Socialism vs Capitalism | Full Debate | Yaron Brooks, Leo Panitch, Kemi Badenoch

Yaron Brooks, Leo Panitch, Kemi Badenoch debate whether there could be a form of socialism that could work?
From Stalin's gulags to weak growth in planned economies and the fall of the Berlin Wall, socialism has a chequered history. Is it a mistake to imagine that equality can be engineered by socialist planning? Should we be sceptical of those wrapped in fine ideals or is there a form of socialism that can deliver on the dream?
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
Leo Panitch | Yaron Brook | Kemi Badenoch | Mary Ann Sieghart
Equal is Unfair author Yaron Brook, economist and The Making of Global Capitalism author Leo Panitch, vice chair of the Conservative party for Candidates Kemi Badenoch and philosopher and activist Judith Balso debate the perils and promise of socialism.

[@brianschwarm8267]

Having a debate where you invite 1 socialist and have him debate 3 capitalists, that’s not very academic.

[@damonhage7451]

When your ideas are evil, you're lucky to be invited at all. So it would be more "academic" to invite flat-earthers to speak on geology in universities?

[@robertcurry389]

Brian Schwarm Well if his system is so full proof and has no issues like he claims than how can he lose?

[@jasonwalsh3267]

Exactly the red flags should be alarming.

[@wtfhah]

@@damonhage7451 No one on the stage really lets the guy speak without scoffing or attempting to deny out-of-hand what he's saying. I'll admit that Panitch acts overly defensive and surly at times, but his explanations of history and of the motions of social yearning and class conflict over time do not get any push-back from the other panelists. Because that's the rub. This Yaron character merely pulled the "That's not real capitalism!"-card for every example given of a failed or repressive capitalist state. So it's hypocritical to say that Leo can't also pull this card in support of his ideas. Let's not pretend there isn't a debate going on here. If Yaron and Kemi have conceded that the ruling and propertied classes dictate most social outcomes, whether in really existing capitalism or in really existing socialism, then Leo's already won 2/3's of the battle.

[@thegorb2653]

@@damonhage7451 when your ideas are evil? tell that to the victims of Chile under Pinochet.

[@alextsitovich9800]

None of them gave any definitions of what they defend and what they oppose. Therefore they could always say anything, and tell that opponents don't understand them. I can understand this for MPs, they are always want to speak unclear, but the same position of professors is horrible.

[@Amurphybartlett]

The cognitive dissonance in this vid is off the charts

[@HarmeetSinghWaliaHSW]

So it's a debate of 3 Vs 1. Very fair.

[@damonhage7451]

It's reality vs 1.

[@EmHotep4520]

Nigeria is quite certainly NOT a good example as to why socialism does not work. Almost laughable, if not so absurd.

[@xqt39a]

We have to factor in monopolies which form under capitalism, as today in the USA, free markets cease to exist and the quality of life degrades, I have seen it happen over my life time. Centralized control is the culprit, whether the system is nominally fascist, socialist or capitalist. Fuck, big agriculture has patented food.

[@doodelay]

In Leo's opening statement he used the same argument as modern priests use which is that, if one's core claim has been thoroughly repudiated over time, then redefine the claim as "not literal" or make it into a metaphor. In Leo's case, he said "socialism isn't an economic model" (It is) he says, "socialism is the warm element in human life aiming to unleash democratic, sympathetic reciprocity." And there, the debate was conceded in his opening act.

[@martybolonha]

Socialism and capitalism are working hand'n hand with each other... people do not realize that when we eager too much of one or the other we end up in a nocive state... we need the socialism and the capitalism at the same time.. because within our weaknesses we can compensate with our strengths... and, because we are all different human beings, my weaknesses can be your strength..

[@darinclark1853]

WHERE is the discussion around compulsion (under socialism) vs voluntarism (under capitalism)??

[@elsagrace3893]

Darin Clark you’ve got that backassward. In capitalism work is compulsory. Wages and position are not chosen. Work or die is the only choice.

[@danz309]

@@elsagrace3893 What do you mean wages and position are not chosen? I thought you are free to choose at what wage and what job you want to work on in capitalism. That doesn't mean others have to agree though.

[@michaelbrent6099]

Voluntarism is a disingenuously simple term. Bargaining power is hugely important, in fact to such a degree that calling it bargaining power relations would make more sense. Both the left and the right contain aspects of compulsion. You think government is the only source of power? I have some very obvious news for you.

[@LintRiggs_]

​@@elsagrace3893 Work or die is in nature itself, you moron. Do you honestly think life will hand you everything you need and hold you up without exerting effort? Try doing nothing in life and see how far you get. I mean, I guess if you have other people working hard to take their goods and hard earned cash you're alright to lounge about and do fuck all... Capitalism allows you to create the rich, fulfilling life you always wanted; to take a creative ability, a hobby, and make a living while doing it. "Working for the man" is not all capitalism. That's just where all inspired people end up. That's up to you if you want to do that or to go the other route and create a meaningful life and making a living while doing so. Socialism does not provide that. What is there to share when all those that put into society decide not to work because they see none of reward? Socialism provides equal sharing of misery.

[@gamerknown]

@@LintRiggs_ "Try doing nothing in life", solid, I'll just deputise someone to collect my rent or get an accountant to give me dividends from my inheritance

[@JohnSmith-wt7so]

Unfortunately, this was a waste of time. Leo Panitch merely presented a word salad where he just made up his own, generally vague, definitions. There wasn't even an attempt to present a coherent position or argument.

[@willfoley6758]

John Smith lmao are you crazy ? He was talking about why places like China and Russia and Cuba did not have the proper conditions , you know being poor as fuck and as a result of being under pressure from attacks from the west, had to develop a centralized beautocratic system. He’s advocating democratic socialism, which focuses on co ops not state control and democratic elections, real socialism is an increase of democracy both in the workplace and in the political spheres. Just because you don’t know what a definition means, doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean something.

