Socialism vs. Capitalism: A Debate 

Debate starts at 4:01.

This isn't really a capitalism vs socialism debate but instead a libertarian vs social democrat debate

Frederick Douglass stated that he didn't feel most free the day he escaped the democratic South. He felt that his most free day was when he got to New Bedford and was able to keep the pay that he worked for,without giving any to his "master"

One quickly realizes there is only one economist on the stage.

Imagine having the privilege and wealth to think that prosperity isn't important.

I just have to make the point, that Bryan is correct on the point that Scandinavians don't work that much due to high taxes. Especially here in Finland the tax progression is very steep, which causes over 50% marginal tax rates even for the middle class.

How many of you out there who see this comment have siblings who grew up basically in the same conditions you did but whose economic outcome in life was far, far different from your own? And were there any choices they made that you can look at as accounting for that difference?

"LUCK" Is for people who can't comprehend causality. Who you are is the results of the decisions made by your ancestors. Where to live, who to marry what to do for a living. You are completely deserving of the fruits of your labors and to those left to you by your ancestors.

14:00 part of the problem with looking at statistical groupings like the "bottom 50%" of wage earners is that these groups of people are not stagnant. People can leave that group and become high income earners. Of course the x % lowest income people in a sampling have a low income, that is how you have defined that statistical grouping. It doesn't mean the same people are poor year after year, people can move in and out of statistical groupings all the time, and they do. Someone might have a low income because they are going to school that year, or they are injured and can't work, because of temporary conditions.

I really need this moderator to learn to enunciate. I'm sorry, but it's just hard to listen to.

Why is an English Professor arguing economic theory against ... wait for it .... an actual economist?

One is an academic of economics, the other of... English language? Why is this debate even a thing?

Why are they wearing clothes that are 3 times their size?

What a scam, I came here for a good old capitalism vs socialism debate and ended up having to watch a capitalism vs weak socialdemocracy debate.

Giving money to someone for them to give it back is efficient? Did I hear that right?

why are we still debating... Capitalism won the debate a long time ago... easy-peasy

Debate about socialism and nothing about workers owning the means of production🙄

When you are meant to promote socialism but in the first 2 minutes of your speech you say that you are not a socialist and that socialism is bad…

The english professors cites statistics that he either does not understand or that he willingly takes out of context to prove his points. They also contradict each others.

What capital does a socialist nation rely on?

This isnt a very good debate, because they don't get a chance to go back and forth and respond to each other. The moderator just moves them on to the next question.

This was great!

May I just say that this is a refreshingly sober and respectful debate. It's not the case with so many of these that the participants respect each other and don't go into crazy theatrics. Nice job

Dummy Loath isn`t (A 2) by side ( A 1) but it`s around

the one main wrong presupposition is that public ownership in socialism means state ownership

So if every one is going to have their own definition why don't they just come up with a different name. If you can not agree on what socialism is how do you really expect to implement it.

Both sides made strong points. One of the most strong debates I seen so far.

This dude Marsh is really talking about luck and how it's not your own? like he's really trying argue that if someone somehow got lucky and was born into a wealthy family, he somehow OWES people that?? that shit is scary. by that definition, EVERYONE in america owes those starving in africa. imagine me going up to some guy who got lucky and won the lottery and saying "you owe it to me because you got lucky so it's not yours"

One is based on greed, the other is based on jealousy.

I think Mr. March has to consider two important things about the "Nordic economic model" that rarely comes up in these debates. 1.) There are more billionaires/capita in countries like Sweden than there are in the USA and I doubt he would classify Nordic countries as Plutocracies that are controlled by the rich. 2.) The reason there are so many billionaires/capita is because their tax systems are designed to attract "Business Elites" who will innovate, invest, and lead businesses to make those countries more prosperous. Yes, these countries are famous for their low-income inequality but they purposely have low taxes on capital and corporations to encourage businesses to grow and thrive for the benefit of all. So then who pays their famously high taxes? Answer: Everyone! They have high income tax rates that soak everyone from upper-middle class to the rich and everyone pays a whopping 25% sales tax! Now how many of you Bernie Sanders fans are still interested in the USA becoming more like Sweden?

i listened to get diff perspectives, but this is really a low-tier debate. check out Richard Wolff versus David Friedman for a much better debate

Before the great depression start by praising the Laffer curve which was developed by a democrat. It just don't work. In fact it failed very badly so in turn I agree with Bryan and Thomas Sewell on capitolism. Sorry John you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't have to help the poor, coming from a former homeless person at the age of 12 to 18, my choice is whom I should help not a someone dictates it to me

Marsh seems to have a distrust of empirical findings (I do too), but he himself relies upon nothing else. He has no firm grasp of the causal underpinnings that explain all the trends and statistics he points to. He seems to think that we can't go anywhere beyond: "that's your story, here's mine."

