point in Chile, Allende who only won ONE THIRD of the Chilean vote, expropriated both naive Chilean and foreign property. This caused all current and future investments to pull out hurting Chile economically and it made ENEMIES of the army and former/current property owners. Pinochet came to power because Allende's thuggish policies and disastrous economic policy led to huge resentment among half the country. 2. Socialist states that have taken power have always led to economic disaster and guaranteed atrocities of the people. To say that if everyone left "socialist" countries alone disregards that countries do not operate in a vacuum and that the ones that were allowed to implement socialism hostilities or not, turned into dumpster fires. 3. You know nothing of risk in business transactions to assume that if it weren't for muh sanctions people would trade. Why would businesses invest or trade with HIGHLY CORRUPT countries that would raise the cost of doing business? Why would companies risk losing their product to governments that have a track record of theft? Why would nations even permit business to operate in countries with a hostile government that almost all the time abuses its own people?

[@RAPLOCHREPORTER]

As a socialist i ust say i have enjoyed Redwood's speech he is a good speaker and a bit of fresh air!

[@Jack-xy4fy]

shouldn't you be working in a factory somewhere?

[@GyitMulhaneski-GloriousYears]

@@Jack-xy4fy And that kind of attitude Ladies and Gentleman is the reason why the correspondent IS a Socialist...

[@milobrosamer272]

@@Jack-xy4fy worldview destroyed

[@keller804]

he told unfunny jokes and strawmanned.

[@jmakes3745]

The one point i would like to make it that traffic lights are extremly good at allowing all different people a chance to cross, for example those that cannot afford a car and instead have to use a bike, or foot, whereas at a roudabout it extremly hard, if not impossible for this type of person to cross, and if indeed they can cross it takes them far longer, and is much more difficult.

[@andrewwenzel3600]

Why yes it gives people a chance to cross but a large amount of the time there is no-one who needs to cross and therefor peoples journeys become less efficient, true it does make it safer but then look at other solutions to the issue and you will find things better than traffic lights.

[@jmakes3745]

Roundabouts - people travelling on foot, bike or even those who are blind/handicapped etc CANNOT CROSS Traffic Lights - people travelling on foot, bike or even those who are blind/handicapped etc can cross extremely easily but sometimes at the expense of those using cars/motorbikes/trucks etc

[@animesis]

Roundabouts tend to have lights specifically if there is a need for pedestrians and bikes to cross. But the roundabout still functions to allow cars to go when theres a chance versus the other cars

[@jmakes3745]

Aren't you therefore proving that in order for pedestrians and cyclists to cross, you must have traffic lights? Or in relation to this you must have socialism or at the very least a mixed economy?

[@johnchristopherdelegero1728]

Under capitalism, the socialism for the rich, leaving the rest in debt so the rich gets rich. The word "Freedom" is systematically define as how far your money can go, against inflation and debt.

[@TheGrayMysterious]

as long as everyone is a different person, socialism will always fail. ALWAYS.

[@ReiEmeraldTakedo]

+TheGrayMysterious The fuck are you talking about? Socialism thrives on individual diversity. It just doesn't use that diversity to fuel its economy. Just like capitalism doesn't use morality to drives itself.

[@TheGrayMysterious]

Derick Rhodes socialism requires everyone give up their right to personal property and their own measurement of success in order to benefit the community. If everyone was a perfect little angel that didn't give a rat's ass about getting ahead or owning anything of value to themselves, socialism could work. But we don't live in that world. Socialism can't work in a world where people have a degree of selfishness in them, because the only way it can get those people to assimilate into its order is to force them to, and that leads to totalitarianism. A welfare state where everyone only works to benefit the community cannot work if you still give people freedom of choice to work at all, because if people don't have to work to get the resources they need to survive, THEY WON'T. That leaves all the people that do want to work having to support the ones who don't want to work, and it all becomes one giant mess. Capitalism ain't perfect by a long shot, but individualism and personal ingenuity driving economic growth is far better, more rewarding, and more efficient than a half-baked command economy.

[@ReiEmeraldTakedo]

