Ten Things You Should Know About Socialism | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on July 20, 2018.
Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian School of economics, and is the essential training ground for economists who are looking beyond the mainstream.

[@129jaystreet]

Got the book. It's a great read.

[@will27ns]

Another brilliant lecture from Thomas. At one point he used the word "disgusting" and an image of Bernie Sanders popped immediately into my mind.

[@nicosmind3]

Will have to buy that book recommendation, Charles Murray Losing Ground sounds good!

[@bluespiral4678]

Great book btw!!!!

[@raymondsmith9063]

The two good things the USSR came up with was Tetris and the miniseries musical "D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers", both frustratingly entertaining.

[@soapbxprod]

Watch Ayn Rand's "Statism and our Mixed Economy"- she saw it all coming 60 years ago (I'm 58): kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJm5pqqEi8Rnj7c

[@dennism103]

Time to call a spade a spade guys...

[@obhuicoksetyaetse1]

Such a smart man and he has one hell of a sense of humor. I love it

[@kimobrien.]

"Socialism on Trial" with the Smith Act trial of 18 leaders of the Socialist Workers Party and Minneapolis Teamsters union.

[@mikedunn9310]

That's because they did it wrong. This time it will work!!

[@AlongtheFarClimbDown843]

Christmas is over. It's time to throw another telephone pole on the fireman. The new year starts in January. Let's rob a bank.

[@AdurianJ]

The Soviet Unions greatest export in the late 80's was the computer game Tetris which the USSR state held the license for !

[@dennism103]

Socialism, communism, feminism, are Jewish concepts. infact all ism's are. Eurofolk radio. Com

[@jeffmoore9487]

Misemedia: Thomas starts off wrong: "Socialism is govt ownership of the means of production". - It's worker owned. Big difference. Thomas's next statement is: "By the 30's socialism meant the redistribution of income through welfare". Not only would Marx not recognize such a thing, it's the kind of statement only useful as a punching bag. Nobody in the 30's imagined leveling society by welfare. The big issue in the 30's was the right to form a union, and then union demands. To call the reformers in the Roosevelt Administration socialists is a rhetorical stretch, but even they (those who were sympathetic to socialism) weren't leveling society as much as they were dealing with hunger and rage against a busted economy. Thomas is disingenuous, in that he is merely setting up imaginary dummies to be knocked down. If you want to talk about socialism and communism read Marx. If you define any group by choosing among a few people who call themselves followers of that group you wind up with any number of definitions of how to define the group. Marx, whatever you think about him, was at least careful about definitions. His definitions are very useful, even if the popularity of his ideas has created all kinds of later off shoots, most of them disappear leaving Marx in place for his class analysis. There has never been a workers socialism, but it's not that hard to define. Marx knew Russia was not capable of becoming socialist before he died and long before the events of 1917.

[@JJJ-qd8nu]

Jeff Moore LOL!! What do you mean the means of production are owned by the workers? That is the common mantra of Socialists but yet you cant even define it. Does it mean every worker everywhere has equal ownership in every company? Is it a local thing where only communities own the businesses? Or do you have to work for the company. And in that case how does the average Joe have just as much say so as somebody who works twice as hard, efficiently and actually cares about the company? Do people like that have more weight when it comes to decisions as far as fiscal spending? Or is it a direct democracy where you vote on what happens? Socialists don't even answer this, they just throw around ambiguous phrases like " the workers own the means of production" or "the land is owned by the people."

[@jeffmoore9487]