A robber threatens me with a gun, wants to take my wallet and tells me "well, you've been lucky". x,D

50:15 oh boy

The socialist in his opening statement was literally citing issues with a mixed economy and making the case for Libertarianism.

watch the youtube video The World we lived in. Episode 1. (Film dubbed into English. Сlass struggle for everyone)

is not reducing regulations is ending it all of them, that capitalism

I didn't understand this whole mass migration argument. Like doesnt he understand keeping people out benefits capitalism more ... As do we want someone in poor Asian country in western country getting a decent wage or want our goods cheap for better profits .. like won't lift poverty if they move . It just makes American poverty worse as no more cheap goods. Maybe then the government will consider making a good minimum wage least

There is nothing wrong with the fact that a child's success is correlated with their parents' success. First, the correlation could because because smart parents pass on skills to their children, either through genes, or through upbringing. This is all a good thing. Second, when parents invest not just time but also money into their children, that is also a good thing. The socialist wants to prevent all the ways parents can help their children succeed, either through genes, or upbringing, or financially. That would be counterproductive.

I had to post this: Listening to Brian Kaplan was actually very funny. He stated that capitalist countries like the US outperform other countries that are less capitalistic. What he doesn’t tell you is that socially democratic countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, etc. outperform countries like the US in every metric. Since the 1980s when the US moved more to the right in terms of economics, wages for the poor and middle-class have been stagnant except for the rich who increased their wealth from $8 trillion to over $50 trillion. Not only that but the US is now the most highly unequal advanced country in the world in terms of concentration of wealth, poverty, homelessness, financial stress, etc. etc. The US since the 1980s has increased incarceration massively to the tune of 2 million people, which is the highest in the world. Norway on the other hand shut down seven prisons due to a lack of crime. Finland eliminated homeless while the US has millions of homeless people. In terms of a free market, here’s a couple of examples. When the US invaded Iraq, the idea was to let the wonders of free market do its job. Donald Rumsfield was an advocate of free market capitalism that thẻ conservative, economist Milton Friedman and hack right wing author Ayn Rand promoted. When Iraq turned into a nightmare, economically, socially and politically Rumsfield stated, “Well freedom can be messy.” Since the US and Britain promoted right wing deal, liberal capitalism to the USSR, Russia has been turned into a hell hole, economically and politically. Crime, poverty, inequality, homelessness, addiction, alcoholism, depression, economic stress of all increased since unregulated capitalism and its policies were implemented in Russia. Neoliberal free market capitalism did not create democracy and freedom in Russia, it did the exact opposite. Instead of the dictator Joseph Stalin, Russia has Putin. Instead of improving Russia with the transition to neoliberal free market capitalism economically things have gotten far worse instead of better. Look up the Kansas experiment in the US. Sam Brownback implemented economic policies by the conservative economist Milton Friedman‘s in Kansas,that being cutting taxes for the very rich and corporations, privatization, deregulation, trickle down supply, side economics etc. This state was also a disaster economically until an unusual left-wing billionaire saved the state by moving it towards a progressive, Colorado socially democratic state. Everything improved. The state deficit was reduced, jobs jobs in businesses, flourished, corporate profits went up, even though taxes were increased on the rich corporations. I know he was going to bring up North Korea as an example. North Korea is not socialist it’s a communist dictatorship. Just as Nazi Germany and Chile were capitalist dictatorships it’s the same thing with North Korea. Communism is not the same thing as Socialism, Democratic Socialism is not the same as social democracy. He holds Walmart as an example of the wonders of capitalism where it’s workers have to go on food stamps and it cost Americans billions of dollars each year because Walmart is too greedy to pay its workers a decent wage to live on. These billions of dollars could be used to improve infrastructure, healthcare, etc. instead companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, Nestlé, etc. all use American infrastructure like roads, water, etc. but they end up paying zero in taxes while the middle class and the poor have to pay a higher tax rate than the very rich and corporations because tax revenue is low. Michael Pantazis

The study is that people would RATHER go into debt for the $400 purchase, not that they would need to. Me personally, I would put it on credit and pay it off over a couple months. Doesn’t mean I don’t have $400 in savings, it just means that I’d rather not tap into saving for the purchase.

