Socialism vs. Capitalism: A Debate with Jacobin Magazine 

What a fascinating debate! I had great time listening to both side's arguments. Please, keep organizing these debates. They are really something else.

socialist companies are legal in capitalist countries, capitalist companies are illegal in socialist countries... that tells you exactly how little regard socialism has for freedom.

Let’s simplify all this. The test is what happens when someone says no I don’t want to. Socialism refers to the group will to dictate to the individual who says no. It’s slavery wearing a noble mask.

0:00 Intro 0:40 Beginning remarks by Naomi Brockwell, Soho forum moderator. 1:08 The Resolution “Socialism is more effective than Capitalism in bringing Freedom to the masses” 1:44 Dave Smith, comedy act 9:51 Lol. Man vs audience member 10:23 “You would lose a fight to my Grandpa” 12:20 Format of the Debate 13:54 Opening Remarks: Bashkar Sunkara. 15:00 “Democratic Socialism is Not Anti-Liberalism 16:36 contracts made under duress. 16:52 Asymmetrical Dependency 17:15 Democratic Socialism in practice. Europe 18:50 Fruits of Your own labor 20:05 But Capitalism produced wealth, which you use for Socialism. 22:22 Socialist don’t hate everything Capitalism. 23:40 Capitalism is a barrier 26:45 Taking a shot at comedy, and hierarchy 27:25 Own it. 28:20 Gene Epstein Opening Statement.

Love the moderator politely and endearingly gets both sides to shut up when needed to.

Bhaskar: Let's give government control over everything and pretend it will be different this time. Gene: Let's not.

Capitalism = voluntary interaction Socialism = forced interaction The mental gymnastics necessary to suggest socialism is preferable, I do not understand.

- Comes from third-world country, “Ugh the consumerism!” 🤣🤣🤣 Dave you slay me

My god, we’ve found the libertarian Bernie! In all seriousness, I really enjoyed this debate. Both speakers did a pretty good job giving an intelligible version of the general argument for their position and provided me with some food for thought. Would’ve liked to see them get deeper into arguing about Bhaskar’s point that market pressures push co-op businesses toward some of the same negative practices as individually owned businesses. Here’s hoping for more such debates in the future!

Really? "Jacobin Magazine"? Why not rename it "Terror Today" or "Guillotine Gazette" or "Robespierre Review"?

I despise the notion that "democracy" is a good thing. It's soooooo prevalent and annoying!

Profit isn't the goal of capitalism. Freedom is the goal of Capitalism. Profit is a derivative of the freedom that Capitalism creates.

That old guy. Lol. "Capitalism is about competition, and competition creates LOSERS!" Na, dude. Capitalism just shows us who the losers are.

Daily reminder that socialism always ends in starvation and genocide.* *Every, Single, TIME!

Bhaskar doesn't even run his own organization as employee owned, but wants to make it illegal not to?? At least make your own organization a small proof of concept.

In the span of 2 minutes, this guy bashes Gene over the head for not acknowledging that "capitalism is all about profit, man *puff* *puff*" and THEN says that under socialism, state banks will allow new businesses to be started based on objectively measuring profitability. *facepalm*

Workers controlling the means of production is one the stupidest thing imaginable, who would ever take the risk of creating their own business if it was just going to be taken from them by their own employees once it was big enough?

I want to impose all these political rules to force people to work how I believe they should, but I don't think coercion will be necessary. -Bhaskar What?

Consumerism, if you find it unpleasant, is the result of humans, not capitalists. Capitalists try to find things to sell consumers, but consumers have the power of choice, the power of redistribution of money, etc. If you don't like some consumerist things, don't buy them and they will go away. There's no such thing as coercion in a free market.

Someone’s been supported by their parents their entire life.