TheGrayMysterious "socialism requires everyone give up their right to personal property" No it doesn't. Socialism does not in any way require the dissolution of private property rights. Socialism often calls on the people to give more of its collective wealth back to the state to provide for the members of society who do not have adequate wealth, but the absolute abolition of private property is not at all required of socialism. In face, democratic socialism often espouses the principle that workers should own some portion of the means of production where capitalism has created a system where only share holders should. "If everyone was a perfect little angel that didn't give a rat's ass about getting ahead or owning anything of value to themselves, socialism could work." No, if everyone thought like this, we wouldn't need socialism and capitalism would provide for the masses. The which would willingly provide for the poor and profit would be a dirty word, as it implied you've exploited someone else. Instead, socialism doesn't rely on the benevolent hand of daddy warbucks. Through the democratic voice of the community as a whole, socialism wields the monopoly of power to demand that those who benefit most from society be REQUIRED to repay society proportionally. Socialism is not the voices of hippies, it's the voice of of a disenfranchised working, suffering class demanding that those who've stripped so many of their dignity be forced to give some back to those who need it most. "the only way it can get those people to assimilate into its order is to force them to, and that leads to totalitarianism." Or democracy. Unchecked capitalism is far more likely to lead to totalitarianism. When only a few amass so much of a countries collective wealth, as is want to happen in capitalist societies like the united states, power is consolidated too. "because if people don't have to work to get the resources they need to survive, THEY WON'T." I am living proof that this is a myth. I am more than capable of quitting my job and living on welfare and disability for the rest of my life thanks to a medical condition. I would survive, likely reasonably comfortably. So why then, if I don't need to work for that which I need to survive do I work? This statement is merely an assumption. It ignores all statistical evidence that suggests otherwise. The majority of those who go on welfare dip in and out of it AS NEEDED. Why? Because it is not the rule that people work only to survive. In fact that is IMMENSELY the exception. For a human being, to survive is simply not enough. We want our big screen TVs, we want our happy hour social gathering, we want our fancy house on the hill. What was it you said? "If everyone was a perfect little angel that didn't give a rat's ass about getting ahead or owning anything of value to themselves, socialism could work." Quite the contrary. "That leaves all the people that do want to work having to support the ones who don't want to work, and it all becomes one giant mess." Capitalism is not? We live in a society where some 40% of the population relies in some way on the government to provide some degree of protection from their economic lot in life. And make no mistake, this is not a product of the "welfare state". Labor unions and the working class rose up and demanded the welfare state for a reason, and it was not greed. "Capitalism ain't perfect by a long shot, but individualism and personal ingenuity driving economic growth is far better, more rewarding, and more efficient than a half-baked command economy." The fact that nearly every major invention in modern history has been in no small way funded by subsidies from big daddy government directly contradicts this statement. Planes, computers, the internet, automobiles, the entire modern pharmaceutical industry... You name it, and the government had its great big communist hand in the system. The very premise that individualism is the route to greatness is simply wrong. An individual did not create the great wall of China. An individual did not create the US fleet of aircraft carriers. An individual did not create and distribute the inoculation for polio. It is through the collective, the the community, the very SOCIAL nature of man that we achieve great things. An individual is not insignificant, but it is only when many individuals apply themselves to a common cause, a socialist goal if you will, that we see true progress.

[@TheGrayMysterious]

Derick Rhodes an individual created the Archimedes screw. An individual sacrificed his life in the hopes that a group of oppressed people might throw off the chains of a brutal empire. An individual invented the incandescent lightbulb, the phonograph, alternating current, donuts, the modern automobile, etc. An individual created a multimillion-dollar substitute worker company. A single person can have more ingenuity than an entire group of individuals. Labor unions were an extremely important part of American history when they first sprung up in the Gilded Age, but now they've deformed into a massive, greedy conglomerate with little care for how good of a worker someone is, but rather whether or not they get to keep their job no matter how bad they are at it. A welfare state presents people with a comfortable standard of living without them having to work for it, which encourages laziness because why should they contribute when they can just sit on their asses and have their life fed to them? You don't choose to live on welfare because you want a more fulfilling existence than that. Without welfare, there is an inherent risk at play when you look for a job, and when you start a company, because there is the genuine possibility that you will fail. However, this possibility of failure is what drives great men and women to succeed, partly because they will fail and live a miserable life if they don't and partly because it will be more rewarding to make a life all your own without being forced to give anything away. No country can be considered "democratic" if they require their citizens to do anything other than obey the law. It is unfair to tell someone that their success will be taken away from them and given to others, even if those others deserve it. For example, let's say you're a fisherman. you have 9 other fisherman who work with you at the same spot every day. One day, you catch ten fish, 8 of the other 9 catch five fish each, and the last one doesn't catch anything. Logically, you would be inclined to give half of your fish away to the last fisherman because he didn't catch anything, right? Well, in a free-market economy, you would be allowed to make the choice yourself because you have the right to choose. In a socialist economy, you would be forced to do such whether or not you wanted to, and whether or not the other person deserved it. How is that fair? Of course unchecked capitalism can lead to totalitarianism, government isn't just there to argue with itself and smile for the camera, now is it? We have laws preventing unfair competition in this country while still maintaining the freedom to compete and market products. If the world was perfect, rich people would not exist at all. They would indeed give all their money away to those who need it. But that's a fantasy. There are selfish people and there are multimillionaires, and it's okay to resent them for being more successful. But it's not okay to think you are entitled to the earnings of another person simply because they have it in excess. Of course workers don't own means of production, they're employees. BUT, workers have the ability to move up in companies, find positions of power through perseverence and hard work. In addition, nothing is stopping workers from becoming shareholders themselves. My point is that ANYBODY can become the owner of production if they work hard and develop a keen eye for opportunity. Forcing people to assimilate into society is somehow democracy to you, huh? There's this one guy who was a total fanatic of Marx that I debated not a time ago. He recently stormed off in a childish rage after I told him how stupid socialism was, taking all his comments with him, but you two would get along famously.

