Debate: Is It Time for the U.S. to Embrace Socialism? Vivek Chibber and Michael Munger 

To the moderator, Sorry but you HAVE to be the bad guy. Cut these questions short. I don't need to hear about everybody's life history and thoughts. Otherwise thank you for creating this content. Educational and important stuff.

As an internet expert, I summarily reject the points made by my opposition

Munger loses when he says that political change can't address these things because of short election cycles. The political campaigns proposed by his opponent are not to stem from politicians, but from working class organizations with time horizons of the adult lifespans of its members. It is pressure from them onto parties that can make the change.

Love to deliver a one minute introductory preamble to my question and then forget to talk in to the mic for the actual question.

You guys are too nice to the people asking questions and it takes away from the quality of the debate Imho

If you like Vivek Chibber hee definitely check out his contributions to the Jacobin channel as well. And I've got to hand it to Michael, he foresaw Americans not accepting election results.

Excellent, understandable, extremely accurate account of all the shit workers have experienced over the past 50 years, and why. And capitalism is at the core of our grief and travails. It is time for a different system.

There was no direct mention of the bifurcated classes as being a problem with Capitalism. Capitalism is split into employer/employee. The employers have the power and when you have the power you can set the rules. I would have liked to see how Munger would have responded to this, as well as what they thought of gradually displacing private companies with worker-owned-and-operated cooperatives. (Yes, I'm channeling my Richard D. Wolff here.)

Taxes don’t fund federal spending. Libertarian guy is mistaken on that. Federal debt is not debt as you and I experience with credit cards. They simply sell treasuries for people to purchase and get paid interest. It’s part of monetary policy. Not part of budgeting. The federal government can fund pretty much anything it wants. They spend money into existence.

[[Too long? Don't want to read this essay? Disappointing, but skip to the end for a summary that skips all of the nuance and context that gives conversations like these meaning.]] The problem I have with debates like these is that the people calling themselves "socialist" have a completely capitalist-corrupted notion of socialism. Vivek defined socialism as little more than a welfare state with strong regulations on capitalism...which is what socialists and capitalists alike call "social democracy," or "capitalism with a conscience." They pander to Red Scare narratives with socialist phrases and "but unfettered capitalism bad" arguments that people can identify with from lived experience, and then say "let the state fix all your problems. Not like the Evil Empire of the USSR and China, but like the Good Empire of Swedish Socialism." It's all hogwash meant to make socialism out to be something it isn't. And that's accounting for all of the different variations of socialism. The vast majority of branches of socialism have two things in common: bottom-up democracy and some degree of mutualism. When people talk about "market socialism," they're talking about an economy that is market-driven, but with democratic workplaces, such as worker cooperatives. The thing is, though, that it's not a branch of socialism, but a TRANSITIONARY phase TOWARDS socialism. Whether we're talking about Christian socialism, Arab socialism, Marxian socialism (which includes communism), anarchism, utopian socialism, eco socialism, or any of the others (rejecting the interpretations adopted by states and the like, who coopted the concepts and changed them into something else supporting their agenda), the thing that separates them from capitalism, feudalism, etc etc etc, isn't this notion of social welfare. Kings and dictators and feudal lords and all other leaders have said "it's my duty to make sure the people are taken care of," but that did NOT make them socialists; it made them benevolent RULERS. Merely replacing "king" or "feudal lord" with "the State" does NOT change that dynamic of top-down rule, nor of the inherent susceptibility to corruption which the people have little REAL ability to change. In so-called "democracies" (republics/parliamentary systems), the most efficacy that people get is in deciding who will rule over them, not what those people will do with their power; even protesting and rioting is little more than flexing in the HOPE that someone at the top will listen. And that's why this debate, from the very beginning, was nothing but a fraud. Bernie and AOC, if they are "socialists" at all (they're more probably social democrats, like Vivek), would belong to the category of "democratic socialism," which labors under the mistaken belief that you can legislate socialism into existence. Not immediately, but by reforming the system over time to improve the conditions of the people, and EVENTUALLY, after some unknowable period of time and transition, start handing power over to the people. It follows a similar trajectory as Blanqism, which insists that socialism can't be achieved except through a dictatorship first making all of the changes that the proletariat is too stupid (or incapable or incompetent or powerless or wishy-washy or whatever) to do themselves, and then afterwards hand over power to the proletariat "once they've learned how to do stuff." Socialism can't be legislated from above. It can't be established from above. It can't be directed from above. That's NOT SOCIALISM. That's just another form of statism (look up the term) that sees itself as benevolent, the "wise ruler" over the "ignorant masses." Socialism requires 3 things at a minimum: 1) democratic workplace communities 2) democratic living communities 3) democratic collaboration between living and workplace communities The first is the minimum for "market socialism," but alone is still just a single step. The second is also a single step, but because of economic disparities, it is easily destroyed. The third incorporates the first and second steps, but without the first and second steps, can also include feudalism, dictatorship, republicanism, etc, all of which are compatible with capitalism. For socialism to be distinct from those systems AS A SYSTEM (not just as an ideology of "everyone should be taken care of"), all three must exist. For all three to exist, "democracy from below" must be the norm of control for/by the people themselves; control from above negates (or seriously limits) control from below, disenfranchising the people at the bottom with the same "wisdom" that the people can't or don't want to rule themselves (which is peddled by many people who believe themselves to be socialists, but is in fact a mindset that the elite have pushed since Aristotle insisted that the "best," the "aristocrats," should rule), and making them little more than drones for the hierarchy to direct. The addition of some degree of mutualism stems from the normalization of "social responsibility" as living/working communities come together to build real democracy and ensure that all people have what they need; for real democracy to function effectively, the participants CANNOT exist as atomized individuals who only come together to make decisions, but MUST exist as fellows in a society, which is why the neoliberal movement of capitalism (via Reagan, Thatcher, etc) was so vital to its dominance. ------------------- TLDR: So to conclude... 1) Vivek's introduction sound "good," but he's not describing socialism. He's describing a variant of social democracy, which is still capitalism at its core; one of the key defining features of capitalism is that workers work for an owner in return for a wage, regardless of whether that owner is a private individual or an institution (like "the State"), whereas a socialist *system* is based in community/worker democracy. 2) All of the branches of socialism as DISTINCT from other systems that aren't socialist (such as social democracy and market socialism), have two things that they all share in common: communal/workplace democracy that rejects top-down governance, and some degree of mutualism (because social responsibility goes hand-in-hand with communal democracy). 3) Vivek's opening arguments are nearly the same as anti-socialists for the last 100 years: "be afraid of the commies, because they're totalitarian dictators, and nothing they did actually worked despite becoming a world power somehow, but we need the welfare state to save capitalism...I mean, bring about socialism!" Seriously, people like him have been thoroughly roasted and discredited by people like Marx et al since the 1800s. Vivek is using Red Scare tactics to support a top-down welfare state. 4) Because of Vivek's introduction, it's clear to a socialist that the debate won't be about socialism, but instead about creating a top-down welfare state, and probably the capitalist rebuttal to it as "that's capitalism." That's why I'm not commenting on any of the rest of the video; it's initial "socialist" argument is made by an anti-socialist masquerading as a socialist. If you want a reasonable understanding of what socialism is, listen to actual socialists who have spent a lot of time learning about it beyond "unfettered capitalism bad." To that end, search youtube for these titles ("title" by "channel name"): "Socialism for Absolute Beginners" by "Second Thought" "Worker Cooperatives: Expanding Democracy In The Workplace" by "Second Thought" "The Future of Socialism" by "The Marxist Project" "On Strategies for Post-Capitalism" and "Strategies for Post-Capitalism Continued" by "Mexie" "Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever" by "Spooky Scary Socialist" (more of a humorous debunk/correctional approach) Supplementary video, rejecting the "tragedy of the commons" as made-up by Hardin (debunked, but still touted by anti-socialists): "The Role of Culture in Solving Social Dilemmas: Keynote by Elinor Ostrom" If you want an example of "actually existing socialism" (people who use that phrase piss me off because they're so desperate for a "win" that they'll accept anything with a "communist" or "socialist" party as being an actual socialist SYSTEM), then look up the Zapatistas. They've been going strong for 26 years, comprise over 300,000 people in a non-contiguous area, and can be directly compared to other people living in the same conditions in the same region but under capitalism. Bottom-up democracy works, and the more people ACTUALLY TRY IT, the more proof there'll be...but as things stand, the vast majority of people, including many who think of themselves as socialist, are stuck on the belief pushed by elitists that it just can't work except on a tiny scale (and other excuses), despite never having even considered testing that belief.