When I lived in Honduras people would come by and offer to cut you lawn with machetes for x dollars. So if each work can cut one lawn a day with a machete for $5. So they make $5/day. Then one of those guys saves his money and buys a lawn mower and then one man can cut one lawn in 2 hours and the guy who saved up to by the lawn mower pays his workers $10/day. In this case who is exploiting whom? Also a couple of points about factories where people are not allowed to pee when they need to. People like me often complain about the seats on the commercial aircraft we fly one but still pick the cheapest flight. We'd like to have more comfortable seats but we mostly do not want to pay for them. Maybe it is the same with those jobs, the workers would like to have better work conditions but maybe they are still opting for the highest paying job that they can get. I hated school in the fist and second grade (one result of that was that is I spent 2 years in the first grade) so I would ask to go to the men's rooms very frequently and walk around the school after I was done and so I lost men's room privileges and of course the inevitable eventually happened. this could happen a non capitalistic system. If people where better capitalism would be even greater than it is, like the Micky mouse club village (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RkjYqgmL7hI.html) but they aren't that good and in democratic socialism you give the majority of those not so great people more power over us odd folks.

45:00 Smile libertarians: even today’s socialists agree we need freedom and markets and competition. I think we’re wearing them down. ;)

One thing that both socialists and capitalists can agree on is that dave smith is not funny.

State owned banks? At least in my country state owned banks are riddled with cronyism, and inefficiencies (there's even kickback schemes to the ruling party). People who run those banks would effectively be of a superior class to the workers, because of how much power lies in their decisions.

10:55 if you want to skip the apparently not-unheard-of-in-Australia practice of opening a debate with a warm-up comedian (?).

Bhaskar ought to be reminded that India (and I'm assuming he's left India for greener pastures), is to a great degree socialist (in terms of state interference in economy, education, other aspects of life etc). I would know, I live here. None of his utopian visions have come to fruition here. Socialism does not work outside the shoddy, B grade publications that he runs.

CALM THE HELL DOWN GENE! You're making good points but I'm cringing too hard to hear them!

Arm chair politicians should just look at history. Capitalism is the lesser of the 2 evils where at least a worker has the opportunity to become an elite. Socialism locks that out completely

Haven't finished watching yet, but based purely on Bhaskar Sunkaras opening statement he seems to be presupposing his conclusion. Lots of talk about how the world should work, no arguments/evidence what he's suggesting will actually work.

socialism breeds laziness capitalism breeds responsibility

The stand up at the beginning-unbearable

It's ok Soviet polluted because they were competing with the US. ROFL. ;p

Regarding why we're using fossil fuels in our power grid rather than solar: this has nothing to do with the oil industry controling the government. The reason is basic math. The solar industry employs 374K people. The average worker makes about $40K. Total wages alone per year costs the economy more than $15B to provide solar, which only accounts for 1.3% of the total power grid. Now, contrast that with coal. The coal industry employs 187K (HALF of that employed by solar). The average worker makes $60K, making the yearly cost $11B in wages. What do we get for that $11B? We get 30% of our power grid! If we tried to replace our coal energy with solar, it would cost us an additional $351B in labor alone, and we would pay that every year ... forever. The real answer is that we don't use solar becuase at this point in the evolution of the technology, it's simply NOT economically viable. This isn't political ... this is basic arithmatic. This is also not a cost we can shunt off to the government or to the corporate sector ... EVERYONE uses electricity. EVERYONE pays for electricity. To keep the math simple, we'll take that $11B cost for coal power and call it $110 per month as an electric bill (cost for a very small apartment). If we went solar, that cost would jump to $3,510 per month! I don't know about you ... but I can't afford $3K+ per month just for electricity. THIS is why we don't use solar widely. When solar advances to the point that it can legitimately compete with coal, it will replace it and we won't need a government program or mandate. People will use it because it's cheaper. There is no more reliable reason than that.

Capitalism has never been about freedom and neither has socialism.

I've got to admit, Sunkara is a great debator. I don't agree with him, but he presents fact-based logical arguments and good rebuttals!

A) I consider myself an economic idiot and yet would wipe the floor with Bhaskar in a debate. B) Even being an economic idiot, I would have even less patience for Bhaskar than Epstein did and call Bhaskar an idiot on stage.

Once someone starts yelling or trying to play on emotions I stop raking them seriously. That's a common form of manipulation.