[@willfoley6758]

John Smith the other side literally just named countries, how is that more convincing ? Could you tell me anything about the history of any socialist society and what they did wrong specifically? Because these people didn’t ? Can you ?

[@kurokamei]

Of course, he then can be premiscuous with his terms and arguments.

[@kurokamei]

@@willfoley6758 Those countries were and some are still poor because of planned economy. Thats part of socialism tenets.

[@Oners82]

@@kurokamei No, they were poor because their economies were centrally planned (which is not what Pantich advocated) and because they were at economic warfare with the West. Most socialists that I am aware of today advocate a decentralised-planned economy in which workers rather than the state control the means of production via a democratic process. To conflate these two radically different systems is just a straw man argument. And you of course ignore the inconvenient fact that the majority of capitalist countries are in fact extremely poor as well. Try going to Africa or India and see how well your magical capitalist system is doing there... And as for Panitch, what he made made perfect sense regardless of whether you two clowns understood his terminology or not.

[@anthonyvigil7567]

I’m not a Trump supporter or right wing at all but I would really prefer that the government who slaughtered my native ancestors not to have more power in this country than they already do

[@cromwellfluffington1627]

15:50 Capitalist Dictatorship? Again, why is it that anti-capitalists seem to not understand what capitalism is?

[@DavidWBeck]

It would have been better if they had an actual socialist there. 😅

[@EmHotep4520]

This discussion will be served better if Richard Wolff was there.

[@edwarddongres7866]

People who like Capitalism live in Capitalism. People who like Socialism are FREE to move there. Escaping Socialism is much harder.

[@MrJoeybabe25]

What was not discussed and what Yaron should have brought up at some point, is the great divergence between democracy and freedom. Leo Panitch was animated over the concept of democracy (it shouldn't even have the privilege of the title "concept", it is an old, useless idea in the realm of philosophy) as it applies to the structure of government. Is something good because it is arrived at by a democratic process? Would he approve of democratic Nazism, or democratic Apartheid, for example? Should such systems be allowed in the political arena? Is democracy Holy Writ? Yaron should have pushed on this subject. More freedom naturally means less democracy, and liberty lovers should be proud of that. Democratic capitalism is an oxymoron. I would have preferred a debate more on the merits of freedom over democracy. The only room for democracy in a free state is for the organization of a government which has the EXPLICIT duty and responsibility to protect individual rights; and nothing more.

[@K03R53]

I do not think the panel is balanced at all. It seems like it pitches three anti-socialists versus one democratic socialist. It marginalizes the Socialist position from the very beginning on.

[@sybo59]

NDO|Undd. True, but it’s also true that he had nothing to say. Things wouldn’t have gone much different had it been one-on-one.

[@dnbjedi]

...we're used to it, eh? how can she separate corporatism from capitalism???? Does not the one need the other???? these people dont understand him and use the same old tired arguments

[@d.joseph98]

NDO|Undd. Because they want to socialist to lose

[@damonhage7451]

Reality marginalized the socialist position. That is like saying the debate about the shape of the earth isn't balanced because half of the scientists don't think the earth is flat.

[@matt22blaster]

@18:39 Perfect

[@monkerud2108]

Argument from personal exsperience has the major issue that what you exsperienced doesnt allow you to group what every other human is thinking into an anaøutical argument, just by virtue of you not liking nigerian «socialism»

[@idesofmarchUNIAEA]

2:49 achieved by government coercion, and brutal force. Charming!!!

[@Linda-zb6zq]

So here is a way forward that will help Western capitalism be more integrated with democracy. It is pretty simple. Employees should b provided profit sharing. They make the products and provide the services. This should b a expense prior to tax assessments. This would insure all parties work together to make a profit rather than against each other.

[@atwarwithdust]

“The mainstream pre-pandemic triumphalist narrative that extreme poverty is nearing eradication is unjustified by the facts and fosters complacency. It relies largely on the World Bank’s measure of extreme poverty, which has been misappropriated for a purpose for which it was never intended. More accurate measures show only a slight decline in the number of people living in poverty over the past thirty years. The reality is that billions face few opportunities, countless indignities, unnecessary hunger, and preventable death, and remain too poor to enjoy basic human rights. Much of the progress reflected under the Bank’s line is due not to any global trend but to exceptional developments in China, where the number of people below the IPL dropped from more than 750 million to 10 million between 1990 and 2015, accounting for a large proportion of the billion people ‘lifted’ out of poverty during that period. This is even starker under higher poverty lines. Without China, the global headcount under a $2.50 line barely changed between 1990 and 2010. And without East Asia and the Pacific, it would have increased from 2.02 billion to 2.68 billion between 1990 and 2015 under a $5.50 line.” - Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/8/30/the-moral-egregiousness-of-poverty-is-worse-than-ever-before-in-history

[@tawongamunyanduri5874]

I live in Africa and I can testify that the black lady tells the truth all African countries adopted some form of socialism and look at us ,vote for a socialist and this is ur future

[@EmHotep4520]

Socialism does not and or did not compromise afrika. Europeans compromised afrika. The sellout leadership across afrika added to to dysfunction of that continent.

[@tyrvinodinson9790]

Socialism is democracy. Workers control of the production, distribution and exchange of goods and services. Democracy is socialist

[@VincenzoInfi]

Good joke.

[@Oners82]

Did she really try and call the Nazis socialist??? Jeez man, credibility instantly destroyed!

[@Oners82]

@Granblue I know what it stands for genius, but they were not socialists, it was just a propaganda ploy to try to get leftist groups in Germany on their side. By your idiotic reasoning the Soviet Union and North Korea were/are democratic just because they claim(ed) to be. Check out my post to the other guy for a list of experts all proving you wrong.