[@ReiEmeraldTakedo]

TheGrayMysterious "an individual created the Archimedes screw." And a community put it to use. "group of oppressed people might throw off the chains of a brutal empire." And the oppressed community followed through... you get my point. Individuals who create things do not create their legacy. The fact that these inventions are still in use is not the direct, enforced hand of their creator. The community saw value in those things and the community used them as a whole. "An individual created a multimillion-dollar substitute worker company." Unless he was substituting himself for multiple million of dollars to no one, his creations success was dependent an entire community. " now they've deformed into a massive, greedy conglomerate" i will ignore that this is a blanket statement, as I belong to a union and do not feel that my union fits this description at all. More importantly, the labor unions only represent 7% of the workforce today, where at its peak it represented over 60%. There is a reason for that. The people can give power and the people can take it away. If the people felt so compelled, they could create a new labor movement and repeat history. "You don't choose to live on welfare because you want a more fulfilling existence than that." And so does the majority of humanity. "However, this possibility of failure is what drives great men and women to succeed, " Prove it. More importantly, 'great' men and women are generally depicted as those who were more willing to take the risk of failure. The inventors of the past invested immense amounts of their wealth into projects that could have easily backfired and bankrupt them. In many cases it did. If they were driven by their fear of failure, they would have done everything they could to avoid failure. They wanted something bigger. Let's take a moment to point out that we have a welfare state today. An individual is perfectly capable of living off the state. Yet, we have scientists in their labs, leaders running for congress and heroes signing up for the military every. Single. Day. So how is it again that the welfare state is oppressing people's desire to work? That's right. It doesn't. Because "You don't choose to live on welfare because you want a more fulfilling existence than that." is the norm, not the exception. "No country can be considered "democratic" if they require their citizens to do anything other than obey the law." You seem to be confusing democracy with volunteerism. The purpose of democracy is to empower the common man. Where capitalism (or totalitarianism of any kind) seeks to consolidate power into the hands of the few, democracy ensures it remains in the hands of the many. If taxation is one of those "laws" decided upon by the masses, than you are not forfeiting democracy by enforcing that law. You are merely enacting the will of a democratic state. "How is that fair?" Your entire analogy is narrow minded. In a socialist society, all five of these men are given the same opportunities. They all helped build the boats, they all helped dig up the bait and they all spend time on the lake. So I will correct your analogy to be more accurate to the debate. 4 men went fishing, 1 caught 8, 3 caught 5 and 3 random assholes sat by the side of the lake and watched them do all of this. When they returned, the bystanders demanded a fish from each of them and two from the man who had 8. Now the skilled fisherman has 6, the others have 4 and the beggars have to make due splitting the 5 fish they "taxed". Those who worked harder still have more, those who did not, still have less. Was it unfair of them to demand fish? That depends. What if they all provide some other service to society? In your example, let's say those three men weren't just bystanders. Maybe they were the ones who dug up the bait. Do they not deserve some amount of the fisherman's success? What if one of them was too sick to work, or he was too old? The lower class of any society is the society's bread basket. Unemployment happens. People struggle. And on a very rare occasion some people just don't have the motivation to try. It just doesn't cost society that fucking much to support the oddity of a lazy fuck's desire to not die. "We have laws preventing unfair competition in this country while still maintaining the freedom to compete and market products." A socialist invention. Socialism does not inherently restrict freedom of competition or the ability to market products, it merely brings up the point that those two concepts only work within a community, and as such, their products are at least on some level owed to community as a whole. You cannot compete with yourself or market to yourself... At least not in any way but figuratively and still be productive. You compete with SOCIETY and you market to SOCIETY. Without that essential SOCIAL entity, capitalism collapses. It is in fact in the best interest of capitalism to maintain the health and well being of society as a whole. "and it's okay to resent them for being more successful. But it's not okay to think you are entitled to the earnings of another person simply because they have it in excess." A: I don't resent them. B: They have what they have in excess because they have exploited the people. There are people in this country that make a MILLION times the amount of money their lowest paid employee does. What do you think the chances are those people are doing a MILLION times the work of that employee? The people who make these insane salaries are benefiting exponentially more from society than the 'welfare state' mom working at McDonalds. Do the rich provide some service to society? Sure. Do they produce a THOUSAND or even a HUNDRED times more value to society than say... a school teacher? It is not resentment or cruelty that guides the creation of a welfare state. It's a recognition that the poor contribute too. Those who hold immense wealth and power in this country do so because they benefit most from the society itself. Their fleet of trucks runs on government roads, their corporation's power grid runs on government regulated power, their massive corporate holdings are protected by the state and their legal contracts are enforced by the justice department. Meanwhile the common worker might have one car, a meager apartment and a cell phone plan. Rich man is receiving FAR resources from the state than the individual. It is then morally 'fair' to say that the rich should also give the most back to society relative to their gains. Socialism is not the robbing hand of a thief. It's the equalizing arm of the people. The right to demand some degree of dignity for the contributions made by the people that so greatly benefit the few is not morally wrong, it's democracy. "workers have the ability to move up in companies" This is not accurate in all situations. Job mobility is entirely dependent on the employers whim and even then, not everyone is capable of becoming a manager. There will always need to be more Indian Braves than Chiefs. That means there will always be a disproportionate amount of "winners" and "losers". "find positions of power through perseverence and hard work" There is no law enforcing this. Employers are free to promote and demote as they see fit for whatever reason they like. The assumption that this is how the real world works in absurd. I've consistently been overlooked for promotion despite the fact that I produce more product for my employer than anyone else in my position. In fact, it behooves him NOT to promote me because that means I wouldn't be producing product anymore. "In addition, nothing is stopping workers from becoming shareholders themselves." Except that they can't afford to. Many workers can't afford their living expenses. Why do you think people take our predatory payday loans? You think they just really wanted that Big Screen TV? No. They have bills to pay. "My point is that ANYBODY can become the owner of production if they work hard and develop a keen eye for opportunity." Except for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the mentally deficient, people who make mistakes and people who've been victims of robbery or coercion. "Forcing people to assimilate into society is somehow democracy to you, huh?" Giving everyone an equal say in the government and then expecting them to abide by the general consensus even if they don't agree with it is democracy, yes.

