except that this "middle class" in every instance is supported by the disappearance of "home bias" in capital investment and rests on a tiered global system of resource extraction&debt-trap poverty in the south. Unskilled labor exploitation in one area props up the living standards of "technical" labor in another. The awareness of which is prevented by "false-consciousness" cultural appeasement in the 1st world. This is not "prosperity", this is a nation of ostriches. America is a religious fundamentalist & culturally moribund state. All of Western society is propelled by hatred & varying degrees of ignorant ethnocentric nationalism. America is not a nation of goodwill or broadly humanistic principles. We are a death cult
I think U are referring to Communism, Just to name a couple of Social States in Europe, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden. But who cares? the American dream is non-existent today anyway and the American middle class is shrinking to next to nothing.
Socialism is as socialism does. I view socialism as their actions. And taking away people's private property seams to fit right along the lines of socialism.
Socialism isn't complex, though... A union is a simple idea, is it not? Workers owning their workplace and being their own boss isn't hard to understand, right? The video you watched suggests socialism means the government controls everything even though that's not the case.
@@paulsusac4839 If you steal from the rich and give to the poor -- that is socialism. Not all socialism is bad -- a small amount of it is necessary. But more than that is very dangerous because it looks good and sounds good, but it never works. When people give up their individual rights to get free handouts, everyone loses in the end. Are you aware of the books Hansen has written over the years, and how widely respected they are? Do you know about his knowledge of history? I don't agree with him on everything -- I think he supported the invasions and occupations in the Middle East, or at least the first two -- which really surprised me (and disappointed me) -- but he is certainly not a hack.
And the farmers stopped farming and the truckers stopped trucking. And the firefighters stopped fighting fires and police stopped policing and the employers stopped hiring and the employees stopped producing and the poorest of the poor went hungry first.
non-citizen George Soros should not be funding US local district attorney candidates/ elections. he is causal in installing these weird Marxists types and getting them into local power. there needs to be law code stopping people from outside the US paying for US elections.
Brilliant observation with respect to how collectivism has evolved to use identity politics instead of class based politics because of how well off most are now in the United States. As always great content and thanks for the upload!
I always love VDH and NF in a conversation!!!!! They are so good at honing historically relative facts into a present day point. Amazing! a moderator who knows how not to make it about himself.... ;)
VDH & NF are definitely two of the brightest minds of the last few decades. We would all benefit enormously if they were more involved in public policy decisions. They are a NATURAL RESOURCE.
33:00 Here in Norway we too we have something called AS Norge, and it is what drives the economy, small business is what employs the most people, pay the most taxes and provides the most services. Small Business is capitalism, not big business. Both Niall and Victor nailed it.
Socialism can never work because it goes against human nature. ""From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Only happens with incentives to produce and deterrents to take more than your share, thus some form of capitalism is the only answer. We should put this debate to rest in grade school so we don't waste our time as adults.
Socialism is actually when workers have a say at their work place. This interpretation that 'the government fits each person with a task depending on their ability' is more of the German model. Not every country has to be like Germany.
There was a time in our country where the average individual had only two books the Bible and the Blacks Law Dictionary, we have forgotten God. Terrible!
Andy H but that’s where government comes in. What if an employer doesn’t want to have a democratic work space. Who would enforce it? People can choose to start a democratic run business now. So why do we need to force it. If it was such a better option and employees truly wanted such an environment there would be more democratic style businesses. The truth is most employees don’t want such an environment.
@@SirAndrewII There are a lot of definitions of socialism, it is a large ideology. Saying the workers have a say at their workplace is theoretically a small part of it but it never works that way because businesses cannot be run efficiently by a committee of the average worker. The average worker is not an expert on running a business and again people only work as hard as they are compensated for. German model from when? Germany is currently a free-market country, not a socialist country.
46:50 "Tocqueville said that unfortunately most people would prefer to be equal and poor than unequal and better off. It was he that said that the two most powerful emotions in human experience are jealousy and envy. It's the idea that someone else better off than you is a more important concern than you being better off. There's some innate human desire to make sure that anyone through accident (in the Aristotelian sense) doesn't look better than you do. " Victor Davis Hanson. Rene Girard describes this human tendency as mimetic desire: I want it because you have it.
