Meh who cares. Whatever works. If a youtube rap battle is what gets people intrested in the systems around them then I don't see what's so bad about that. The only stupid thing is when people only listen to the rap battles and stop at that but I feel like anyone who wants people to follow a system they believe in eventually realizes that you can't expect them to always read a buch of dry boring theory. You have to get good at convincing people and rewording all that theory and philosophy into words they can actually understand without spending years in college. This is already done with science so I don't see what's so wrong with doing the same with politics as long as it's done well. The problem is that most of the time it isn't done well.
@@noname-zp1yh The problem is that just the basic concept that socialism and communism are the same is fundamentally flawed. If you want fake news, the fact that they call carl marx a socialist instead of a communist is fake news.
we can all agree on one thing: half of this video was good Edit: thanks for the likes, nowadays i'm a communist but i don't really think this video is a true example of my beliefs, well.. bye bye! ❤
Surprisingly, with having none of them cut in between each other and with great points, proof, and quick deliverance that also rhyme, this is probably the theoretical ideal form of debate humanity could only dream and never achieve.
@@Coolsomeone234 Theres lots Discussion to have. I warmly reocmmend 'Is Capitalism even Efficient?!' by 'Second Thought', as well as the Times he and the RU-vidr Some More News talked about Workers, Worker-Rights and Unions.
Regardless of which side you agree with, this is what the country needs. I didn't hear one personal shot at either man, it was all based on ideas, the good and bad. We've lost the willingness to respectfully disagree.
I love how the left and right always point at one another that they are the first to get mad or something while in reality both sides are fucking retarded when it comes to this.
@Andrew Cox k. But I never stated an opinion. All I did was say that the left and right are both impulsive and both cant seem to have a civil discussion. So why are you trying to discuss capitalism with me? You don't even know my stance on the political spectrum. All you did was see a critizism of the right wing and see it as a direct insult and felt the need to debate me on it.
@@a_noob559 they both had powerful arguements. Your opinion of slaughtering is objective. I happen to agree with you though. I just think the best thing Marx can do for history is be forgotten.
@@SeanPS True, that's just _my_ opinion, and others might think differently. But I still think that this video does a very good job at showing who is right. Mises uses facts, evidence, history, and bases his ideas on logic. Marx, however, bases his ideas on feelings, utopia and disproved theories. That pretty accurately represents the two ideologies IRL if you ask me. Those who see fact will say Mises won, and those who see fiction will say Marx won, just like real life. No, our solution is not to forget Marx. We should disprove him instead. We've tried forgetting Marx, but he will always be re-discovered by the selfish and gullible, which is why we need to prop him up instead, so that we can tear him down. We need to make sure that everyone knows who Marx was, and how his ideology fails not because it was never 'real' socialism, but because his ideas are fundamentally flawed. It would be better for us to put him in the spotlight, if anything.
@@a_noob559 he is in the spotlight. In our universities, in our media, in our presidential candidates, etc. But I agree with your consensus of sunlight being the best disinfectant. At the same time, as capitalists we love using facts and logic, unfortunately others have forsaken reason for madness.
i am a german sitting in here like a yes a debate we had 100 years ago social-market-econemy for the win! aka rheinecapitalisem ore in german Soziale-Marktwirtschaft
Fun fact, the Nazi party was a nationalist socialist party. Socialism is the cause and philosophy of Hitler’s rise. So before you decide that socialism is a great idea, I just think about World War II for a moment. Thank you for reading this.
@@grantreigel1852 what?! Do you now, that big corporations in Germany supported Hitler, and after his revolution the business owners saved their companies? Yep, socialism. Learn history
@@RedWanderer26 the video is american or english, what do you expect? Of course capitalism wins in their eyes, while Marx isn't even protrayed that well in comparison
@@ShayNoMore1 actually, a lot of economists admit that he got a lot of predictions right, you shouldn't judge a person basing on the people that used his/her ideology to obtain power, Marx doesn't have anything to do with the crimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hoxcha and many others.