[@Oners82]

@J P I'm the ignorant one?! I don't think so pal, anybody who thinks that the Nazis were socialists doesn't have a clue what they are talking about, it is just a lie spread by far right-wingers to try to distance themselves from fascism. Here you are, take your own advice and do some reading and then if you have any intellectual integrity at all (which I doubt) you can admit that YOU are in fact the ignorant one: www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists Or try this from a historian who absolutely OWNED a guy making the claim you are making: www.indy100.com/article/nazi-socialist-right-wing-white-supremacists-history-twitter-mikestuchbery-7900001 Or from Snopes: "The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality." Or from Politico: "Despite the name, the Nazi Party was never considered socialist in Germany... We should not try to rewrite history now... It was in no sense a socialist economy or a socialist ideology. You shouldn’t confuse it by absolutely objectively false invoking of Nazis." From historian Ian Kershaw: "Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions..." From historian Richard J. Evans: "Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism." Get the point yet or do you need a few more quotes from experts? Now remind me, who is the ignorant one here... Better luck next time ;)

[@AbhilashKorraprolu]

@Pneumonocolvocanomicroscopicsilicolvocano-coniosis Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims have been anti each other for centuries and have hunted down each other too. Sister ideologies have often been against each other. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were buddies until the war.

[@Backwardsman95]

They were authoriarian above all else. Many countries can pick and choose elements from the right and left but the scale from authority to liberty is far more telling.

[@JoinTheTemple]

Well they were certainly inspired by the socialists. They are all versions of collectivism. All equally evil (communism, socialism, fascism). All on "the Left". If you read what Hitler wrote as the Nazi manifesto it reads very, very similarly to the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. So sure, there were some key differences, but they are all authoritarian, collectivist, leftist, evil ideologies.

[@joshuawhinery208]

Socialist: pie in the sky & people have a yearning for Socialism (absent any specific policies) Capitalists: no one wants to live in socialist states & more capitalism is always better (ignoring inborn inequity and pure markets being totally devoid of any incentives for compassionate altruism) There are plenty of good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but none were coherently made here. All debaters were using hyperbolic language, appealing to emotion and dodging any legitimate critique of their positions, of which there are many to be made.

[@GhostEmblem]

In terms of specific policies the most popular ones atm it would be: medicare for all and UBI but there are probably a few more that are less popular. I just think there are certain aspect of socialism we can and maybe should implement and others that should give us cause for concern. I agree with the last part completely, debates are just not a good method of assessing the values or validity of an idea, statement or suposition. Getting invested parties to try to convince others they are right whilst only being allowed to speak in 5 min soundbites like some kind of irl twitter feed is asinine.

[@TheJettyJetShow]

If u can’t explain how to implement your ideas into society succinctly in 5 minutes, or every chance you get, how do you expect the masses, who are not intellectuals to understand it. Sounds like instructions for failure.

[@rumco]

Leo Panitch: You see, central planning is a special case of USSR. Everyone else points at all the other socialist states having central planning. Leo Panitch: So?

[@davidgau3477]

There is so much bullshit on this video i cannot stand for. A Woman from Nigeria, continent historically destroyed and collonized by, as she call it "Occident", territory that has became rich out of colonialism and slavery of third world countries during all XIX, XX and XXI centuries, says Socialism does not work, because "Hey!" people from third world, actually wants to go to Occident!. (26 people has in the world the same wealth than 50% of human population, but this one doe work!), but, Really?! You know something about Plan Condor for Latin America? About French and British Colonialism on Africa? Really? More FRIED CHICKEN.. You compare countries that were historically undeveloped liked TZAR´s Russia or Kuomintang China, that became world powers after Socialism, from farmers countries to Space and Nuclear powers whith historically colonialist powers that has rule the world all over the XX century? and we are suppose to take you seriously?. But let me go further, lets do a Fair comparison, and enough with the Fried Chichen, don't Compare South Corea that received more economic help from the Marshall´s Plans than all Europe combined after WW2 with north corea that barely has the Soviet Union that was recovering from defeating the 75%of Nazis Army in the most terrible world in human history, while the EEUU didnt have mayor damages on its country... lets use Brazil, Brazil has similar human and material sources than Tzaris Russia since 1905, (and didnt have to fight in 2 WW and a Civil War like Russia or China).. why under almost 1 century of Capitalism in Brazil, 80% of population of Brazil still live with a standard of life of Central Africa? Why the favela is still increasing? whats the plan within Capitalism for the 87% of human population that actually live in the Third World, which rol in this Global Theatre is to feed the development of EEUU and EU? Dont do Fried Chicken comparisons, Cuba has been historically a poor country, its lack of sources, barely Niquel and Tabaco, and still is way better situation, despises the Blockade, than all the countries of its enviroment and with similar material base conditions, lets lookt at Santo Domingo, or Haití, where is the success of Capitalism for those countries? No one, because their are not suppose to develop, their are just suposed to be the Back Garden of the EEUU Imperialism, so was the Cuba of Batista, and so is for all Latin America under neoliberlism, thats what Plan Condor was about, or we have to rembember all the dictators "Occident" set up in Latin America or Africa to keep them as the back garden tfor "Occident"? Rafael Videla, Augusto Pinochet, Bordaberry, Castelo Blanco, Batista, Barrientos...etc If Socialism fails by it owns, then there is no need to do embargo to Venezuela, Cuba, to kill Salvador Allende and set Pinochet, to kill Gadafi and let warlords rule Lybia, to kill Thomas Sankara or Che Guevara, to set Nelson Mandela as "terrorist", jus let them fail by their own.. like China today, weak, small, and undevel... oh!

[@Silly.Old.Sisyphus]

How to keep the attention on yourself when you have nothing interesting to say: yell every fifth phrase! I don't know about you, but i find this all too common American pontificator behaviour very irksome.