[@HoThong0204]

"The goal of socialism is communism''. Vladimir Lenin

[@coltrane1966]

Now we have Traffic lights on roundabouts.

[@swagmanandy]

That say's it all in a nutshell!!

[@louishardiman8298]

Corbyn looks like he is almost in tears in this one.

[@Seaworldexists]

Socialism works very well on a starship with replicators and holodecks. As long as resources are limited against the unlimited wants and needs of people some form of capitalism will exist. It is best to take the indifferent capitalism of the free market over the crony capitalism of the politburo.

[@kenbar4761]

Fantastic. I laughed so much at this man. Redwood is clearly a socialist, who decided to put a differnet spin on things in this debate and make an argument for socialism by pretending to be a capitalist and talking about capitalism in an obviously farcical and ludicrous manner, very clever.

[@camron.w1841]

Seize the means of production. And also seize the means of humor, like holy shit laugh Corbyn! Laugh!

[@boneyween]

Why would he laugh when there's nothing funny happening?

[@mookkhaimuk]

The young man on throne is our future.

[@article504]

Love Corbyn's expressions as Redwood is chatting his shit.

[@maroonedmind]

I watch the arguments that socialism DOES work and I think yeah, socialism could work, but then I watch the arguments that socialism DOESN'T work and I think yeah, it doesn't work. I'm probably not the best person to comment on this video to be fair. But if I had to put my money on one side or another I'd say socialism doesn't work, based solely on the fact that it doesn't seem to have worked in any of the countries that have tried it.

[@JapanAlex01]

This guy doesn't understand economics AT ALL. When I hear people tie socialism with 'force', 'coercion', etc., it makes my ears bleed. Socialism is an economic system owned and run by the workers (i.e. a cooperative-based economy). We already have many cooperatives around the world. Imagine this: Workers would have a say in the use of child labour, outsourcing jobs overseas, wages, safety practices, maternity leave, company perks, moving business overseas, damaging the environment, ripping off consumers, etc. The workers would vote against these every time (in the very least, a mathematical probability as more people get to vote). The only people who want you to believe socialism is bad are a. those who are super-wealthy and don't want to lose their economic control over workers, or b. idiots who do not understand the term. Socialism is not (and never has been) about taking away your shit. Anyone who says this needs to read a book or two. It's about taking away the board of directors of any given company, and making the workers their own board of directors. It's about stabilising the world economy, too, as workers are far more likely to reinvest their money into their economy/country, as they see a direct benefit of doing so, while the typical member of the board does not (as they see it as wasted money). Capitalism is an inherently poor system; it allows a tiny fraction of the planet to control entire economies, and causes huge depressions (as these people do not reinvest money into economies). All socialism does is change one micro-economic variant, so that the economy can run vastly more efficiently. If you understand what socialism is, you'd be a socialist. It's like being a feminist; unless you hate women, you are by default a feminist. It's so sad how I have to constantly school people on basic economics. Oh, and BTW, anyone who thinks China or Russia (or even Cuba) have attempted anything close to socialism/communism clearly doesn't understand the terms or even history in the slightest. China and Russia are/were totalitarian, state-capitalist countries run by dictators. Hardly what I'd call a worker-run economy. The tragic irony is: 99% of people who are opposed to socialism would directly benefit from a socialist economy.