@@Erl0sung Anarchy of production? That's literally what Anarchism is all about. Horizontal production. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules" it means "horizontal" making is effectively synonymous to "no rulers" as much as "no rulees." It's like the song of the United Front: "He wants no servant under him and no boss over head." Anarchist theory is literally all about horizontal production and the different ways that it could be done.
@@workerspower2011 Why do you care if we enjoy it? Go listen to something else? And by 'real rap', what do you even mean? Not all rap is about doing drugs, doing crimes, and women. Try and get some diversity in your diet
Ironically if you have ever read marx's he was fine with capitalism at the start but has out growing its usefulness and he said capitalism is a step to socialism.
Yeah I've noticed that while he was extremely anti-capitalistic, he did see some positives of capitalism and thought that it was good for setting up the conditions for communism.
@@thenotsodiscretewolf2098 I know and I agree that capitalism is a better system than feudalism but there is still the element of class domination and so capitalism must go.
@@flatarthur3161 OK? What is your point ? Ever since the start of humanity there were always classes. From strong to weak, kings to peasant and finally rich to poor. No matter how you look at it people will always want to be better than others. Because we are humans imperfect in every way possible.
Marx complains about being blamed for violence he didn't commit (at Tiananmen Square) and then not long after that he attacks a guy and throws him off the balcony.
@@bobgilbert1953 If I teach children to murder and they go out and murder am I to blame for them doing so did I not teach them to do this should I not be held accountable for my actions and words
@@michaelkeha Sure, but A, Kapital is a thousand page treatise on economics, written in Russian. It is not for teaching children. It's too dense for most *adults* to finish. And B, Socalism is not inherently violent. So, your argument fails on both it's faces.
At now I watched this for like 20+ times. When I see this video first time I just think ''what is this, economist rap battle?'' I thought it was strange and creative, so I went to check it out.This video has many of my favorite part like the melodies, sentences, and many parts of speech. And there are a lot of parts that I don't understand as well too, because I'm not someone who follows or studies much about economics. But it's still good for me. But after this time I watched, It's just not only about conflict of capitalism and socialism. This sentence is actually the turly question to ask for humanity development ''Where are we going? What's the right course? What will motivate us? Incentives or force?''
Keep studying. Each segment has different concepts that you can look up as well as different economists referenced. In particular the part about labor theory of value being disproven by (Eugen) von Bohm Bawerk is something people should learn.
My advice is don't get caught up in internet politics. Read books from the two sides, learn about economics (even tackle Marx's Das capital if you can??). Marx's ideas are clearly misrepresented here. I don't blame the video, it's already hard to try it.
Am I the onlybone that realized that in the chorus, when the capitalist sings an individual voice sings and when the socialist sings, a whole chorus sings???
Capitalism can be fixed enough to not gen0cide the species, i think, but why settle for that? I became a socialist after i reailized its lied about a lot and that gave me flashbacks to the theory of evolution A thing mighty-much lied about
@@decodoe Another genious that can't differentiate between generating wealth and capitalism. Naziosocialist Germany and (!) fascism were (in terms of economy, not racial and other policies) built on the idea of protectionst policy and self-sufficiency through mixture of private and public ownership over the means of production. Which did allowed private profits (generation of wealth) for (mostly) selected and sometimes lucky individuals in the society, however, puting national interest first. In the instance where public (nations) interest would be in the need of assistance from or directly clash with interests of private individuals. The state would prevail and if needed through the use of force towards the individuals who had accumulated wealth. The similar scenario can be seen in various examples when subjects of state (citizens) are controled by a higher entity (Emperors, Kings, Tzars, Dictators). Examples can be seen from Medival age and/or Feudal system, when Emperors, Kings and Tzars needed finances for conquest or defence, they would generate wealth through force if required, to Kulaks in Communist Soviet Union to many other examples throughout history. Therefore, Facism is not differentiated from any other dictatorial, authoritarian, totalitarian system when it comes to generating wealth, it is differentiated in social and political issues, but that's not because its driven by capitalism.
Fascists: *Are we a joke to you?* Capitalists/Communists: Ehh pretty much!! *Edit: to all people at comments chill out i know that it refers to politics but it's just a joke!*
@@theaveragejoe___ just because Hitler said it doesn’t mean it has to be wrong. He was also a vegetarian, but that doesn’t invalidate vegetarian theory.