J JJ: Good questions. Imagine we're talking in 1773, three years before our revolution against Britain. Imagine that I'm a Loyalist and your telling me that we're gonna fight the Monarchy of Britain: Britain has the most advanced military, science, law, and factories on the planet, and I say: "J JJ, your going to get us all killed for some idea you've got about democracy". "This democracy your on about will be better than Britain?" - "We just need to keep pressing Britain to give us the same citizen rights that regular Britains have" "J JJ, nobodies gonna help you fight the might of Britain for some vague ideas about universal rights and expanded democracy". My point with this example is that trying to make a case for breaking away from Britain required imagining something that had never existed: A govt. without a state church and without a King, and set up with more rights for every individual and as a country of equals. Not only did Americans begin to imagine separating, the best of them put their ass on the line to do it. Britain had no intention of making us British and giving us representation in parliment. Haitians, East Indians, and the rest of the European colonies all over the world was watching very closely to see if America fell on its face. Now hundreds of years later the world is looking at the US as the colonizer. People in the US wonder why more people are standing at the intersections begging and why blacks and Natives get the shaft. Why is the Middle East getting destroyed. Why, with what we know now, can't we change over from burning fuel. The founding of America changed the world. When people say "the workers must own the means of production" it means that policy becomes the product of a democracy of the 99%. This has never happened. But a lot of things hadn't happened before they did. In fact we humans have redefined our social ways in an ever accelerating fashion from the get go. So far only people in poor feudal societies (Russia, China) have attempted socialism, and the results were sad and predictable. You can't have a democracy when you can't even feed everyone, and those countries have reverted back to capitalism but there is no peace. Russia, China, and the US will compete for world dominance. Capitalism is a massive series of human inventions, including the governments that came out of it. There never was and never will be a fixed way of social organization. Even in our living memory capitalism keeps changing it's game. Automation, globalization, and more and more production in fewer and fewer hands etc....it keeps evolving and we humans with it. The trick is to get "We the People" actually organizing production for human need and to put the environment back together rather than simply stretching for greater and greater private profit and world domination by fewer and fewer people. Obviously, there's a lot more to say, but I'll stop in case I'm not helping.

[@JJJ-qd8nu]

Jeff Moore Hey man I respect your zeal and your honesty but really you just used a ton of fallacies which you may not even realize. I used to be a socialist, then a capitalist and now I am against both systems but I still believe in 90% of what capitalists believe. This country has never been a democracy. This country is technically a Representative Republic with a constitution, or a constitutional Republic with representatives. None of the founders believed in democracy. We know this due to their own writings. Why did they only allow white land owners to vote? Was it as some ignorant people say to allow white aristocrats to flurish? Or was it simply that the founders knew the best educated people tended to be white and owned land. Why? Because more than likely if you own land you understand how to read, write, how ordinances work ect. Therefore I have never been a supporter of democracy. Not just because of the founders beliefs, but because personally I know that there are 10 average citizens for every 1 intellectual. Or there are 10 ignorant people (when it comes to geopolitics) and 1 educated person. Obviously these are just used as an example, but we know that the ignorant outnumber the educated. That is why I can't be a socialist. I can't live in a society where people who don't know half as much as I do get just as much say. It makes no sense from a logical perspective. It's absolute relativism at its finest. Not only that but a small group can come along, and convince the majority they're right. Then the process is repeated cyclically. Also the USA has more poor whites than blacks or any other minority. Granted the overall percentage of minorities tend to be poorer. But that has nothing to do with capitalism, especially since the USA hasn't had real capitalism since the 1800s. That has to do with politics. Look up Thomas Sowell he has done excellent research on that topic. Finally I am against capitalism because of it's promotion of usury and speculation. While speculation may have helped found some of the companies we know of, it has created more destruction than good. We tend to not see the unseen consequences of speculation, but all of those wasted resources and capital could have been used for much better opportunities. Rather than people simply borrowing money to see if they can run a business. All I can say is I appreciate your honestly, and your tenacity. Just do what I did, really look at what the other side has to offer. But that involves finding somebody who actually represents capitalism accurately. Which 90% of people seem to not do for whatever purpose. Thanks!!

[@jeffmoore9487]

J JJ: The question about "what is America really?" doesn't have to be answered. I don't think we'll find out before drought and rising sea level demand a more important response. When America needed educated people to run the largest logistical enterprise in human history (WW2), America created those people. Point is, that is what humans are - not a thing, but a potential. One of the finest examples is when mostly poorly educated blacks in Selma chose to abandon the busses and mostly walk everywhere they needed to go. There was absolutely 100% participation. Even the guy with 5 different women he needed to visit regularly bit the bullet and walked or bummed rides. I don't buy the idea that some people are more suited to democracy than others. Rather, humans create both the society and the humans we need to make it work. As you know but aren't writing - America is an ongoing experiment. Your view of humans and America seems inexplicably fixed. Americans don't seem interested in your "republic". They do spend a lot of energy working at democracy however. Do you want to work with human energy and potential? Or help the billionaires build taller walls, surveillance, and military to keep the rabble at bay? The current polarization of America has no boundaries The rich will continue to get fabulously richer and the beggars at the stop signs and immigrants running from American led disasters will pile up inside and outside your republic. Either we suppress human desires with hate (Trump), or we inch towards and then run towards some as yet undefined potential (Bernie?).