Jordan Peterson observed that erstwhile socialists in Alberta Canada were not driven by their desire to help the poor as much as their “hatred of the rich”. I think he might be correct.
In Australia we call it the “tall poppy syndrome”. In other words, for an egalitarian society to prosper the high flyers need to be brought down to earth. Somehow our sporting heroes, like Hollywood stars, are exempt from popular sanction, provided always that their talent exceeds outstrips their hubris. Be a winner but be humble with it :).
I observe that if we split the population by half in terms of money-making skills, the more talented half is likely to support capitalism because they know they will probably be above most. Likewise, the less talented half is likely to abhor capitalism because they know they will probably be below most. While I feel sad about the less talented half here, I do support capitalism, in part because I think freedom in general allows for other games to coexist, and capitalism (money making) is only one of the many games. So while envy is a strong emotion and that sounds like a dead end, we can be more optimistic, because there are many games for human beings to compete in besides capitalism itself, and hopefully the vast majority of people will be able to find at least one game in which they can be in the dominant half. A good example is in sex: there's a lot of people that are total losers at money making but major winners in the art of seduction. And to think that money makes a perfect correlation with happiness is far from the truth: once we have the things we need, just piling up unnecessary money doesn't seem to affect happiness at all. At times it even causes the very opposite effect.
Thank you. It makes me very happy to see and hear this from the doctors. I was starting to think everyone in the world is going crazy, and could not figure out why they couldn’t think straight. This is a good start to help everyone heal.
Here is a key logic error that no one has corrected: Our true system is "The Free Enterprise System", not "Free market". Free markets are only one component of the Free Enterprise System. Failing to distinguish between these two concepts is part of the reason we are in this mess. This has been the major flaw that President Trump has been addressing. The U.S. can have internal free markets, because all states are subject to the same federal laws. But leaving our markets open and free to the rest of the world which does not reciprocate and tarrifs our products to high heaven, is what has nearly decimated our economy. We have been subsidizing the world and they hate us for it!
“I'd like to know why well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.” ― John Wayne
4 года назад
what is the definition of well educated?
4 года назад
Foolish quote. The problem with capitalism is that it oppresses those who are younger and those with less money. No one has ever thought the world owes them a living. The idea is being willing to help others, not that the world owes them something. What the world does owe people is the chance to live, and the oppression under capitalism doesn't allow people to live.
Brilliant discussion. Thank you so much. As a member of the millennial generation who is also a conservative and member of the US military I sincerely appreciate it.
Ferguson contradicts himself badly when he starts out claiming that today's leftists like AOC don't want true socialism but want social democracy, yet halfway through says that today's universities plainly inculcate socialism. VDH is usually sharp on the response but got lost in the weeds with his CA imminent domain argument: The far larger issue is that the massive architectural changes now being sought by the left (Green New Deal) amount to a nationalist appropriation of large sectors (energy) like something we would see under Chavez. I'm rather stunned VDH let Ferguson get away with this. If today's left got what they really wanted, we would be indistinguishable in many important respects from Venezuela.
The Hoover Institution presents an online virtual speaker series based on the scholarly research and commentary written by Hoover fellows participating in the Human Prosperity Project on Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism. This project objectively investigates the historical record to assess the consequences for human welfare, individual liberty, and interactions between nations of various economic systems ranging from pure socialism to free-market capitalism. Each session will include thoughtful and informed analysis from our top scholars.
I see in my mind a daily revelry and conviviality and merry making with my classmate and fellow member of our fraternity binge drinking club, Karl Marx. Lacking capitalistic ambition, we frolic in a fairy tale land of mental imagery mocking the lifestyle of our progenitors and beneficiaries who finance our inspired escapism at university level with a contemporary imagination led by the legends of Napoleonic mastering of the universe through nationalistic theft and coercion. We escape the demands of household responsibility and spin webs of adventurous tales in our beer. Why should we work? Our endless drunken future is guaranteed by our rich predecessors. Money is not real. It is a tool used to overpower our critics.