La libertad no se encuentra en adquirir productos para vivir con comodidades y lujos, es como estar alineado a un vacío que nunca se llena. La libertad se encuentra en desapegarnos de esas necesidades tan vanas que sólo buscan llenar vacíos y buscar felicidades intermitentes.
Dmr Cwvokeen Esa es tu idea de libertad, el capitalismo la considera también y te deja hacerlo si quieres. Pero si a mí me da la gana pudrirme en cosas y hacerme rico sin pasar sobre nadie ¿Con qué derecho puedes cuartearme esa libertad?
As a Chinese who isn't even allowed to discuss whether capitalism or socialism is better on China's social media apps, I love how the comments argue so much here
Holy Fudge! Recently I've been studying some of the works of Mises, Marx, Hegel, etc. There are SO many inside jokes in this video that I missed when I watched it originally. EG: 9:42 "Socialism's record isn't hard to parse, first it was tragedy, now it's a farce." That is mocking a quote by Marx about how history always happens twice "first it's a tragedy, then it's a farce."
Be careful though as there isn't a single position in this video said by Marx that Marx would actually believe. The creaters of this video have not actually read any Marx
@@iraholden3606 lol that’s objectively not true; it just means authoritarian leftism. Y’know, like the Tankie that this video is implying that Marx was.
@@xamotii7988 I've read all of Capital, don't attempt to explain to me what you mean, I know exactly what you mean, you are just wrong. Polcomp is a meme, it is useless.
That's _within our_ nation, not from every nation. Also in the original Japanese Kojiro (James) says "To protect the peace of the world" (heck Musashi (Jessie) actually says "to _stand by_ the evils of truth and love")
I don’t think the “tragedy, farce” argument gets the recognition it deserves. Karl Marx once said “History repeats itself first as tragedy, second as farce.”
Not sure why this is even a debate socialism doesn't work. That is when it's taken too far a little bit works wonders like in Australia where we have free health care
@@Joshua_Nguyen0630 yeah that's terrible as well. Libertariabs oppose central power as well as that leads to tyranny and socialism. Government is the antithesis of free markets
@@awesomeant9509 putting aside the fact most large capitalist businesses have relied on government to succeed in one way or another, you can still have violence in free markets. One look at 19th century laissez faire nations can show you that.
Ever read Zerzan? Ironically enough primitivists sure do use a lot of sophisticated and technical language from anthropology and postmodern philosophy.
Wow, this video is so biased against (insert your side here), even though (insert your side here) is clearly better. Death to (insert your opposition's side)! Finally, we can all agree on something!
@@davidecolucci6260 Well Marx defined Socialism and Communism as practically the same thing with the only difference being that he tended to align socialism with the reformists and communism with the revolutionaries. Marxism being a point of view. Lenin had different definitions
That is always the go to argument with a socialist/communist they claim its never been tried for real. I am like maybe because any attempt to do it for "real" can't work in real life and fails so quick that the other versions are the best they could do with it.....
@@Whatatwist2009 It's not the "go to argument" for an educated Marxist. You're saying that the the "real" version can't work and fails so quick, but as you said if the real version hasn't been completely tried (Which is true) then there's no evidence as to how it would fail so quick.
When your entire strategy to implement an economic system is to push social tensions to their boiling point, statism is a pretty natural outcome. People will perpetually revolt against any source of friction, be it economic, political, religious or otherwise, which leads to a very rigid and oppressive social structure. People say real socialism has never been tried, but that’s hardly because of bad luck
Nathan Biller that is not the strategy that is accelerationism which I guess can be applied to any ideology but the majority of marxists and anarchists I know are not accelerationists
@4:25 I think the phrase was "you gotta break eggs to make an omelette" (Marxist apologist or Stalin?) - to which the best answer was "Where's the omelette?"
i like that when Mises is singing everyone in the back uses different clothes, like everyone is different. When Marx is singing everyone wears the same black clothes.
Welcome to the Lucky 38, glad you could make the trip The crowning jewel in the oasis of the Vegas strip I'm Robert Edwin House, the founder of this place of rest A haven for the wayward, that's to say if you can pay the rent.