[@fremir8901]

+Alex Wilson Socialism isn't elective, it forces its interpretation of "fairness" on everyone involved. It has has to force, control and expropriate to exist. If people were left to their own devices, to trade and behave as they please, it wouldn't be socialism, it would be capitalism. Socialism is the collectivisation of the means of production. It's not synonymous with the operation of co-operative syndicates. Co-ops today work within the framework of capitalism, it's voluntary and internally organised in such a way that workers get a cut of the company's dividends. This is a choice made by the people involved. The co-op bank cannot go to Lloyds and command that they share their profits as they do. A socialist politician would however, because socialism (marxist, socdem, demsoc, all) reduces to the "fair" redistribution of wealth and/or capital as interpreted by an authority. They want co-operatives for everyone and non-complicance necessitates force. To set you down the path to liberalism, I'll ask you this? Are co-op firms just as competitive as profit maximising firms? If so, why haven't they dominated the market with all the generous incentives they offer labour/proletarians? If they are not as competitive, why do you think this is? If the national economy were totally socialised would the same problems that limit the growth of co-ops today not dominate, leading to an unproductive, low wealth economy which has to resort to rationing and violence against citizens who don't want to give their "fair share". Redwood was having a laff from the looks of it. He was poking fun at the logical consequences of collectivisation without going into the causative processes. It seems to be addressed at the already initiated and from that pov it was quite funny. I loved the traffic analogy.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Capitalism allows the existence of this "cooperative" as long as it can withstand competition from other competitors. When socialist what is to enforce their model to people who are unwilling to adopt it.

[@Harford1171]

Do socialists believe in taxation? If yes, then they believe in the use of coercive force

[@ghostsade3]

+John Isaac Felipe THIS.

[@arhanya8552]

nice joke..just see difference between east and west Europe. But maybe you r too idiot. those so called nordic socialist need capitalist companies to have enough money to pay socialist welfare.

[@robertmitchell8868]

Here's something you never hear: "Hey, have your heard about the latest great thing that the Cubans/Venezuelans/North Koreans (name your socialist place) came up with?"

[@kulturfreund6631]

You soon will see the climate breakdown through overproduction and environmental overwear caused by the praised evergrowing capitalism. Wait a few more months until the next bankcrash (by far bigger than the one in 2008) happens and wait some more years until you see resources being depleted and nature destroyed. Will see how you then think about your today´s comment.

[@adiaarau4463]

@@kulturfreund6631 sorry guy but the solution is the reform of capitalism not the socialsm who failed everywhere in the word. Today we are celebrating the first Revolution against the socialsm: The Romanian Revolution from 1989.

[@kulturfreund6631]

@@adiaarau4463 I never praised Ceaucescu nor anybody who just labled himself a socialist. Quite some leaders in the West though sympathized with him as being a half anti-moscow statesman. Capitalists are friends just with anyone they can make profits with, even the CCP in China. So don´t tell me that there´s anykind of a deeper morale in something that in its core just cares about power enhancement and buying and selling and playing off people against one another. I also have been saying on other occasions in the comments that capitalism is a pleasant thing to live in as long as you´re at the top of the food chain, not when being at the bottom. Countries like Haiti, Bangladesh or Morocco never have been socialist in their entire history, yet they´re bitterly poor and underdeveloped. Adolf, you´re home country supposedly is Switzerland, a place that gained half of its wealth from money laundering, from foreign dictators and oligarchs, arms dealers, drug trafickants, big time tax dodgers and fraudsters, left alone from Nazis etc. Yet Switzerland has such a neat image riding on the ticket of prosperity and "neutrality" which serves so well as a guise for all the opportunists in that country dealing with anyone who brings in money.

[@adiaarau4463]

@@kulturfreund6631 Socialism is a utopia against the human nature. In every socialist system you have an oligarch class !!!! Take a book of history and watch inside it! Is the most unjust political system on the earth where corruption betrayal and and justice are state politics. Because the capitalsim is in a very human nature, even in a socialist system you will find people the nomenklatura liked was called in USSR and Eastern Europe who are an upper class or like in China. 100 millions people died because of the socialism. Socialsim is the most murderer regime since the beginning of the history and everyone in the name of the equality justice and popular democracy.

[@kulturfreund6631]

Adi, du bist einfach zu blöd.

[@PrinceZappa]

Most people are too thick to realise that we live in a mixed economy which is roughly 50-50 split between public and private sector, and therefore it could be argued we live in a semi-socialist society anyway.

[@bighands69]

Not even close it is no where near 50-50. Socialism exists on the basis of capitalism it requires the wealth creation for it to exist. And if people do not agree to socialism the only answer socialism has is to use force. Now economies are mixed in that socialism exists but it is a very small percentage. The reason socialism is not voluntary in most countries is down to the fact it would shrink even further.