In America everyone has the potential to raise themselves to a higher class or income. Without the interference of Government that's why capitalism works
Great deal of gratitude for the folks at the H.I. for consistently providing such compelling topics and guest speakers. Lot's of information to wrap my head around!!! So, Socialism in practical experience is an abject failure when it moves beyond micro or family level because it has a deleterious effect on freedom/liberty (where it seems to work well because the redistribution favors the micro or group/family interest -for the most part). The growth and overreach of bureaucracy becomes an impingement in Capitalism because it has a deleterious effect on freedom/liberty. The common denominator for failure is pretty regardless of the system.
Thanks, fellas, for this discussion. Hoover continues to put out some of the best content, from some of the smartest minds. Fascinating and educational. Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson are absolutely spot-on when they speak about socialism's hypocrisy. This galls me, too. Appreciate the time from you guys - it's like being a student at a top university! Keep 'em coming. Mind food!
If you want to know what it is like living under Socialism/Communism join the military. You have public housing, public chow halls, public medical care. They tell you what job you are going to have etc. Granted once you decide to make the military your career things get better and you have more options, but the first few years after you join it is like I said in my opening statement.
Hello. I'd like to point out that, simply put, youngsters and liberals who call themselves socialists are not actually socialists - they are utopians who see unevenly distributed prosperity in the western world. The reason for the uneven distribution is due to capitalism and the solution seems to be social programs. Thus is, it's nice people trying to reduce suffering of folks in poverty.
This idea of crony capitalism kinda sounds like the mirror argument of "communism isn't a bad concept, it just hasn't been done right, yet." Usually people say the morals of Christianity must be paired with capitalism to keep it just and fair. I never hear anyone discussing the pairing of Christianity with communism, but maybe that's impossible. Communists are usually anti-Christian.
It is completely impossible. Christianity goes against the very principle of communism. If you couple them together, it becomes so.ething else completely.
Communists are opposed to all religions that don't conform to state wishes and objectives. That why there underground churches and practitioners of "unapproved" and therefore seditious. Jesus opposed oppression! Communism IS oppression! IT is "GOD". Jesus was a voluntarist, not a thief! He believed in educating the evil nature of man out of him. Even God wanted voluntary worship. That's why he gave "Adam & Eve" choice! They chose wrong. They disobeyed God's instructions and chose to go it alone. When you disobey your father, you usually get disciplined if he loves you! Jesus was sent as the "lamb of God". The way back that covers our sin (disobedience). But this crap that Jesus was a communist makes no sense whatsoever and is a lie straight from hell! Good luck humans!
Can you imagine the conversations over the dinner table between Ayan Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson? Both brilliant, articulate and insightful. Their children are indeed privileged.
Capitalism isn't a system, it's a recognition of property. That is, if I eat a sandwich you can't also be eating that sandwich. Socialism is a system. It requires force to violate property rights in order to distribute resources. Socialism without force is just charity. Communism without force is just the family unit ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is the parent-child relationship). Modern economies are not capitalistic, they are class based. The elite class can manipulate the use of force (government) to their whims and the lower classes can vote away the property of the middle class.
To Mike's question: Why would you need a strong social safety net if free enterprise is able to flourish. One you would build your own strong "social safety net", two your family would be able to lend a hand, three if not your family then neighbor's/community, four if not neighbor's and community then private charities in the city. But why not eliminate the very need for a "strong social safety net"? Seems like a much more prosperous and wholly solution.
That requires voluntary “Christian” charity to work. Heavily taxed socialist government kills the incentive for being charitable ( I pay taxes so you are the governments responsibility ) and unregulated capitalism promotes greedy abuses ( slum lords and payday loans ). We are stuck with a messy system in USA but it’s still the best system we humans have managed to come up with so far.
We would first need to define what a strong social safety net is. But I think in reality it's undefinable. In the US, we have social security and disability benefits. Even with that, there are people who either don't have the capacity or desire to collect benefits they may be eligible for. So this notion that we have to equalize outcomes is ridiculous and will never happen. I agree with the comments in this discussion that the conservatives/capitalists have done a very poor job of demonstrating how a capitalist system delivers a better outcome for the poor when compared to a socialist system. It seems pretty obvious, but I think we would all be better informed if we could more clearly describe that assertion.