Socialism might be a failure. That doesn't necessarily mean that capitalism is a success. See barring 3-4 countries almost all other countries are capitalist. Then why 99% people in 99% of countries are poor.poverty illiteracy disparity discrimination conflicts etc etc are prevailing there. So the question is can we say capitalism is successful

I don't want government taking my money to make you equal to me. I want you to work as hard and smart to be equal to me.

Singapore is very far from a free market and so is Norway both have a huge proportion of wealth owned or controlled by the state. Guatemala or Haiti are much better examples

THis guy forgot to mention that every year America produces on average 700, 000 millionaires a year. Looks like the 1% keeps allowing more members. There is no limit to wealth. One man's gain is not another mans loss or cause for stagnation.

Some people choose to fail. The capitalist would say such people should not only be permitted to make that choice, but also permitted to enjoy the fruits of that choice, such as they are, unencumbered by a government that wishes they would have chosen otherwise.

Ho boy. I was expecting the socialist guy to piss me off with the usual socialist dogma. But the capitalist dude is SO obnoxious. If he wanted to make capitalism look bad, he did a very good job. The socialist dude was far more nuances and aware of the flaws in his ideology.

The Soviet Union a hell on earth..? Haha...

The "socialist" isn't even a socialist. They're a social democrat.

Both these speakers are horrible representatives of their respective causes. There needs to be nothing more than the highlighting of coercion. One system relies on it and the other does not. The ends cannot justify the means. Stealing from some to help others is not noble, just or righteous. Just because we have "legalized" forms of it now is akin to pointing to bad behavior to justify more bad behavior. Force is wrong. If it's wrong to use force against your neighbor to achieve any goal, virtuous or corrupt, it's still violating their rights. Pointing to outcomes in other countries is flawed too. You can violate someone's rights, imprison them and force them to read and be educated and brag about the literacy improvement but you violated their rights in the process. Beware of people who believe so strongly that they know whats better for you that they are willing to force you to comply by will of a gullible majority. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.

how is capitalism freedom when the employer/employee binary is undemocratic?

Basically, forced stone age economy and dystopian traits vs work and merit, ideas. Socialism is just when green gains a heart and tells you thst you can get a share if the loot for free and legally.Sure capitalism ain't perfect but it's good and if crooks will do good in it it's not the fault of capitalism but of people. But yeah, if you combine capitalism with democracy you get the best thing. Combine democracy with socialism and you get the worst thing and eventually communism or similar happens.

What a waste of an hour. The guy defending capitalism...I'm not sure which planet he's talking about because it isn't this one. He's describing how he wishes capitalism worked but not how it is working right now. The other guy is talking about social democracy which is not socialism but rather just capitalism with more social programs. So it's not really a socialism vs. capitalism debate. There was not even any mention of how capitalism is a class-based system similar to slavery and feudalism where a small minority have control over a large majority. Or how corporations have captured the government. Or the contradictions of capitalism.

This doesnt sound like a debate between Socialism and Capitalism. It sounds more like how to fix capitalism. How about get a Socialist on the floor.

01:13:46 🤣

In almost all these debates, the pro capitalist side attack state capitalism, not worker owned socialism. I’ve never even heard a capitalist address the idea. Why does this keep happening?

08:17 අප්පට සිරි ඇනගත්තා 😆 This disconnected form of life is a product of capitalistic economy as I believe

When the "Democratic Socialist" ascribes so much of success to just plain luck (and argues that ownership over luck is invalid), I have two points: 1) genuinely arbitrary good fortune or misfortune (of a degree that controls destiny) only really occurs at the extreme margins; and 2) that quote about how "luck" is when preparation meets opportunity. Or as Arnold Palmer once observed: "I hit a lot of lucky shots, but the more I practiced, the luckier I got."

"welfare programs" it's only for giving work to government employees but not for helping the poor

That end is what is wrong with the socialist's entire idea of how to alter the economic system. It's just flowery rethoric, but there isn't anything there. Just ideals, but no actual substitive data backing it, and so you enter a fruad dilemma with none of his genius. I think debates like this are important so Bryan can explain what is the current state of affairs and our best knowledge on how to resolve them.