As a side note here, as someone from a former Soviet country -- if our opinion matters to the freedom-loving people of the free world at all -- for us (or at least some of us) "the record of socialism", which Gene Epstein describes from his third-person perspective as "unimaginably horrible", was not all that horrible at all: people still made both economic and social choices -- in some places more than what they have now in their allegedly "free" countries -- and they did not have to fear about the basic necessities such as food, housing and healthcare all the time. living on the edge, unless they are from a wealthy family. You could travel to a large swathes of the world affordably, you had vacations that are almost unimaginable in the US, and at least until the later years of the Soviets, the quality of life, and social mobility was increasing. The government was delivering electricity, water and other needs even to remotest villages, higher education was accessible to everyone willing and having to capacity to pursue it without the financial barriers that characterize them in the West now. Arts, science and culture also flourished under Soviet Union, producing some of the best works of humanity (you can go do your own research in Soviet arts and science). So, no, it was not so unimaginably horrible, it just involved somewhat different space of choices and freedoms than what was and is available in the West.

Gene could have destroyed Bhaskar simply showing how socialism fails economically, however it is incredibly enlightening that Gene portrayed socialism accurately as a top down authoritative system that must be forced on the people, which many wouldn't support. To comply with this top down central planning, dissidents or people that simply do not intend to comply with the system must be dealt with coerccively. Bhaskar could not properly answer that question and instead drew pictures of a utopian and unrealistic image of how his system would work.

The socialist equates voluntary employment with slavery. Socialism removes the voluntarism.

Gene seems to be really surprised and outraged that Bhaskar didn't totally give up and change his views...

How can a person simultaneously believe that an individual worker is entitled to the fruit of his own labor and believe that taxation is not also a form of oppression?

The problem with what Sunkara and that angry old man in the audience are proposing is that competition is as much a part of nature as humans are; you see it in every living organism. So in order to create the world they want they will have to have a huge oppressive state that forces people to not behave the way they would in a civil society naturally. It astounds me that so many nature lovers are socialists because they would have to create an artificial world to get what they want, and they'd have to use violence to maintain it.

Really interesting panel, kudos for the girl that handled this strong personalities and could relax the tensions

Gene forgot to take his anti-rawr medicine 💊

Capitalism is making the world work

Bhaskar : I want a system where workers vote on what to produce, how much, and how much each individual gets paid Gene : You can do that under Capitalism already, you can have a Socialist styled business under Capitalism... Bhaskar : Yeah but I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it? Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it? Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it? Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Ad Infinitum

Capitalist produced wine & cheese available after the debate...ha!

This idea of a socialist firm means what? What is the incentive for anyone to work harder than anyone else? We see what happens in Government when there is no incentive to work harder than anyone else - all work at the pace of the slowest and laziest. A socialist run firm will fail spectacularly.

1:25:29 "Global Warming is threatening our planet and Capitalism is resposible for this". Citation please. The number of people killed in natural disasters is VASTLY reduced today from the distant past. There is little evidence that people are in any more danger of the climate than they have before. In fact maybe less. In the late 1800s millions died in global heat waves.

The concern I have, this becomes a repeat cycle, as if nothing is learned. Using capitalism to achieve socialism which ultimately collapses and therefore reverting back to capitalism, until it's time to try socialism again. Extreme lack of wisdom. It simply comes down too, which system lasts longer, and which provides actual growth. Two simple answers to both. The cycle will never stop.

What made the majority qualified to run anything an individual has spent a lifetime perfecting

1:04:44 - Holy shit, that escalated quickly.

Ok show me just ONE country where socialism has worked and I'll show you MANY countries where capitalism has worked.

Haha that first guy: We didn't steal your word, we just redistributed it to people who needed it more!

Socialists always fail to understand one very important thing: People aren’t inherently good, responsible, rational and contributing members to societies. It takes hard work and dedication to instill these in people in order to have good, respectful safe societies. The best way to have people learn this is to make the individual responsible for their livelihood,. Not to say their shouldn’t be safety nets to help people get on their feet, but to have the government cover every aspect of our lives is foolishness that will just breed laziness and contempt for the system until it collapses.