No but still how can we go everywhere and nowhere? Huh? 😕

Debate like this should always be preserved.

It's funny how the strongest advocates for liberal capitalism always in the end have to use China to show what great improvements capitalism has generated for the worlds poor. Sweden is getting worse but is still a lot less unequal than the US and most of the large scale privatizations have been total failures except from for the ones who found themselves managing this old state-run institutions. Pharmacies now barely have medical supplies and of then have shortages but do sell a lot of candy, the prices of public transportation has increased with more than 150% in less than 20 years. The privatized postal service is a complete joke.

Chibber absolutely ran circles around this clown

That last question had me rolling

Think of all of the crazy terrible shit you could get someone to do for a measly million bucks... Too much money is way too much power.

The cause of inefficiency in a 'capitalist' system can always be traced back to regulatory capture and rent seeking. Debate the goals of socialism to the end, but it's a system that inherently guarantees more of this as an outcome, even while it may seek the opposite.

45% business in US have fail (bankruptcy) in 5 years. It is very difficult to be capitalist. I don’t want be boss of company but I want to have the same pay as the boss does.

idk, but for me, when someone starts to defend Capitalism with a pretty vs ugly pig metaphor, I lean hard the other direction... xD

Damn Capitalism is not the market 😑

Munger is pathetic. No discussion of the knowledge generation (epistemic power) of competition in markets signalled via the price system and profit/loss. The efficacy of profit/loss in eliminating bad business plans vs. the fact that taxation immunizes public planning from falsification leading to programs that lead to capital consumption/destruction being perpetuated. And saying UBI and single-payer are better than what we have when he could have said that repealing minimum wage so that work is within the reach of almost everyone while reduced taxes could lead to greater availability of charity and ending the special employer tax status of health insurance could result in greater responsiveness to customers while reducing regulation could lead to wider availability and greater innovation in policies.

The board game Monopoly is geolibertarian propaganda -- lol jk IDK.

Wow Vivek states as facts so much that are either debatable or just plane wrong. Also, The UK and Sweden had for a while socialist systems much closer to the system described by Vivek but they preformed poorly and much was privatized. They should debate their differences more. Vivek Mentions he would like to see the airlines nationalized, they should debate that. I assume that he would like to see all electric production nationalized and more debate that. BTW the 1 thing a UBI or any other way to funnel money to lower earners will only change one thing significantly, it will allow them to consume more, that is all. And I support a UBI. Healthcare and school might work as socialist better than other things due to MD's, RN's and teachers see their occupation as a calling and also they are very low productivity areas. BTW by my definition Canada does not have socialized medical care the UK does. Another question is what is poverty?