Lol, the first fight between Hayek and Keynes was in the 1930s-1940s. Keynes had won. The second (post) fight was in the 1970s -80s. Hayek had won. Hayek's free-market contender, milton Friedman, harshly criticized Hayek's policy recommendations. Quote "I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. … I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm.” (Source Wikipedia Weltwirtschaftskrise)
You guys fail to distinguish between moderates and centrists. While moderates have no strong convictions in any dimension of the political compass, centrists detest ideological absolutism in that we can only have ideals and laws belonging to only one single school of thought. I'm a centrist and I personally believe an ideal economic landscape would be similar to what we have now, allowing businesses to flourish and capitalism to thrive but also establish stronger mechanisms to distribute the benefits of capitalism to the general population through a combination of a more progressive tax system, stronger labour laws and increased public spending on public goods such as health, education, and infrastructure which benefits all members of society irrespective of their class allegiance. I think buying into any single ideology is incredibly primitive as each area of the political compass yields some benefits to the overall population but also has shortcomings and can create problems within our society, be those shortcomings weak social mobility or impractical application. No single ideology is exonerated of this - including centrism as there will almost certainly never be a centrist party in power due to it being too vague and it being near impossible to create one united centrist worldview.
Be sure to note that we've added subtitles in English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, Russian, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese!
There is an error in Italian subtitles, at 5:36: he says "Ora ecco che arriva la bomba Von Mises" but in reality it should be "Ora ecco che arriva la bomba von Böhm-Bawerk" :)
In Portuguese subtitles, at 5:38 , it says :“Agora lá vem a bomba através do bundão bombástico” , it means “ Now here comes the bomb via bombastic big ass” . It should say: “ Agora lá vem a bomba do Von Böhm Bawerk “
I think the main problem with premises of this video is reduction of Marx to economism. You cant talk about Marx without talking about Hegel, Feuerbach, dialectics and empirical positivism. Marx was not inside of economical discourse but outside of it using philosophy and talking about whole new way how to think our social world. It's apples and oranges. Probably better oponent for Marx would be Adam Smith imho.
marxis philosophy or whatever you want to call it is just derived from kant, a zombie of spiritualism and 'science' wich ignores the capacity for people to think outside of 'society' or 'genes' you lose on both grounds
Meh. Marx failed at empiricism (cherry picking facts, for instance), perverted the dialectic to a game of formulating statements "so as to be right either way", his philosophies are phantasies built upon botched conceptions of cause and effect and a selective, amateurish knowledge of history (not much of a historian), and he was never able to close the loopholes in his theory of labor value nor was he ever able to prove his law of the falling rate of profit, which is demonstrably untrue. The only thing he was good at was persuasion, but since the rest of what he had on offer was overwhelming but defective balderdash, he could only lead people into worlds of tyranny. Again and again. Highly effective persuader, an utter total abominable failure at everything else. Unable to provide for his own family, unable to manage his own finances, he was going to tell the world how it should be run. Trust me bro, I can't feed my own family but I know how to create a superadundance for the world. Trust me bro. Bro?
@@WDeeGee1 Empirical positivism was a philosophical school in 19th century France started by August Comte, I wasn't referring to inductive method as a whole. I'm not even saying that Marx's ouvre was ever complete - he laid out structures of new ways of thinking about world and relations inside of it. He was first-climber. Try to work your whole life on a couple of thousands of pages of theory that will change the world for the next 150 years and various academic disciplines - that was never the way how to make money. That was always just way how to explore and see something new. I guess dogmatic marxism today really is dead. I can't say about economics or political science, but in aesthetics and film studies (my domain) various continuation of marxism is still alive. Also in philosophy (my secondary) it is still important current. Impact on the world (both in good ways and bad ways) is undeniable.