[@noahsherwood2445]

Yaron is talking out of his ass. Socialism in Spain failed for a reason, its because fascists massacred them when they declared autonomy. Also, Rojava and Chiapas are doing very well for themselves as socialists

[@dnbjedi]

"Capitalism. Downfall." -Hitchens last words Maybe his two favorite songs. Maybe not.

[@gamerknown]

He was arrested protesting the Vietnam war and sang L'Internationale at his trial, so presumably he hoped for the downfall of capitalism

[@Daimo83]

Four minutes in and Yaron Brooks ends the discussion.

[@elsagrace3893]

Ya Ron Brooks is an angry blathering idiot.

[@thegreatonecometh200]

3 against 1

[@Oners82]

No, 2 against 1. The moderator challenged both sides.

[@damonhage7451]

It really was reality against 1.

[@doug604]

The pro-capitalists are so hung up on the common misconception that socialism means a centrally planned economy. The most popular modern idea of socialism is one in which the market is retained and enterprises are owned collectively by those who work there, not by the state. Not much else would change from what we have now. The only reason it would require state coercion to implement is that capitalists would have to be made to give up their private ownership. What must be remembered, though, is that private ownership (i.e. capitalism) only came into being and persists through the coercive power of the state.

[@doug604]

Of course, certain jobs within an enterprise are more demanding, and they could receive a greater share of profits. This share could be democratically decided within the enterprise, with the state setting limits both on the maximum and minimum one can receive in certain circumstances (e.g. the founder of a co-op could be guaranteed a greater share for a certain number of years, but no more than eight times the smallest share of a worker within the enterprise). This system is better than wages for a number of reasons, not least of which is that workers would actually give a damn about the enterprise doing well.

[@MrQwer1606]

@@doug604 ​ this kind of company is possible right now. There is no need for any "state coercion". Start this kind of company or production. Win competition race on free market. Other people as see success will follow and make more this kind of companies. Everyone happy. If it is really so good for worker capitalists will lose all employees what will force them to shut down their business. No person oppressed by the state.

[@chrisknorr1326]

Yaron Brook is the only one here who clearly defines what they're are actually talking about... Using violence to coerce individual people out of what they work for, ostensibly for the benefit of the less fortunate. It baffles me that in a discussion about socialism the question of force is completely evaded. She goes, "I didn't mention VIOLENCE!?" No, she just completely evaded the question...lol

[@robertdove6660]

Socialism appeals to victims. Pour souls who can't get there shit together and blame everyone else. I have failed multiple times in life and only have myself to blame, and made myself better.

[@jadedoak8868]

Brook. No s.

[@ericsmith4908]

Debates about socalism, even in very formal settings, are basically a waste of time because its impossible to find someone on the anti-socalism side who even fucking knows what it is

[@prioritytree]

Kemi Badenoch is the only one that really brought up the difference between Corporatism and true Free Market Capitalism. The problem with what is called capitalism today is that Corporate Crony capitalism is always used as the definition of what true free market capitalism is. It is not an honest representative of FMC. It (FMC)could truly achieve success if it wasn't being squashed by corrupt and lawless, huge Corporate megaliths. Corporate personhood one of the major problems.

[@prioritytree]

And in that light you can see that many of the Massive Corporate entities that hide under the mantle of free market capitalism are not that much different than Totalitarian socialist dictatorships, although the record shows in the last century, at least in the west the common citizen has had more freedom under Corrupt Capitalism than under Socialist totalitarian states. Although true , Just, free market capitalism is best. One big enemy of it is Corporate personhood, we need to get rid of that.

[@ivankrushensky]

"Socialist Dreams"....that's about as far as it goes...A DREAM. Socialism never takes into account the human nature to be lazy and use one another.

[@Tom-lg9ee]

central planning is bad. if i ran the country i would take over the finance industry to develop the projects i like

[@mumpygumboo8554]

Panitch really knocks it out of the park especially at 25:50

[@jamesmadison3580]

Remind ALL Repug-Bull-KLANs... Repug-Bull-KLANs are the SOCIALIST all you have to do is look at our deficit $8 trillion Bush tax cut - 20 million jobs promised "0" jobs created $1 trillion state & federal tax breaks to move 17 million jobs from red states overseas. Don't forget that 13.5 million of those 17 million jobs went to trumps commie china $2.8 trillion trump tax cut - 3 million jobs promised and as usual none created That is $11.8 trillion in SOCIALISM is A-OK for the Rich 100% deficit spending by so called free market limited gov fiscal conservatives and yes you voted for that.

[@ivandate9972]

what if people democratically does not want free trade ?

[@kurokamei]

What does that mean? Does that mean people voted a policy that restrict free market and gov enforce it? Does that limit other individual to practice business without gov restriction?

[@michaeluhen1794]

I would argue that you’re infringing on an individual’s rights. You have the freedom to not buy from those that participate in free trade but you cannot force people to do something that you see as the greater good. It’s omnipotent that we protect everyone’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[@damonhage7451]

Then you ignore them. Democracy is evil.

[@heathkitchen4315]

Socialism is A and B deciding C should pay for D.

[@elsagrace3893]

Heath Kitchen socialism is production for the people’s needs without profit. No one profits. No owner, no state, no person. The production fulfills the needs of the people and nothing more. What good is profit? Profit is for hoarding only. It does no good in the world.

[@nthperson]

The right response to socialism, or communism, or anarchy, or fascism, or monopoly privilege (i.e., what we too easy refer to as "capitalism") is found in the writings of Henry George. Remove all monopoly privileges from the systems of law and taxation and the result is cooperative individualism: full equality of opportunity, full individual liberty, within a cooperative social framework. To paraphrase Adam Smith, the role of government is to ensure that a fair field with no favors exists. Markets operate efficiently and fairly when none of the participants enjoys privilege. Few understood better than Henry George the true nature of privilege and what must be done to remove all forms of privilege from our socio-political arrangements and institutions. Of these, he counted "rentier" (i.e., landed) privilege as the most destructive to the promise of democracy. Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A., Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

[@micahrodriguez4580]

@YexaC Unfortunately, I must agree.