He lost me at “give up your rights to private property.” Make no mistake that’s exactly what he’s saying. Hand over your right to property and we’ll handle it better than you could. We’ll make sure your property is distributed to people who didn’t work for it at all. He’s basically saying I’ve never taken, nor do I have any understanding of, basic economics.

This wasn’t a debate. Gene slaughtered that fool.

I was a capitalist before watching this debate, im even a stronger capitalist now. The path and vision of socialist is the thing of nightmares

Wealth (not money per se) but wealth does not appear out of thin air. Wealth is the result of value creation. The goods and/or services must have value otherwise we are talking about un-valued entities that might have been brought into existence at some cost, that not enough people or zero people want. That said and ethically speaking, all consumers are producers. To the exception such as purely inherited wealth, capitalism provides a solution which can be recognised in an old saying: "from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations. So because all consumers are producers, then wealth has to be produced, not taken. And there is no limit as to how much wealth can be created but for that of man's mind. In order for something to be brought into existence at must be the result of thought. Socialism denies the value of individual thought. And strives to punish it rather than allow the actions of thought to be rewarded. Socialism is the enslavement of man's mind. There is no collective brain.

The problem in debating socialists is that everything the socialists present is either lie,delusion,or distortion.If one were to attempt to bring the debate into reality you are faced with a deluge.

Gene isn’t arguing socialism, he’s only arguing Bhaskar. What a joke.

Gene's rebuttal is basically "I can't imagine this working so it just can't work." A lack of imagination does not equate to a rebuttal. Very weak response.

Bhaskar contradicts himself and doesn't even see the contradiction. He makes sweeping statements criticizing capitalism, that are much more prevalent in socialist countries. Free market societies enable regular people to enjoy luxuries previously afforded only to the rich. In socialist countries there is no incentive to innovate beyond government mandate which is extremely ineffective. It blurs the lines of the true value of different resources leading to massive waste. If you want democracy the free market enables democracy more than any other system by enabling voluntary cooperation between individuals and companies. The argument against private ownership is just pathetic. Business owners face many threats and the incentive for them is to provide a service that people choose to participate with. Consumers see it as providing them value. Socialism prevents an individual from bringing innovation to their fellow man by removing any incentive to do so.

One question that wasn't brought up is why would anyone even work if they're guaranteed all sorts of things they don't pay for? Who would pay for those services? Who would pay for health care? Who would pay for education? What is the motivation to work and to do good work? As for the one woman's question about working conditions for 20% of Americans today (doubtful number) the answer is simple: quit and find work somewhere else! Amazon (that's who she's talking about) would quickly change its work environment if it couldn't find workers for its existing environments. Also, I hate to bring this up, but the Democratic Socialist Party in Germany in the 1920's through the 1940's showed us what happens under Bhaskar's system, but they don't teach about that in schools today so why would he know that. Even in Germany, 60% of students today don't know who/what Hitler was. He hated capitalism just like the current Democratic Socialists do today.