@@eterista3868 It is true that Marx's thought was not solely economic, at least in the specialized sense that contemporary academia thinks of. On the other hand, his integration of philosophy, epistemology, methodology and social critique is just a feature of the 19th century mindset. It's not like classical liberalism lacked depth: if you go even father, you will see that, before Adam Smith, Locke was writing in teological, metaphyisical and philosophical terms when writing about property, production and even money. It is with the marginal revolution that the drift towards 'economicism' begins, more so in the works of Jevons and especially Walras. Mises, being Menger's intellectual grandson, was preocupied with both pure philosophy and catalactics (what we nowadays call economics) - something the video doesn't aknowledge. That being said, the fact of the matter is that Marx subsumes conscience to the material, and by that he ultimately means the social relations of production (a.k.a the economy). Marx's framework, while rather sophisticated, is at its core economicist. Something that, in any case, is very dear to the modern mind. Lockean liberalism is not that different as it interperts men's god given will in relation to its economic capabilities. What I really want to say is that, in the same way you need Feuerbach and Hegel to talk about Marx, you need Locke and Kant to understand Mises as a thinker (and Hume, if you include Hayek). This video is rather symplistic in either way.
@@Peppebronie What's your point? The people on this video aren't proud of their government, they are mostly libertarians wanting to fix the mess left by statism.
@@isaacschlosser7456 eh, I am more of a ERB fan to be honest, their neat little references here and there are very cool. Like Stalin's right hand shivering up, they actually brought up such an unknown fact lol.
I'd love to see a rap battle where Marx his rap is not written by an institution specifically set out to destroy his ideas. It's honestly propaganda, subtle, but good. They severely misrepresented Marx and framed socialism as equal to authoritarianism.
@@MartenVanDerPal I agree with you on that one, both Mises and Marx are horribly misrepresented here and this video does feel like blatant liberal propaganda. But hey, that's 99% of modern media for you.
A big missed opportunity in this is not including the whole "you say we wish to do away with private property but in your system, private property is already denied to 9 tenths of the population" line from the manifesto
We have different goals. Your goal is equality, while ours is prosperity. If the bottom quintile doubles their average wealth, meanwhile the top quintile triples their average wealth; you would view this as bad because inequality has risen, while we would view this as good because everyone in society has become wealthier. We are in favor of private property not because it results in equal economic outcomes across society, nor because the existence of private property somehow implies that everyone has equal economic opportunities in life; but because profit-contingent private control of industry allows for much more efficient economization of resources than state control of industry. But, of course, you do not self-identify as being in favor of state control of industry. I will address this as follows: Private property is not a "system" or "institution"; it is an observation. Humans exercise ownership of land-this is an observable fact. The term "private property" refers to land in the possession of non-government individuals or groups. If government did not exist, all property would be, by definition, privately owned (and the term "private" would likely not exist in this context, as there would be no need for clarification). The only alternative to private property is state property. There is no third type of property; there is no magic plot of land that is in the possession of humans, yet somehow manages to be owned by neither a state nor non-state individuals. Consider 5 factories: 1) Factory A is owned by one capitalist. The capitalist hires 100 workers, and spends 0 hours per week working in the factory himself. 2) Factory B is owned by 5 capitalists who each hold a 20% share. They hire 95 workers, and in addition each capitalist spends 10 hours every week working in the factory. 3) Factory C is owned by 20 capitalists who each hold a 5% share. They hire 80 workers, and in addition each capitalist spends 20 hours every week working in the factory. 4) Factory D is owned by 90 capitalists who each hold a 1.1% share. They hire 10 workers, and in addition each capitalist spends 35 hours every week working in the factory. 5) Factory E is owned by 100 capitalists who each hold a 1% share. They hire no workers, and each capitalist spends 40 hours every week working in the factory. They do not charge customers money for goods produced. Which of these factories are not privately owned? In response, socialists speak of a mythical "collective property" which is not divisible into shares. They consider "collective property" to be property which is owned by a group, yet somehow each individual within the group is not a part-owner. They acknowledge that each individual is alloted one vote when making property decisions, yet reject the resulting implication that each individual with a vote is indeed a shareholder. The group somehow precedes the individual in the view of socialists. It is unclear how a group can exist in the absence of individuals. It is also unclear how this "collective property" term is anything more than a language game, as it seemingly fails to describe anything tangible.