[@micahrodriguez4580]

Are you talking about a system based on barter instead of on currency?

[@idriwzrd]

The sad thing is that this is a continuing debate at this point in our history. Perhaps it speaks to peoples' gullibility that socialism is not yet universally accepted as the failure that it is.

[@MrFrdrcknorman]

Democracy is like watching sausage being made, you don't want to watch, but you like the outcome.

[@Anon-xd3cf]

Socialism can either be done *"by the people FOR the people"* Or *"by the people TO the people"* The difference is a matter of migration.

[@DDCrp]

Tyranny of the majority... Or plurality. Who gets to define what is and is not FOR the people? The shape of a government shouldnt plan the shape of peoples' personal destinies. Its too simplistic and peoples rights and personal discretion is lost in the command models

[@shirleyreese6832]

Social democracy is NOT socialist communism. Get some dictionary definitions. We have a perfect socialism Tinging on Fascism with the fact, the fact that Exxon gets a govt subsidy of over 275 million dollars each year here in America. It's the citizens oil, gas, land but the fat fascism cats get the money /subsidy welfare check, and the profit.

[@mickeylara2111]

The most successful countries have a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism this includes the USA.

[@JoinTheTemple]

And... Brooks for the clear win. Kemi was not bad either. But Leo...? Oh boy.

[@MLinaresSR47]

Fully enjoyed this debate and exchange of points of argument. Also, the many comments posted of the failure of, “Socialism” appear to be as, (“fait acompli?) Question, take the case of, “Americans,” albeit, other nation states before the Puritans’ landing on Plymouth Rock,” The US is premiered as, “America,” no other countries,” have made the claim-we are “Americans, odd?”) I digressed, I’d welcome comments, in regards to the question, where has Democratic Socialism has been tried, as a model, and not been led by Fascist or authoritarian rule? Better yet, with the exception of Cuba-a democratic socialistic movement and voted by a large segment of it’s people, who’s duly elected leaders have been, as in the past, removed by the efforts of those mostly affected (military coups or some clandestine ops.) Take the case of Venezuela-hardly a good example-due to US Sanctions and embargoes that only disrupt their economy and punishes the very people with food shortages. Bolivia, Ecuador, and Central American nations-the list goes on.

[@ethicalcage7324]

Yaron needs to debate Chris hedges or Peter Joseph hed get his *(( handed to him

[@damonhage7451]

Yaron would or these other people? Because that is highly doubtful.

[@JoinTheTemple]

Yaron would kick Joseph to the curb. He (Joseph) would have no chance.

[@marktomasetti8642]

The gentleman arguing for socialism seems very bright and well educated, but he has no concept of how to argue a point. Unfortunately, he also seems to have communication issues. From his speech patterns it sounds like the context in which he commonly discusses such topics must be symposiums of his PhD students or perhaps groups of his peer professors. The couple arguing for capitalism have clearly spoken to average-ish college and high school grads. They also have actual points they make and which the socialist only addresses in the most oblique ways. Not a fair fight; match halted on account of illness. Get someone on the left who can hold his own in a debate. Its really getting tiring hearing the "strong [one-side], weak [other-side]" debates - it doesn't reveal anything useful. Is it impossible to get 2 competent sides on the same stage?

[@gamerknown]

03:30 - Socialism is present in mondragon, in the weekend, in limitations on the working day, in trade unions, in universal primary education. All of these things were and are opposed by capitalists. Human nature is not a monolith and we are capable of responding in different ways at different times. For example, humans can be extraordinarily compassionate, but we can also perpetrate massacres in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. The ancient Greeks thought slavery was inherent to human nature, because their economic system depended on it. 04:30 - The notion that the individual doesn't matter - is the product of capitalism, which socialism always is the corollary to. Capitalism compels people to produce conjointly, eradicating differences in aptitude by homogenising individual differences. It eradicates borders and nations, makes it untenable to subsist on agriculture as that would be an unprofitable use of land. It eliminates the commons. Capitalism claims equality under law and the principle of "one person, one vote", then confronts us with stark inequality. Socialism is the natural revolt when people want to retain their individuality under such a totalising trend. 06:40 - North Korea was formed after a war in which the United States killed around 2.5m civillians, roughly 5% of the population of Korea at that time and occupied the South. 18:40 - You're an MP. You don't get to complain about the ruling class. 19:50 - The West looted their countries for several centuries. "We are here because you were there". 22:50 - Socialism and central planning don't work anywhere, Mao was a socialist, China is a successful example of alleviating poverty? 28:20 - "The Jewish people would disagree" - conflating class with race? 33:30 - Capitalism is responsible for extraordinary progress... but it doesn't exist. 34:20 - Pretty much every capitalist was thrilled. IBM, Coca Cola, Porsche, BMW, all profited massively. As for whether it's only public sector employees striking - nonsense. Check here: maps.clb.org.hk/strikes/en. 35:00 - Hitler: "The bourgeois world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people--that is to say, the bourgeoisie--being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews. Over against all this, the VÖLKISCH concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the VÖLKISCH principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the VÖLKISCH concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality." - www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf 39:50 - www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25693/kemi_badenoch/saffron_walden/votes - against the central government, voted against devolution and free movement of labour within the EU. She's also wrong to say you see more black women in science: www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/degreesbyrace.cfm

[@VincenzoInfi]

Thank you for proving unequivocally why Socialism is a cancer in this world!

[@tolun99]

The way Leo Panitch talks must be the definition of wishy washy.

[@ArielBenAvraham]

Greed will win!