Why is this debate so long? Oh. It's because John is a long winded english professor ;)

The danish have the highest of taxes... they pay 120% tax on new cars... way too many taxes that ‘help’ people who profit off the system unfairly

Why don’t socialists just open companies and hand them over to the workers for them to run the pay you the owner a specific amount of interest from profits like a franchise fee. You take that money and give it to the government or just hand it back to them. Leave us capitalists alone. Practice your thing and lead by example. Companies earn enough profits to fund damn near everything socialism offers as “equality”

The best economic system is the system that gives individuals the most freedom.

Can't stand Ray Dalio. A billionaire who profited from capitalism now argues for socialism? Give me a BREAK.

For the hardcore capitalists: 1. What are you suggesting once automation is the default? when most tasks are done by far more efficient robots and human labor is seldom a necessity. Do the bottom 50% just off their selves or live below poverty? 2. You're arguing for less regulation and more freedom, but wouldn't this only create more freedom for the top 1% while taking away freedom from everyone else? For example, if you look back at history, corporations treated people like animals, like slaves, because they could. This only started changing once people started unionizing. So if all regulation would be taken away, wouldn't the 1% treat those below even worse? as they do to animals in factory farms, with conditions that are insane by any standard. How would those conditions improve rather than worsen? Obviously I'm not talking about California and their regulations to prevent building new housing. To me it seems like a capitalist move, a monopolistic move, not a democratic or socialist move. Because those that own these properties can charge insane prices and either live somewhere else or just own more than 1 property. I'm also not talking about the prevention of immigration, this once again, seems like a capitalist or monopolistic move, not a democratic or socialist move. 3. Is the FED capitalist or socialist? they create value out of thin air (debt) for example, and profit from it under the guise of saving the public. Are FED bailouts capitalist or socialist? why are they allowed to create money and profit from it, but we are not and would go to jail for eternity for doing so? By the way, one of the best debates on the topic I've seen so far. I'm only begging to research these systems so I can form sound opinions.

Why would these "scholars" leave thier houses in outfits that look like they deflated underneath them once they put them on, and disheveled with no tie unbuttoned shirts mismatching tie? How does anyone take them seriously they can't even dress Ina manner that tells everyone they interact with they care about how they present themselves?

Wow that capitalist guy is extremely unpleasant. He is very delusional, doesn't know what socialism is and his view of the current system is completely wrong. The guy is a professor and doesn't know what he is talking about. "Even the poor in usa have a comfortable life".. say what? are you kidding me? Im not arguing for or against capitalism here but guys you have to see that the guy is full of shit, he clearly can't be serious..."Ive been in sweden and their fancy grocery stores don't hold a candle compared to walmart" What??? when you are as american as him, you are just hopeless. He is part of these americans that sleep in an american flag blanket, at this point there is no point in debating, the only word he hears is USA. I know many americans that are decent and are ready to share ideas etc, that guy already knows everything, he is the god of the economy, USA is the best .....yeah sure.

Capitalism is the pursuit of capital. Socialism is the centralized appropriation and redistribution of said capital.

So, 2 capitalists talking stuff, nice. Goodbye

what a horrible debate, horrible moderator... really poor arguments

Communism works very well at the family level; every family is a commune. Socialism works well at the clan level, where everyone knows everyone else. At both of those levels we don't need compulsion by government; we do it ourselves voluntarily. When it gets very large, though, it becomes office holders confiscating the product of some people's labor and enterprise to get themselves re-elected. It's interesting that Mr. Marsh cites Denmark, where the culture is uniform everywhere and the total population is less than that of the areas of Dallas-Ft. Worth or Chicago, and neither of the American areas has a uniform culture like Denmark. A bad example unless you can get BLM or California or NYC to become mainstream America.

So its more "democracy against antisocial" debate. Its that pesky government that makes rules that is the problem. If there were no laws against murder, people would be freer. Same with theft, or annoying other people in general.

Pure socialism would result in a society possessing a lack of imagination and innovation. Capitalism permits creativity. Income inequality does not matter. Standard of living and purchasing power do.

Now let's have a similar debate in China or North Korea.

I love how socialists ALWAYS just SKIP over the little point that socialism has NEVER worked in practice and jump right into how GREAT thing will be under socialism.