There are many reasons for why people are poor. The majority of those stem from the fact that people are the victims of themselves. They dont acknowledge the consequences of their own actions.
Exactly. I think we also need to understand - and remember - that not everyone wants the same things out of life. People don't even really want an equal outcome. But we all have to learn that our choices have consequences. No matter what tangent someone may get off on, our personal choices have consequences and always will.
Always fun and informative to hear some great minds talk. I'm wondering more about how capitalism can have a safety net, and I wonder if it needs to be codified into law at all, or if we can have altruistic companies -- and if not, what is the obstacle?
1. Number who have fled Eastern European socialism for American capitalism - millions. Number who have fled American capitalism for Eastern European socialism - about ten or eleven. Including Oswald. 2. Socialism destroyed the largest empire in history, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I'm wouldn't presume to say one system is superior or fairer than the other. But millions of others will answer unhesitantly. Ask any one of them.
the biggest problem is when they are talking about capitalism and free market and socialism is there is no free market in capitalist states. We have capitalist monopolies , big corporations which , with by a support of the government ( which are really controlled by big corporations tough lobbying) are controlling the market. A so called free market never existed. There was always the state involvement in regulating the market. '' There is no such thing as a free market, never has been, never will be. All markets are regulated, but some markets are regulated in the interest of the many and others in the interest of the few. The American economy is now clearly and indisputably regulated by the few and for the few who now control the wealth of the nation."
For me, the most significant aspect of the relationship between State and corporations is very reminiscent of Fascism. In the Doctrine of Fascism, Gentile makes the point very clear that the State has to monopolize power and subjugate the economy using ‘guilds’ (corporazioni). I am surprised by the lack of reference to this by the panel at this point.
Not saying the excellent Ferguson & Davis Hanson is wrong but bringing on a genuine proponent of Socialism might give this discussion some more credibility :)
I have noticed that in the 20 century. The nations that embraced socialism/communism. Also had a cultural affinity towards subjugating themselves to the state (monarchy).
Capitalism allows one to become rich by one's product or asset being deemed popular or valuable in society. Socialism just means someone determines what you do with your life and requires your compliance otherwise your put into the section of undesirables and left to die unless you comply. One must remember that socialism is said to satisfy "human need" meaning: Water, food, shelter and air Humans don't need comforts like: A/C TV Internet Computers Fancy cars Board games Video games and so on
Many thx for this discussion. It seems obvious to students of history that capitalist trade is responsible for transforming living standards. Most people lived in abject poverty for centuries before the Enlightenment, there being little difference in conditions from Roman times to the 15th Century. When royal monopolies on trade were liberalised from the 17th Century onwards, they led to Agricultural and Industrial revolution, which accounts for the enormous improvement we have seen in the last three centuries. Socialism advocates a return to State monopoly of trade, which has impoverished all those societies that have tried it. Some good points came from the discussion, particularly the point about capitalism being an unselfish belief, because it has been shown to lift millions out of poverty. So many of our elites have gone intellectually astray with Socialism, and it still puzzles me why Academia seems dominated by cultural and economic Marxists when their narratives are historically and obviously false.