[@arkkk1294]

Another Canadian pointing finger at others, instead of fixing their own issues first...man, my country is going so far left...Canada needs to find a healthy balance.

[@mightbeahuman3442]

Once upon a time, a teacher decided to try socialism in her class. Every test She would take 20 points from the students who worked really well and gave those 20 points to the students with low grades. The smart kids noticed that no matter how hard they studied they would always get around a 70%, so they stopped trying. The not as smart kids noticed that the smart kids were always giving them points so they decided to stop trying because they thought they were being taken care of. At first it looked like a way of making everyone have a passing grade, it seemed like a great idea, but then it lead to chaos with no one working, no one gaining, and the whole system failing.

[@BinanceUSD]

Yaron well said !! Capitalism is amazing

[@mickeylara2111]

The problem with Socialism, Communism and Capitalism is they are economics of exploitation. We need to think in classical economics that is, how do we make a society of low cost so that the working class has massive spending power. What we have now is high cost and high debt.

[@micahrodriguez4580]

I favor a free exchange society based almost entirely on barter instead of on currency exchange...

[@VincenzoInfi]

@@micahrodriguez4580 so do you prefer Socialism or Capitalism

[@yungcommi]

These people have no clue

[@amosiren]

Isn't it interesting the non socialists are so easy to follow and understand, and then the socialist talks and you're like wtf is he talking about, ambiguous garbage that makes no sense.

[@Oners82]

amosiren Only if you are an uneducated idiot. Made perfect sense to me.

[@ordoabchao5894]

Capitalist does work but, it needs Judeo-Christian model, that is charity and Christian values and models. The problem is not capitalist but GREED. Our weak elected officials are easily influenced by greed which has led us to entertain socialist ideology with it's inevitable doom.

[@christiansoldier77]

Ordo Ab chao This is a truth that most people will never comprehend.

[@mikekimveteran]

This guy promoting globalization is just using generalized comments. The stats are off not based on quality of life. Income does equate wellness and quality of life. Unbridled markets is the problem. As a man who served 4 times for America and a man who is a true defender of the American way, I look at how Abe Lincoln and Marx were in dialogue about the revolution of ending slavery! Fact! I am about claiming my vet rights in the GI Bill , a vast socialist program giving many of my banker vet friends their way out of the poor Rust Belt lives... Fact! The history of American riots goes back to the founding of the country in Shay's Rebellion and the Philly Mutiny... Both Vet revolutions. Fact! I go back to vet rights in the Bonus Army... Fact! To pretend that socialism is not part of US history is a lie. We started supporting the farmer! Jefferson... Land grants and Land Grant Universities were part of American socialism. Btw, we have commodified everything from Joel Osteen to Divorce Court. Ask what happens to an unemployed father not being able to see his child? That is commodification. Class warfare has existed for many years. We can go back to Greece and Rome and look at how class ruined the Republic. Case Study, Julius Caesar! He was the general who was from the people who conquered lands that no other general could not conquer, and yet the elite feared him because the masses loved Caesar. He was not part of the elite. This revolution sadly led to the Empire. Greece, Athens had an elite that dominated the area. This led to the breakdown of Greek society. Class warfare in feudal Europe in the name of religion was widespread. It was not the Luther's faith that led to his break with Rome, it was his nationalism and his conflict with Rome's class domination of the Germanic Catholic Areas. Mao in China fought against the elites. He aligned with farmers who were being robbed. These revolutions did not just surface out of the blue. Russian Revolution was tied to 20 million people under slavery and indentured servitude that happened just WW1. Socialism and capitalism have both failed. I think America under FDR and Kennedy and Eisenhower and Carter are great expressions of American economic hybridity.

[@Storabrost]

28:04 - Zing!

[@liammitchel765]

Have to give credit to socialism propagandists. Despite clear proof of disaster after disaster with socialist systems in place they still manage to engage people in debates about merits of socialism! What a cheek!

[@andreaquino5596]

This is incorrect. Every government who you people claim have failed because of socialism, actually fell for the leaders own capitalist ambitions. Stop calling dictatorial systems like the nazis, soviets or venezuela socialism disasters when they're actually fascism underwritten by capitalist ambitions. Yall need to pick a history book and actually comprehend instead of just reading.

[@plerpplerp5599]

Same can be said of Capitalism. It also has its fair share of disasters. One idea that springs to mind is the subprime mortgage scandal which led to the near bankruptcy of governments and a world wide banking crisis. So why do you think that?

[@FletchforFreedom]

@@andreaquino5596 Of course no serious history book says anything like you suggest. And Hayek pointed out why the worst get on top of socialist systems (which has nothing to do with capitalism) more than 80 years ago.

[@FletchforFreedom]

@@plerpplerp5599 You couldn't defend that assertion if your life depended on it. I defy you to point to a "disaster" that was not the direct result of state (and, thus, by definition, not capitalist) action - the Great Depression and the Great Recession (caused by Fed policy and the actions of government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created an artificial market - the exact *opposite* - again, by definition, of capitalism). This is the standard socialist apologia - blame its own failures on capitalism.

[@xelakram]

These people need to define their terms better. Are they talking about socialism or communism? The lady from Nigeria talked about the government owning everything which leads to corruption. That's not socialism, but communism. Private ownership is allowed in socialism; the government doesn't own everything. By the way, I am no fan of either socialism or communism, but when speaking about something, it is good to get one's facts straight.

[@abrambadal8997]

Socialism is not at all identity politics , individual vs Social interests ; but freedom for all from class exploitation and destruction of wealth by putting in tax--heavens against progress of all and social security and well beig for all !!! We could be living today 300 years young , if true socialism was applied and researches for life prolongation was not forbidden by wealth stocking by rich that cannot spend those vast hidden wealth and waste of resources and natural wealth , resulting from collective social activities of all members of society ! We could have lived on three or four planets , instead of putting civilization and one planet in danger of extinction !!!