[@PrinceZappa]

I'm fairly sure the amount of money spent on public services is not far off the money generated from the private sector. Think of the fact that the richest people end up losing about half their salaries after they've paid every single tax levied on them. Also, the NHS is a health service providing for people according to need as opposed to their ability to pay. I'd say that's closer to socialism than capitalism. Likewise the state school system.

[@bighands69]

PrinceZappa It would be a fraction but would not be anywhere near the level of wealth created because if it was then our clothing,cars, houses, electronics would all be socialism and if that where the case none of it would work. Socialism requires private wealth to exist.

[@PrinceZappa]

I'm well aware that socialism requires private wealth to exist, even if some people are in ridiculous denial of that fact- and that is precisely why people get taxed so much, because when you add up all the taxes together, what you end up with is the state spending all of it on itself for itself. In practical terms, what seems to be working best at the moment is the scandinavian model of relatively high public spending together with relatively high degree of laissez-faire economics.

[@bighands69]

PrinceZappa The richer loose half there salaries but that does not apply to everybody. I am not saying that socialism is good or that more is needed because it is not. But socialism is getting over played by socialist who want to call about how big and great it really is when in fact it is small percentage of capabilities.

[@flightcomputer2437]

A witty, informative, and erudite speech. It's no wonder the Corbynistas don't like it.

[@frankvonfrauner]

They don't like anything but bias confirming rhetoric.

[@musik102]

What we have to remember is that the Capitalists of this world ( the ones with the power, the money, and the media outlets) are all - well, at least the vast majority - working towards undermining socialist movements. The USA has worked extremely hard to paint the Russians as this menacing power that wanted to start a nuclear war with the West and is only kept in check by the West's - mainly the USA's - nuclear arsenal. It's particularly amazing how the Americans sold that scenario to the West after the war. ( Russia was in ruins at the end of the war with around 7,000,000 civilian deaths) If we think the UK suffered in the war, that's nothing compared to the Russians. And, let's face it, it was the Russians, and their unbelievable resistance to the Germany invasion of their country, that saved the UK from certain defeat by the Nazis. Indeed, the fact that the UK doesn't celebrate Russia's amazing contribution to our continued freedom from foreign invasion is a scandal. A scandal perpetrated by our "friends" in the USA.

[@TONYxndHAWK]

Socialists/communists always seem miserable, are they ever satisfied?

[@OGDailylama]

You can see the difference between socialism & capitalism in the physical form of their proponents. The speaker is streamlined, refined, svelt & formally composed. The socialists sitting are aged, disheveled, sloppy & fat....with power. There's something to be said about how these people carry themselves & how that can be carried into the beliefs they hold.

[@rmeighen1]

well said that man

[@nathanrhodes4131]

To the American who spoke up, U.S. cities frequently have traffic circles (just a circle with traffic lights), whereas big roundabouts are quite rare (you'll see a few in neighborhoods and small intersection). The only one I know of is in Indianapolis and it works wonderfully and is beautiful.

[@danieloliver4558]

Jeremy Corbyn looks so pissed 😂

[@ponzopa]

even though i support the opposition, very weak points and examples here. he didn’t seem to actually care to debate the topic but rather mock the other side. very weak

[@sallyconnell9827]

Just the same boring already thoroughly debunked arguments

[@hokagefive-gn1vf]

มาดูไอติมกันละสิ

[@ScotsmaninUtah]

Socialism/Communism the path to inequality and no freedom

[@piyachatworachatwattana4595]

อยากให้ไอติมเป็นประธานสภา

[@NoName-ut5xf]

I am pro capitalism but I feel as tho this rebuttal to the debate was poor, it was as tho he was trying to be humorous more than arguing the case in hand

[@DarkSolace33]

He made a few solid points, better arguments than FOR Socialism that is for sure.

[@Conservatives-Reform2029]

There is no place in the UK for communism. There never was. That's what makes the UK so great🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧👏👏👏🥰

[@unpaintedleadsyndrome]

Most hilarious moments? the close ups of Corbin!

[@Jellypoker]

The look of revulsion on Jeremy Corbyn's face says it all!

[@johnroberts6116]

They should repeat this video each Christmas instead of the repeat of a Morecombe and Wise. It would produce as many laughs just watching the reactions of Corbyn.

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

First two minutes: pomposity and non-sequiturs Third minute: juvenile ad-hominems, typical of politicos who've been in the Commons for far too long. Childish put-downs like these are pretty much the reason people hate politics. Fourth, fifth and sixth minute: fun, effective and informative analogy - bit unfair though, tad too reductionist for my taste. Seventh minute: milking the analogy far too much and tumbles off topic. Eighth/Ninth minute: Totalitarian Communism ≠ Socialism. There's a sensible way to implement rational socialistic principles, and the Soviet bloc and its sphere of influence did it horribly wrong. Tenth minute: See the above. Eleventh minute: False dichotomy after false dichotomy.