There are only two forces that have been at work in the history of man. Frederic Bastiat explained these two quite clearly in his 1850 book, The Law. A must read!!! Some may wish to oversimplify these two forces as Good vs Evil. Or Freedom vs Slavery. Godly vs Ungodly. But the more accurate and more easily understood is Collectivism vs Individualism. From these two terms springs those mentioned in the prior sentences as well as all others including anarchism, libertarianism, limited constitutional gov't, liberalism, progressivism, Nazism, socialism, Fascism, Marxism, communism and those tied to greater centralization of power such as dictatorships (rare) , monarchies and oligarchies (more common). But if any two people are to solve problems through the discussions of issues, it is vital that we start with agreeing on the "terms" and "definitions" of words. Since the very definition of democracy is different from that of republic, we cannot be "for" both at the same time. We can be for a hybrid system but again we have to understand it's nature and its particular rationale and objective, form and function. The political spectrum is also vital to agree upon. It is simply impossible to have a "range" that isn't based on the quantity of government present. If there is NO, or zero, government in existence, there is no ruler or even laws, since it takes some quantity and form of government to make a law. This is the definition of anarchy. 0 to 100% is the logical expression of any such range and given traditional "labels", it makes sense to position Zero on the right end and 100% on the left end. Extreme right is Zero gov't, Extreme left is 100% gov't. Such a spectrum provides a place for all forms of government, relative to its quantity. Consequently, Extreme Collectivism is 100% gov't, while Extreme Individualism is Zero gov't. At some point in man's history, his experience with zero government combined with his "fatal tendency", explained in The Law, opened the door to survival of the fittest. Dog eat dog. The strong living off of the weak. This fatal tendency, "to live at the expense of others has never changed and never will!!! It is a built in nature of surviving the nest possible with the least effort. You cannot get rid of that, ever! Collectivism is where the strong today seek to oppress those not in support of it. And those in support of it are rewarded with the "take" forced from the "makers". You may also accurately state that collectivists are the takers and individualists are the makers. True individualists wouldn't dare commit the crime of theft because they understand the damage to society for doing so! If theft is allowed to go unpunished, everyone would figure out ways to plunder others and society would spend it's time defending it's property from theft and produce less. So honest men formed units, you may call them tribes or communities if you want. But each developed a sort of protected "cell" where some were asked to use there day being "lookouts" for approaching danger or threats. But they were essentially employees of the community. There to "protect and serve" the freedoms and property from violators. A legitimate limited function. So the only proper role of any government is to insure that the freedoms and property of its members is secure from plunder! No other reality, no other system, no other function of gov't can exist without becoming converted in part to Collectivism. And that road leads to tyranny. The very thing our founders warned us of from the beginning. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
The conversation regarding the enchroachment on individual property rights by the administrative state has indeed been on an upward trajectory for some time in America. However, be it socialism or progressivism, VDH and Nial converge on the point that American individualism continues to wan in America. Nial and VDH are two great historians.
There is a huge misconception of what nationalism is by the left and it is pointed out in the Federalist Papers exactly what it is. Conservatives pretty much have long term historical traditional meaning to words and Liberal tend to redefine their meaning through time which is very confusing! I really do not consider liberals today as liberal at all!
I can't think of a single example of pure Communism or a pure market economy (capitalism). The only question that arises is to what extent does the government control or not the national economy. USSR very high, 1960s USA very low. The secret to success is getting the balance between the public and private sector right. One extreme is Pol Pot Cambodia and the other extreme is Las Vegas or Tombstone in 1880.
Good evening Niall Ferguson. My name is Annabelle Almado and I am listening in RU-vid video about your discussion regarding Socialism and Capitalism. My question is this: if socialism is good towards the prosperity of humanity, why the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and East Berlin fall down?
The idea of socialism assumes redistribution of assets raises the human condition to equal opportunity. This can never guarantee equal outcome. If you are a landlord, you soon discover some people are not suitable tenants. In some cases homelessness is not so much a case of availability as suitability. And, for many, the street is a choice. Legislation to force landlords to provide housing is much like confiscation with out compensation. Not meaning to be cold hearted. There is no gain in expected loss. I'm open for some one to show me how we can all prosper. What are you investing? If you have nothing, I'll accept good behavior. Show me your track record.
We need to give everyone an IQ test and then pay those that fall below 115 a monthly stipend to not procreate. In a couple of generations there will be no poor people.
I have a heavy suspicion that were it not for the Constitution, America would have been a socialist country before today. We always talk in miserable tones about the supposed inevitable leftward trend of politics but we should admire the power of right-wing ideas that can last centuries before succumbing to leftist incursion. If we only have to write a good document once every three centuries we should be okay.