Interesting that people keep bringing up all of the wonderful things Democratic Socialism has already done. And I would say in return “look at the cost.” The last 100 years, starting with the catalyst that was The Great Depression, we have been slowly implementing more and more socialist policies and programs. Welfare, roads, schools, social security and on and on the list goes. And I say “look at the god damned debt.” Between the war machine and socialist policies, our credit is nearly destroyed. Wages have stagnated for over 50 years while inflation climbs. Guess where that comes from? Borrowing money at faster and faster rates than you can hope to pay it back. The government has been so utterly terrible at managing money for so long now that even everyday citizens think its normal. The debt culture has infested every level of our infrastructure and hardly anyone even questions it anymore. Do you know why redistribution of wealth never fixes anything? Because that is like treating someone’s cold while ignoring they have Stage 4 Lymphoma. Redistribution means nothing as long as everyone thinks it is normal for both Grandma and the government to be upside down with the bank. Redistribution just shuts the populace up for a while as the government carries on with its terrible planning. The arguments everyone is having is utter nonsense. I agree that socialist programs can give the appearance of having a net positive on society. But I reject outright any of them were ever a great plan for long term success in any way. Remember that large scale issues are the same as small scale issues. Stealing from your future or your neighbor to eat now has never been a smart endeavor for individuals and it ripples into an uncontrollable cancer when done at a governmental level. Whenever you think of systems, just take it down to the individual level in order to understand their merit. If you steal from your own future, you are creating a larger issue than the one you currently have. But still not as bad as If you steal from a neighbor, you are creating a drastically larger issue than the one you currently have. Debt is theft of future. War is theft of neighbors. And we engage in both of these things greatly in America. The bill will eventually come due. Fucking brace yourselves. Imagine what happens if you are an individual and you decide to just keep getting more and more credit cards to cover your already overdrawn house of cards. Imagine the financial ruin that would come of it. Causing you to basically have a life of guaranteed servitude to the banks. So greatly Crushed by the interest that you could never even gather a few hundred dollars to go get another Certification to further your career. You are stuck at your job and paying interest indefinitely unless you quit entirely by opting out with bankruptcy or suicide. And now imagine this is what your government is doing on a massive scale and technically with your support as you voted for it to happen. Lunacy. Absolute lunacy. Capitalism vs Socialism? Pfft, don’t make me laugh. Anybody got a solution for the Stage 4 Lymphoma?No, you just want to pretend like this sheltered wonderful life we have lived in America will just keep going the way it always has. Meanwhile I literally worry about what struggles my grandchildren are guaranteed to go through due to all of our selfishness and ignorance. And by this I don’t mean financial inequality, I mean financial insolvency. Fuck inequality as a concern. How can you talk about inequality if you don’t even own any of the money you think you do. It all belongs to the FED. They can take it all with a 100% tax rate at any time they desire and really leave you and your economic theories perplexed. What a joke.

No economy is one or the other, they are called mixed market economies. See my post.

I ALMOST feel bad for Sunkara. Totally out classed. His economic knowledge is lacking. But the lack of economic knowledge is a prerequisite for being a socialist.

As a socialist that "comedian" was atrocious

Bhaskar's Socialism: "free" stuff for everyone, regulated markets, all businesses must be cooperatives, corporatist technocratic governance but at least you get to vote alot. Apparently the coops will refrain from lobbying the government, being voted out of a job is better than being fired by a boss and workers will risk their wealth by taking liability as part of the coop rather than accept a wage or Bhaskar will jail them. Also good luck being in a minority or not politically connected because your job and your rights are up to the whims of the mob or the state-bankers.

Can anyone direct me to a work place like the one described by the audience member? I've never even heard of a employer anywhere in America who is offering such conditions. Teachers taking their whole class to the bathroom?! Where?

All socialism vs. capitalism debates should only take place when both parties pass a basic economics test. Basic understanding of supply and demand, positive sum games, Say's law, Pareto's law, Price's law, comparative advantage and marginal utility would stop 99.9% of socialists dead in their tracks. Their arguments only work in their dream world.

I did a survey at my shop. Workers unanimously voted to dump waste in the river and pocket the cost of disposal. Socialism!

Man socialism has never sounded so terrible. And he's doing a great job.

as a first generation Latino immigrant in the US, the intro speech from the socialist gentleman gave me goosebumps and triggered literal ptsd, im a war survivor. they all sound exactly the same, theyre fully convinced that their system will work and that they have a progressive idea. Truth is, it's an archaic idea and it never works because their premise on the assumption of what humans are and the nature of mankind is grossly ignorant. The scary part comes when their ideas fail because they had flawed presumptions and since they are also flawed prideful humans, they refuse to admit that they were wrong, so they blame groups of people and determine that if they can get rid of that particular group of people, by putting them in prison or even death, then their ideas will work, then when their ideas continue to fail, which they inevitably will, they proudfully oust the next "culpable" group of people. It's evil and worst of all, they are atheist so they have no fear in ultimate justice. Socialism is flat out EVIL!!

Well: Socialism vs Capitalism =/= Laziness vs Selfishness. Every political system is both.

Minimum government intervention, I like

Naomi - best fun yet effective & good Spirited moderator that I've seen for some time! Great way to start this party by bringing in Dave to lighten the mood with some funny jokes! Good debate by these 2 gentleman.

Dave smith is a comedian? Could've fooled me

The redhead is super cute

I side with Gene, but his tantrum was very unbecoming and probably didn't win any new converts to his philosophy.