I realized he doesn't know what he's talking about once he brought up venezuela as a 'socialist' country

capitalism and country contradicts itself, because statism is not capitalism is corporatism therefore capitalism is not associated with the country, only is voluntary associations of human beings

5:30 capitalists love bringing up Singapore as a great example of capitalism. Singapore literally has universal healthcare, strong labor laws, strong unions, strong social safety nets - everything capitalists hate

Capitalism 👎 👎 👎

The pool guy speaking vs. a substantiated critical thinker. Mr. Caplan, you're always the truck driver in any debate you're in. Sorry buddy, but you gotta read a whole lot more.

We are all socialist

I know most people here rooted for the capitalist but the socialist clearly won this debate

It seems that the social democrats wants to forever hold the back of the bicycle rather than let you ride on your own and go as fast or as slow or even ride at all.

whenever ancaps bring up "voluntarism" and how capitalism supposedly isn't based on coercion and a state to protect private property, I cringe because it signals a fundamental misunderstanding of how capital is accumulated, kept, and moved. aka a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. also why the fuck is the so-called socialist rep arguing for free markets??? what a stupid debate

Marsh is completely out of his depth. No facts or figures to support his points at all. His only one is growth from poor and rich, but failed to point out that poor people get richer and rich people get poorer. People move between brackets. This guys whole life is a waste.

Alright 6 minutes in and I am not confident in this debater at all. Stricter immigration is needed not less strict

Why is an English professor debating an actual economist lmaooooo go back to Shakespeare

@40:00 so it’s a good thing that people are getting divorced..... yeah ok. He will never get married because he knows that if his wife left him, then he would have to pay her a ridiculous amount of money for the rest of her life, but then again he’s ok with it happening to other people. He’s a hypocrite.

I had to post this: Listening to Brian Kaplan was actually very funny. He stated that capitalist countries like the US outperform other countries that are less capitalistic. What he doesn’t tell you is that socially democratic countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, etc. outperform countries like the US in every metric. Since the 1980s when the US moved more to the right in terms of economics, wages for the poor and middle-class have been stagnant except for the rich who increased their wealth from $8 trillion to over $50 trillion. Not only that but the US is now the most highly unequal advanced country in the world in terms of concentration of wealth, poverty, homelessness, financial stress, etc. etc. The US since the 1980s has increased incarceration massively to the tune of 2 million people, which is the highest in the world. Norway on the other hand shut down seven prisons due to a lack of crime. Finland eliminated homeless while the US has millions of homeless people. In terms of a free market, here’s a couple of examples. When the US invaded Iraq, the idea was to let the wonders of free market do its job. Donald Rumsfield was an advocate of free market capitalism that thẻ conservative, economist Milton Friedman and hack right wing author Ayn Rand promoted. When Iraq turned into a nightmare, economically, socially and politically Rumsfield stated, “Well freedom can be messy.” Since the US and Britain promoted right wing deal, liberal capitalism to the USSR, Russia has been turned into a hell hole, economically and politically. Crime, poverty, inequality, homelessness, addiction, alcoholism, depression, economic stress of all increased since unregulated capitalism and its policies were implemented in Russia. Neoliberal free market capitalism did not create democracy and freedom in Russia, it did the exact opposite. Instead of the dictator Joseph Stalin, Russia has Putin. Instead of improving Russia with the transition to neoliberal free market capitalism economically things have gotten far worse instead of better. Look up the Kansas experiment in the US. Sam Brownback implemented economic policies by the conservative economist Milton Friedman‘s in Kansas,that being cutting taxes for the very rich and corporations, privatization, deregulation, trickle down supply, side economics etc. This state was also a disaster economically until an unusual left-wing billionaire saved the state by moving it towards a progressive, Colorado socially democratic state. Everything improved. The state deficit was reduced, jobs jobs in businesses, flourished, corporate profits went up, even though taxes were increased on the rich corporations. I know he was going to bring up North Korea as an example. North Korea is not socialist it’s a communist dictatorship. Just as Nazi Germany and Chile were capitalist dictatorships it’s the same thing with North Korea. Communism is not the same thing as Socialism, Democratic Socialism is not the same as social democracy. He holds Walmart as an example of the wonders of capitalism where it’s workers have to go on food stamps and it cost Americans billions of dollars each year because Walmart is too greedy to pay its workers a decent wage to live on. These billions of dollars could be used to improve infrastructure, healthcare, etc. instead companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, Nestlé, etc. all use American infrastructure like roads, water, etc. but they end up paying zero in taxes while the middle class and the poor have to pay a higher tax rate than the very rich and corporations because tax revenue is low. Michael Pantazis