In the beginning of this discussion, it seemed as if Ferguson was more Left learning than what I knew Hanson would be. And not knowing about Niall, he really impressed me with a detailed picture of the distinct differences between what socialism is and what young millennials perceive it to be. At first his explanation seemed very factional and subcategorical. But his point that people thinking that Sweden represents socialism, and in fact doesn't, was very important and lead to the more important exposing of cancel culture and identity politics. A point that Hanson could expand upon. And Ferguson's call to have Republicans be held more accountable for their non-compassionate attitudes towards citizens as a whole was very compelling. I too, was VERY critical of George W Bush's brand of conservatism, not seeing it as such. And now we know he's just as swampy as most of Democrat Left. Great discussion; needed more time to do it justice..
Niall Ferguson has such a supple mind and I really enjoyed that sparring (and it was) between he & VDH. When will the Left and the Right begin having Civil dialogue like this?
On cue, less than 24 hours before filming, former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo on Twitter "Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I'll happily provide video commentary." ,,,followed by pictures from his Napa Estate...
Hey goofy hoover guy...brief history 4 you. Jealousy = leveling effect = socialism = communism = social democracy. Don't care how you rationalise takenings.
how come non of you bozos are concerned about economic efficient. you appear to have no defined priority. "don't take my stuff me me me" is not sufficient for economic efficiency. hint stop getting ripped off by your caste system country club.
I really like the content I get to watch from the Hoover Institution, but please do some basic audio mastering. I was riding my volume control the whole time, based on who was speaking. A little compression and EQ can make a huge difference. With today's software, Victor and Niall's muffled audio could be made significantly more intelligible, not to mention loudness leveled with the other tracks.
Socialism (even communism) has been around since Plato. And criticisms of it since Aristotle. It's the interaction of these ideas with industrialism which is new.
I think the most important part of the conversation happened around the 1:00:00 stamp. The conversation veered into an old discussion of Orthodox-state control party Communism vs socialism (which they correctly discussed as more like a cry for Social Democracy). But I've heard this conversation play out a thousand times, at the Hoover institution as well as in many many more circles. The real issue is not demonstrating how centrally planned totalitarian government is not conducive to freedom and prosperity, we all know that too well. The much more interesting question, and one which I almost never hear "classical liberals" or "conservatives" talk at length as is the following really important question. What do we need to do in order to make sure that all people are met with a basic and fundamental level of social welfare? The very severe objection young people like me have against the current system, which could only be described as a mixed economy with predominately capitalist characteristics, is that our society fails to provide adequate healthcare, education, and the mere opportunity. The days of being able to work a simple job and providing for an individual or family, and having a reasonable chance of social mobility are have long passed. How can we have a society where a rich class comprising anywhere from 1-5% of individuals take millions of dollars in bonuses, have second and third homes, yachts, etc... and at the same time millions of people can't afford basic necessities and have no hope of getting out of poverty because they lack adequate healthcare and education to raise healthy competent children who will go on to join the free market? Capitalism, without restructuring or redefinition, will not survive. Because the concept at its logical conclusion allows for people to gain excessive wealth and leave others with no safety net. The free market allows for immense wealth disparity without correction, the process of creative destruction only shuffles around who falls in and out of the superclass, but it does not address the needs of those who can not provide for themselves in a free market. Advocates of free-market capitalism confronted with the very reality than a sizeable percentage of the population will be left with nothing, outsource the moral dilemma to charity, and the goodwill of millionaires and billionaires to come to an offer some remedy, but this is not enough. And a system that does not address the basic needs of a growing class of people who are dropping out of the labor force, and civil society like flies will simply not survive the forces of revolution. My contention is that even a true capitalist system, who has been rid of all bureaucratic and despotic ties, will not result in prices and conditions of a living being accessible enough to meet the basic needs of ALL people. Some people will always be priced out of the market, and to those people, the capitalist has no answer but avenues external to capitalism. With religion and feelings of community in decline, automation on the rise, and the rising cognitive demand for available jobs, I see it very unlikely that these issues will be sorted out by personal agency and our current system will continue to threaten and alienate people until we are driven to the brink of war again. The only solution I see is a centralized and careful re-distribution and investment in the fundamental pillars that are conducive to human development and social capital. Not the abolition of private property but an investment in the lower class which has never been seen before. With all that said I would like to see a careful and extensive vision and policy prescription for meeting the needs of this growing underclass. Like Victor Davis Hanson pointed out, this vision should be delivered without lament, and religious/abstract tones, but rather with concrete and explicit language. And it should detail at a systematic level how these policies will need to be carried out.