[@jimsouth4571]

Chris McSweeney hear, hear.

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

Timothy Fagg Your comment stinks of anti-intellectualism. Interesting you should mention use of language though: his opening remarks are just witty put-downs that attempt to liken his fellow debaters to Bolsheviks, in a bid to undermine their credibility. This is a logical sleight-of-hand and rhetorical technique called "poisoning the well" (Google it). It has nothing to do with accessibility, learning and whether or not socialism works, but it makes his opponents look silly and that's all that matters. Socialism isn't a nefarious conquest for power, it's about redistirbuting wealth and widening opportunity for the benefit of all. It assumes that success is largely down to the opportunities we're given at birth, or lack of, for that matter (family, inherent wealth, social capital). Therefore the poor who don't deserve to poor should be helped by the rich who don't deserve to be rich. Capitalism on the other hand assumes that we live in a fair world which rewards hard work and moral integrity, and the rich are rich because they just worked harder than the poor or whatever, and the poor owe their bad fortune to some undefined moral failing. This is called the "Just World Hypothesis" (Google it). Socialists seek to narrow inequality, while capitalists either ignore it or assume it'll just go away on its own (while secretly enjoying it). As for "development", capitalism cares only about the development of the bottom line. The well-being of the collective is of no consequence. In practice, socialism usually has to pick up the pieces where capitalism has failed people. See the North of England for more detail on this - all the industrial jobs that were the backbone of entire communities have now moved to China and India because of the lower wages (hurrah for the free market). For a lot of people up there, those nasty socialist ideals of welfare, housing benefit and public sector jobs are the only thing keeping them out of destitution. Hope I've not used too many big words - I'd hate to give you the impression I'm trying to control you. You know what us filthy reds are like with our brainwashing...

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

Timothy Fagg If you look carefully, you'll glean that I never insulted your character - only your argument. You on the other hand, came bounding into this discussion with the juvenile accusation that I use big words to try and control people, and "lord it over them" as you put it. Not socialism as a concept: me. Personally. You whine about the manner in which I address you, and yet your opening gambit in this discussion was an ad hominem. Google the term "hypocrisy" - big word, I know, but I'm sure the top hit can explain it for you (*that* was an insult to your character). If you're intimidated by confident vocabularies, what the hell are you doing watching videos from the Oxford Union on complex ideas like Socialism? The idea that socialism makes the "poor poorer" is a snappy Thatcherite soundbite, but on closer inspection it's just empty rhetoric. Put it this way, the "wealth creators" wouldn't be able to create much wealth if it wasn't for the nasty old state educating the workforce, or keeping them from starving if they fall out of employment. As for "the goal of socialism" being to make everyone poor, that's also right-wing strawmanning - the goal of socialism is to give *everyone* equal opportunity to achieve a comfortable living, health and happiness, not just the kids who were born in Hampshire to hedge fund managers. If employers flee abroad because they want to pay workers $1 a day and treat them like farm animals, that's a system that needs challenging. I never positioned myself on the moral highground (but it's interesting that that's your intrepretation). I simply advocate that a portion of my wealth (and the wealth of other comfortable people) goes to assisting those who need it. Capitalism is a system that assumes these problems will sort themselves out, and to me that seems far too complacent. If you think that's me on the moral highground, then that's your interpretation and that speaks volumes. I have this opinion not because "I think I am clever", it's because on the one hand I see good, hard working people struggling to live a dignified life, and on the other, I see people with enough wealth to live a happy comfortable life several thousand times over, and many of those had it handed to them at birth. "Clearly you do not care for others in the way you speak to me" - Just to reiterate here: you came swinging into this discussion claiming that I'm trying to brainwash people with big words. That's pretty offensive - don't dish out insults if you can't take them.

[@ChrisMcSweeney]

Frog Grenadier Good one, dicknose, how long did it take you to come up with that one?

[@satansgenitalia]

Blimey, someone's a clever debate analysing cookie. I now regret failing to pay much attention to Philosophy/arguments/fallacies at Uni. Bravo, sir.

[@chapmasi]

What a sad miserable existence Corbyn must lead. He's clearly no sense of humour and doesn't seem able to take joy in anything at all.

[@throwawaysunny9460]

You gonna trust a man who doesn't even know the words to his national anthem? Lol.

[@cmc7280]

The roundabouts and traffic lights analogy is excellent.

[@the_bron_jame5139]

it is perfect, because it shows that under the socialist traffick lights those who arent privileged enough to have cars still have a time they can cross the road (welfare state, public education, workers rights), yet under the capitalist roundabout there is movement only in favour of the privileged car owners, at risk of those walkers (working class) being hit by a car (student debt, high interest rates on loans unregulated by govt, the risk of homelessness)

[@captain-chair]

To… Soviet Union style “socialism”, not to the ideology as a whole.