Next up on the debate circuit: 1) Swimming vs drowning, which is better? 2) Eating vegetables vs eating fecal matter, which leads to better health? 3) Loving relationships vs murder, your choice for a better life. 4) Wealth or poverty, which would you prefer? 5) Tanning in the Bahamas vs freezing until you die in Antarctica. 6) Taking a bath or shooting yourself in the head, which one feels better? 7) Going to the doctor vs dying from infection, is modern science really better? 8) Having sex or slamming your fingers in a car door, does it really matter? The issue is simple: Socialism requires a plan. Capitalism does not. And by having a plan you will inevitably have people who disagree with your plan. The only way to deal with those people is through the liberal use of force. This is why ALL socialist systems devolve into suffering, starvation and death. Every argument made in this debate regarding Socialism is a fallacy. Old, debunked notions that no longer follow in a truly capitalist world. These socialist defenders still live in the past. In a world where wealth is limited. Where those who had wealth actually DID have power. No one, today, who has wealth has any power. The richest man in the world, Bezos, can not get a god damned dime from me or tell me what to do. And if the fucking richest man in the world has no power, then what the fuck are these socialist's talking about? The only way the wealthy can make me do anything or get me to give them a penny is through the use of government. The socialist mind cannot connect these two things. They think the actual entity that controls power, the government, is the answer to the make believe ills of society.

In theory Socialism is great, in practice it's hell. And I say so because for 21 years I lived in the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

To Bhaskar's argument: There is nothing preventing workers from starting their own businesses and controlling the means of production in the current system.

The idea everyone is equal is absurd, except as it relates to how the law is imposed. Individuals are all quite different, come from different cultures, have different abilities and interests. As soon as you "level the field" rather than ensuring a level playing field, you abuse those who excel to the misuse by those who do not. If you want to keep what you produce, then found a business. It's that easy, socialists; you can live the life you want in a free country, including sharing as much as you see fit with others. Any socialist who is willing to prove matters will simply start a commune of like-minded do-gooders who fail to understand economics and capitalism and then live the life they dream. The idea their happiness only comes from government coercion is sufficient to prove they have no real argument outside of force and tyranny. Socialists believe there's perfection and that it is the goal. Capitalism+libertarianism knows that perfection is an unattainable ideal that changes meaning over time and with new information, and thus some must die for others to live, like in nature itself. Socialism is effectively Christianity, a system that only makes sense in a zero-sum world where nearly everyone is poor.

Hard intro, libertarian having to apeal to 2 audiences :p

Gene Epstein's part about how society wouldn't focus on minority requests. Capitalism focuses on everyone's needs because there are niche markets.

This guy has serious high BP from all the stresses of capitalism 😐

Dave Smith is one of the greats, glad Epstein took him under his wing.

When two people on a deserted island vote to cook and eat the third, they experice the precursor to social democracy and social democracy's ultimate end- brutality and savergy.

I was unsure of Gene going into this, now I’m certain that he’s insane and I love him.

the first time i ever saw dave smith was in this video. kinda brushed him off - little did i know how often i'd listen to him just a few months later.

If your trying to maximize revenue per worker, what happens to the workers that aren't super productive?

Thing starts at 14:00

If my boss tried to tell me to wear a diaper so I could be more productive, I'll quit and spread the word about their inhumane practices. Nobody should tolerate this!

So now we are in a pandemic and the economy is absolutely destroyed and people can’t afford to pay rent or food. Now which is best, capitalism or socialism? Pandemics will be a regular occurrence due to frequent environmental changes.

Those Indians need Sugata Mitra's computers, not state schools.

How can you fire someone that holds shares? Do you allow them to sell their shares or you just take it from them? If you let them to sell it, who is allowed to buy them? Their colleagues or the one whom will replace them? And if it's the latter will you let the company choose the new employee and let them buy it or put their shares on the market and let anyone bid for it?

20% of workers have only 3 minutes a day to pee? Wearing diapers? What planet does she live on?

It's very troubling that such horrific and inherently evil ideas as socialism still need to be debated