Capitalism is not concerned with the "good of society as a whole" which the opening of this video claimed. That is a collectivist premise, and is fundamentally the reason for the decline of Capitalism in the West today. Capitalism is a social system which recognises individual rights (including property rights, where all property is privately owned. Capitalism recognises that issues of "good" and "evil" relate to individuals, the unit of society. For something to be good, it must be good for someone and for some end. This is why the individual is emphasised by rational capitalist. By Contrast, socialism is the social system which advocates for the collective or state ownership of the means of production. Socialism presupposes the ideology of collectivism, the idea that some group (race, sex, class, nationality) has greater value than any given individual. The group comes first, and individuals are only valuable insofar as they serve or sacrifice to the ends of the group. The introduction of this podcast seemingly described Capitalism in collectivistic terms, i.e. it serves the society as a whole. But this is not the case. Under capitalism every individual has a moral right to his own life, liberty, property and his pursuit of happiness, society be damned. So long as an individual is not violating the rights of others he is entitled to live his life as he pleases, and no one, not a king, president or even a voting majority has any right to take his stuff or compel him to serve their needs. Capitalism is failing because conservatives, alleged defenders of capitalism, today use the premises of the socialist to advocate for capitalism. Like the socialists, they begin with the question, "what is good for society as a whole" and therefore surrender the moral argument to the socialism immediately. "Society" is an abstract concept. Society is just a collection of individuals all of whom are pursuing their own values. Since society is just a collection of individuals, what's good for individuals must necessarily be good for society. Capitalism is the social system that says that you as an individual get to decide judge what's in your own interests. If everyone is free to discover and pursue their own interests, and are dealing with others by means of trade, which is necessarily a win-win relationship, that means that every individual is free to success and achieve their own good in a voluntary and peaceful way, to the betterment of the people they are interacting with.
If I may quibble, and with respect, I suggest that capitalism tends to serve society as a whole ( rising tide lifts all boats etc) regardless of the intent of the individuals within it. However, there are some “rights” or “freedoms” that are necessarily impinged upon so that a more efficient trading environment can be created. That includes some pressure on property rights because people and their assets tend to be in close proximity to one another (e.g. 10,000 people and portfolios in a square mile require laws and compromises to property rights as opposed to 1 person with 1 portfolio who lives almost alone in the woods). The erosion of some rights caused by living in a crowded market place is quite different, in my opinion, from the erosion arising from the apparently “socialist” attitude of county planners when a land owner wants to install a pool.
The timing of this "debate/discussion" is curiously positioned... just before the digital dollar and consolidation into the mass roster of centralized digital wallets...
Socialism relies far too much on discussion and theory at the academic level. True economics occur at the factory, the contractors, the manufacturers, the miners, the refiners, the distributors, the installers, the shippers, etc. In a classroom a factory is a couple notes on a chalkboard. In reality it is a business run by people skilled and dedicated to the industrial arts, machinists, tool and die makers, fabricators, designers, engineers, chemists, electricians, metallurgists, processors, estimators, purchasers, packers and shippers, field technicians, sales...etc. We grossly underestimate what it takes to be a modern industrial state. Socialists tend to view the world from a bureaucratic point of view, while (ethical) capitalists see it from an industrial patronage and production point of view. People occupy divorced realities, and a journalist may not understand the world of an Aluminum extruder, manufacturer, nor visa versa. The manufacturer sees Trump as the closest thing to an industrialist we have had for decades to save a decimated/declining industrial base. The journalist sees Trump as the new Hitler.
Steven Pinker has a great Ted that outlines the benefit of free markets on world wide reductions in hunger, infant mortality and just general improvements in the human condition. Also Francis Fukuyama in his books outlines the benefits of capitalism in general doing the same.
33:20. What if that's the point? To make us forget? Conflate socialism with the welfare state Why? because: 34:08 Fascism and socialism, two tools in a toolbox. Tools for what? B&W