[@michaelblair6234]

A great speaker, engaging and with enough humor to keep the crowd engaged. Any, of course, correct.

[@Barthaneous34]

I lived in Long Island for most of my Life. And i loved the Round abouts. Riverhead NY had 3. So much better than lights. I wish Texas took advantage of this.

[@stephenlawrence4821]

It depends what you mean by socialism but certainly all the progress we've made in this country is due to what I'd call socialist ideas. Before socialism the poor had to work long hours in terrible conditions for barely enough to survive on. Almost destitute. Then if they couldn't find work they became destitute. If they got sick they could not afford treatment and many would end up in the work house which every one feared. Things got better with unions, workers rights, council housing, sick pay, pensions the national health service and free education. Many of these things have been gradually eroded since Thatcher with neo liberalism. Clearly unfettered capitalism doesn't work because the better off have an advantage and the worse off have very little power since they are forced to work long hours for low wages and pay rent they can barely afford in an attempt to avoid destitution. And that's freedom?? What we need is a great deal of intervention to allow equal opportunities and more even outcomes. Not completely even of course, but there is nothing good about some sleeping in shop doorways whilst others have £100's of millions and even billions of pounds. We can do much better than that whilst still allowing people to do well. I think we can raise the bottom and lower the top so everybody is ok. I think we should, its clearly morally wrong to have such suffering from inequality and a concentration of power in the hands of a very wealth minority. That takes socialist ideas along with democracy.

[@araeshkigal]

Ironically, here in the US -- at least in Texas -- the roundabout is slowly replacing traffic lights because all the studies indicate that if you just. put. proper. roundabout. protocol. into the Drivers' Education (it's not currently in there in most US schools), then they do, in fact, work better than traffic lights. ;)

[@fifthofascalante7311]

Fascinating analogy, the roundabout. Very good speech.

[@NGaugeVideo]

Well said John. I like the roundabout theme, very good argument and I agree with you fully that socialism does not work.....

[@redwater4778]

The UK turned socialist after WW2 and remain so until Margret Thatcher turned them capitalist . The UK now has a declining anglo birth rate and mass immigration . How did capitalism serve the people ?

[@GamingDad]

@@redwater4778 it made them richer and as a direct result the UK population found no need to overpopulated the world with children

[@redwater4778]

@@GamingDad How can reducing corporate tax then raising people tax make the people richer.?

[@ZerohCola]

As an American we are slowly working on the roundabout issue, but he's right, I nearly lost it. Haha

[@davidvarley1812]

So he thinks no one as had a accident at a round about. Interesting idea but obviously wrong.

[@BrianKing-xr7rw]

The best place to be a socialist or a communist is in a capitalist country..Clive Dern

[@miananor4304]

In every decade of recent history whether it be in the 80's, the date of this video and Cameron this year in the Commons, some Tory has always been making fun of Corbyns suit.

[@TheGroundHopper]

Jeremy Corbyn is like, "hww de fook es dis guy"

[@jakecostanza802]

People with a sense of humour should get to power. They’ll screw up just the same but we'll all have a few laughs on the way.

[@brianwilson49]

if you want to know the difference between socialism and the privilege of capitalism john redwood has just unintentionally outlined it beautifully. He spends most of the time playing the man not the ball because he KNOWS that equality is a basic human right and capitalism, by its very nature, must stand in the way of it.

[@Jim-so3zm]

OK... explain

[@coryabeel7160]

John Redwood has just brought me to tears. Absolutely powerful words. Bravo!

[@kulturfreund6631]

Bravo, dork!

[@L56S]

Well Done. John Redwood - An excellent speech. A Prme Minster in the making!

[@peterbrown3944]

Oh really!

[@peterbrown3944]

Oh really!

[@therespectedlex9794]

I'd never really thought much of John Redwood's abilities until now. There was nothing particularly wrong or strange about his traffic light, or roundabout analogy - it was a down to earth example of metaphor. Basically saying that a citizen can exercise more of their own judgement in a democratic capitalist system than in a communist one, similar to a driver in the circumstances described. Britain is very heavily in debt and pays an awful lot of money to finance the state, more compared to other countries. A nice face of socialism, perhaps would be nice, but our next prime minister might just be Tony Blair with a beard, or Ceausescu.

[@GMTabakova]

All the negative comments because all the jimmies got rustled so hard.

[@pitthayatornpanicha2155]

The individual who was President at that time is now serving as a member of the House of Representatives, acting as a genuine voice for the Thai people within the parliamentary system. This is a source of great pride for us, as well for the Oxford Union, which has nurtured and shaped a true representative of the Thai people.

[@cd78]

Every time I see John Redwood, I think of him singing that welsh national anthem in disgrace.