[@williampennjr.4448]

equality is rarely fair, and fairness rarely results in equality. Bill doesnt work and earns no money, John works earning $100. Pay bill $100 then they both have equal amounts of money but not fair wages. Pay them both $100 (equal pay) and John still has $100 more than Bill, not equal.

[@BuyTheDip627]

Yaron is in a totally different league. I wanted to like the Nigerian girl, but unfortunately she doesn't have a proper understanding of capitalism. I cringed when she said capitalism is about small business.

[@ladyhomeborn1447]

At 44 years old I’m finally interested enough to be allowing myself to hear all sides of these models. I’m naturally alienated from capitalism while far from sold in socialism. As a feminist (not going to say which kind because I haven’t settled anywhere), and as someone who is extremely sensitive to what inflections communicate on top of context, I must say the men here have failed to convince me to go their ways, especially the conservative preacher- his emphatic inflection causes me physical tension. Listen to the women- they are calm, cool, and collected. Im not saying I don’t get emphatic. I happen to be a screamer.

[@jessicaantle1778]

Is it really so complicated to do the right thing. In a world of excess there is no reason that we should suffer from lack of basic needs. Is it ridiculous idea that our basic human needs (healthcare, housing, food...) should be met with consequences for the working class and poor. We should still have a system for rewards (better jobs that we actually enjoy, a nicer car, and other personal rewards) meanwhile haveing our needs met and all of this bundled up into a nice little package? Does this have to be Socialism vs Capitalism? Why can’t it be both?

[@Banjo-ed5vv]

Socialism is nationalizing the means of production. A well funded social programme and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.

[@michaeluhen1794]

Jessica Barkat, you cant claim something is a human right and expect it to become immune to scarcity. South Africa claimed housing is a human right but they have a housing shortage. Healthcare is controlled by the government in Canada and the UK and both are experiencing doctor shortages. In the US, social security is a scam. According to PolitiFact, you’re expected to receive as much $966,000 in benefits from social security. If you used the money they’re taking for SS and made a small 5% return (8% is avg return so 5% is easy), you would have $1.74 million. Bottom line: do not let the government take control of your life. They will feed themselves before they feed you or me.

[@billmelater6470]

The problem is that these basic needs are not basic rights. You do not have a right to have. Rights can only ever be logically thought of as a right to pursue with no guarantee of result, NOT a right to have. Houses do not build themselves by right. Food will not fall into your lap by right. Doctors and Hospitals do not appear by right. To assert a right to those things is illogical. The only way to secure the right to have, is to first secure the power to take from those that do. A house must be built. For you to have a right to a house means that someone else must be compelled by whatever force necessary to build it for you without the requirement of compensation. You have then created a contradictory world view where your rights are predicated upon the idea that someone else does not have rights. It is the same for healthcare. You have only the right to do unto yourself what will make you happy. Anything you cannot do must be traded for. Healthcare is a service. For you to have it by right means that someone must at the end, be a doctor regardless of their feelings on the matter. That doctor will then have no choice but to serve you for you to have it by right. And if you or someone else cannot pay, for you to have this service by right, you must then have by right the necessary wealth to pay for the service which still in turn means that someone else must labor and produce that wealth for you to have it by right and they have no choice but to create so that you may take. You must understand that what you cannot do for yourself may only ever be traded for or forcefully taken. Government does not magically circumvent scarcity. Government cannot magically make houses or food appear. Government is only ever capable of using force to appropriate. By using government as a middle man to secure the right to have is the same as hiring a mugger to violate your neighbors. Socialism is a system built on a contradiction of rights that relies on the plundering of wealth, not it's creation.

[@billmelater6470]

*A well funded social programme and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.* They are only not mutually exclusive if the programs are funded through wholly voluntary means. Taxation is not voluntary. For it to be voluntary, individuals would have the open ability to choose when and how much to give as well as the ability not to give without reprisal.

[@elsagrace3893]

Bill Melater tax is what we pay for being part of the society. You have a choice not to pay. Just go live in the wilderness alone and do not contact us ever again. No problems.

[@seanhallahan9142]

Leo literally really said nothing...

[@JacobSmith-we8xw]

Yaron seems to live in the 21stcentury where big tech doesn't make money off from every thought you share with your phone. In the real capiltist world every thought you have makes someone else money.

[@terrychamberlin8242]

Tell someone that he is free as he sleeps in a doorway in a capitalist world

[@mattmiles9779]

I mean, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

[@Vic2point0]

Even granting both sides their caricatures of the opposition, it seems I'm giving my money to one rich, powerful, and evil group or another (corporations or government officials). But only with one of those groups can I suddenly decide, on my own, to stop giving them money and not end up dead or in prison for my trouble. I think I'll stick with capitalism.

[@seankelly378]

Government is actually accountable to the people , corporations are only accountable to their share holders

[@yo.mama100]

marcs hated the lower class as well as the upper class . he called the lower class trash and thought any other races than what he was were inferier

[@sybo59]

Wow, what strikingly empty bullshit for the socialist. I should k ow better, but I always expect a better showing from them. This was reminiscent of the utter destruction in 1984 debate on socialism wrought by Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath (which is a far more entertaining debate, btw, and available on KZbin!).

[@ivandate9972]

Kemi Badenoch are so smart

[@billmelater6470]

Socialists like to think of their system as one of kindness and sharing. This is utterly false. Sharing by its definition denotes a wholly voluntary act. You are not "sharing" if it is forced. You are not "donating" if it is forced. You are not "charitable" if you are forced to give or if you force others to give. Now before I get the "I pay taxes voluntarily" argument, understand that the first criteria in a voluntary act is the option not to act and that this option carries with it no personal consequence. You do not have the option without forceful reprisal to stop giving taxes, so lets dispense with that argument right off. Likewise, cooperation must also be voluntary. Cooperation as a concept is underpinned by the idea that you are not allowed to take other people's stuff or use their labor without their willful consent. Capitalism, underpinned by an idea of private property and self ownership naturally extends to cooperation as taking would be a violation of property and self ownership. Socialism has no such qualms. It is a system that is built upon a system of State Legalized Plunder where groups vote or otherwise empower the government to take from those that have and give it to them. There is no cooperation or trade needed if you can use a thug to simply take it. Government does not provide. It is only capable of forceful taken. You cannot grant it power to give without also granting it the power to first take. It is often said that Socialism is a system of charity and kindness. I will refute that and say that if your are truly kind and charitable, then you will have no need of any of the controls inherent within Socialism. The only people who need to be forced to be kind or charitable are not themselves truly able to be considered either, but would dawn their masks to instead appear as such and hide the ugliness beneath.

[@rd10]

Listen to some up this whole debate in a few words, socialism can only work in theory but it has and NEVER will work in practice. The End.

[@mikkellarsen660]

Yaron is the man. Too bad he did not get more time to speak. These other people were just terrible...

[@jackharrington2752]

“We are socialist, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economy weak, with it’s unfair salaries, it’s unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property” -Adolf Hitler

[@JohnDoe-sw1sm]

Hitler didn't say that, Gregor Strasser. He was later removed from the party and killed in night of long knives. Hitler hated socialism.

[@camerongrant4595]

Tfw you literally label all the shit of capitalism as "corporatism" and then claim that you can separate the two.

[@JoinTheTemple]

You can, if you got the State out of meddling in the economy.

[@tyrvinodinson9790]

This is bullshit. You have 2 capitalists against 1 socialist for a start. But to get to the guts of the difference. A capitalist is about individual right to make as much as possible by any means, because a true capitalist thinks laws are in the way of them making as much as possible. A socialist believes you should share everything you make with everyone around you, the better you do, the more you can share. That's the guts of it.

[@HarmeetSinghWaliaHSW]

Yaron asks the audience to think how their lives would be living on less than $2 a day, as 95% of the world's population did 50 years ago. Has he not heard of a thing called Time Value of Money? Money loses value over time. What $2 can buy today, they won't be able to buy 10 years later because money loses value over time due to inflation. Surely, then, 50 years ago these same $2 could buy one a lot more than they can today! Also, and equally importantly, he is asking this question to an elite audience, probably at a posh location in London.

[@kurokamei]

Thats was after accounting on the devaluation of money. 2 dollsr is right

[@damonhage7451]

Fadhlie is right, it was inflation adjusted, but also money doesn't intrinsically lose value over time, just as a side note. Money in a capitalist economy would gain value over time. The only reason our money loses value over time is because the Federal Reserve is intentionally devaluing the currency so the government can steal through inflation.

[@nomanhossain8190]

Kemi Badenoch is an amazing speaker! The fluffy socialist made me fall asleep.

[@jackhlms3116]

Whascallly wabbit

[@mick947]

Compassionate capitalism great... capitalism without any compassion as Yaron and Kemi seem to be ok with may as well be called totalitarianism. And the compassionate part has always had to be fought for by those with socialist tendencies.

[@jbarron4596]

The processors in these people are the old ones. The wait time on the relevant results is very slow here. You either know the answer or you don’t . Stop spitting out long-winded answers that take up a lot of time. I can’t stay awake listening to the monotonous drone of their voices adding extraneous elements to a simple question. Just stop wasting so much time answering-bunch of old farts.

[@sovereignbutterfly1341]

Socialism vs. Capitalism We are fighting over philosophies while humans to do not depend on philosophies to exist, philosophies depend on humans to exist! This creates Envy! We are given two choices to chose from! This creates limits! Each human is both, the "God and Satin" of the bible! We are created equally! When I talk to politics I am speaking to the philosophies not the individuals, individuals take things personally which "enables" them to take things out of context much like how people have used the power and words of the bible for centuries! God is funny to me! Both of these philosophies have created a war in consciousness which creates the greed of wealth or station which both limit spirituality resulting in the sloth of the comprehension of spiritual works and the physical desire to do work. Quite literally these philosophies are creating disease! While these two philosophies continue to create a tug of war in our minds it creates anger which results in wrath! Both of these philosophies are attempting to monopolize consciousness, which creates gluttony and the desire to consume consciousness; they both need re-written! I think of these philosophies like alien invaders or viruses, they enter your mind which creates exhaustion having the effect of a desire left un-fulfilled! I think this tug-of-war as the cause of drug abuse in America! Quite literally these two philosophies at war, are needy little bitches! I keep wanting to appologize to the philosophies but we have become slaves to keeping each philosophy alive! Slavory was abolished! If you want to be a sheep to these philosophies, to each their own but I am not a sheep to a set of ideals nor am I slave to them! While we scurry around pandering to each of these philosophies it creates a busy lifestyle which leaves little time for healthy relationships which results in lust! We have become inundated with protecting philosophies! I am ashamed to say, we have become stupid because of this war over philosophies! This war over these philosophies may be what destroys humanity!

[@squidface4381]

How to say absolutely nothing in 5000 words. Just keep quoting other idiots and using made up hyphenated doublespeak.

[@H1TMANactual]

The socialist guy is just like "blah blah blah blah platitudes muh ideology derrr" over & over again. WTF

[@tawongamunyanduri5874]

The socialist guy is delusional

[@p8entlyobvious383]

There ahould be more regulation on capatalism like there used to be .Capatslism has an incentive which other economic systems lack .Capatalism has to exist to some extent .otherwise it would be a tyranny.

[@GReid-ol5gk]

Yaron is a complete ideologue. The discussion would have been better had the young woman from Nigeria been alone

[@kurokamei]

How is Yaron different from other panel? They are all there to persuade people that their idea is better.