@@Cyborg_Lenin How'd that work out for the kulaks? As my Rabbi who was a spy in the Soviet Union said. "It was the Evil Empire." So kindly go fuck yourself. Cyborg_Hitler
@@Cyborg_Lenin No, your goal is equality across society, not prosperity. How do I know? Because even though "the poor" today are vastly wealthier than "the poor" of past centuries, you still complain that "capitalism" keeps people in poverty. If you really cared about "the poor", you would ask how and why poverty is lower today than ever before in human history. "Poor" people today have to share one car for a family of 4 or 5; rich people 150 years ago did not have any cars. "Poor" people today have to boil their sink water before drinking it; rich people 200 years ago did not have sink water. "Poor" people today sometimes must forego electric air conditioning; rich people 130 years ago did not have electric air conditioning. I place quotations around "the poor" because there is largely no such social group as "the poor". The bottom quintile in the US is a revolving door, and 10 years from now, 90% of people currently in the bottom quintile will no longer be there. Clearly, you can not accurately complain about "the poor" becoming poorer (though this does not stop you), since each generation of "the poor" enjoys a higher standard of living than the previous generation of "the poor". So what do you complain about? "Rising inequality": the implication being that economic progress made by "the poor" is somehow negated by simultaneous progress by "the rich" (another revolving door category which largely fails to identify an actual group of people in society).
@@nickgrove3648 the "poor" (and I love how you are trying to imply that they aren't actually poor) Are about as poor as they were all over the world accept for the imperial core. You seem to forget that this growth is only subsidized by the expropriation of trillions in labor value and natural resources from the global south. Plus you are confusing capitalism with being rich, despite the fact, that poverty is much closer to what capitalism brings for the majority of the world. Ask someone in a sweatshop how great capitalism is. This divide mind you isn't a natural one. It was created after the first industrial revolution with imperialism and subjugation, and its not kept in place with unfair economic treaties, constant destabilization and the patent gap. This growth in life quality is mostly due to technological advancement not some magical properties of capitalism. Cars just cost much less to produce, central heating and electricity us state owned. Every example you gave is an example of technological advancement, not capitalism. If you want to see what capitalism actually does you can look at the 8 million people that die every year from lack of food and clean water. We have the resources, we have the means, but its just not profitable to feed them is they die. At least when socialists had hunger they just didn't have enough food, as soon as they got it starvation stopped. Now to the "poor are getting richer" argument. No, they just keep raising the poverty to make it look good. Aside from China the poor haven't gotten any richer in 3 decades including America. Remember when your parents could afford a house and a car on one minimum wage income? Well at least now Jeff can afford a billion cars, too bad most Americans can't afford 500$ for an emergency. Finally, capitalism providing some benefits in the past isn't an excuse. Let's do what you love and take us back 300 years. What would you say? "Well feudalism raised our life quality immensely! We used to live in caves and now we have our homes and stable food! How dare you defy our divine ruler!?". Capitlaism played its part, now its time to move on.
@@maps9 Could you please explain your statement, how can this european state influence Hong Kong, since they are not picking and choosing their laws? Actually, that's what the Communist party is doing, I am really confused.
@@Mais45000 , ofcourse) through non-profit organizations influence all this mess not about freeeeedoom and other anime characters.. it's all about money and business interests.. extradition law and other stuff.. if you know what i mean.. colonial law still enforced at hong kong now.. and will be enforced long time.. China don't want it.. so.. this is understandable for me.. China want to set a precedent and not wait for the deadline to expire..)
@NurturingTalents You mean the idea that all languages have similar characteristics/universal ones? Well, the Piraha tribe throws a wrench in the idea of temporality as a universal feature, but that doesn't leave out things like subject-object distinction or basic phoneme sets
Hayek vs Keynes was a masterpiece, but I've got annoyed by a few things: 1. The autotune at the hook. Ditch it. 2. Mises got all the main arguments right, amazing work. Bastiat, menger, Hayek, etc. Great references. Marx, though, lacked deepness. A lot of dumb points like green new deal. I feel he should be more theoretical. Marx was more entertaining than enlightening, unlike Hayek or keynes
I don't really know if I just didn't get most of the references. Yes, Marxism is weak as a theory, but I feel Marx was overall shallower by addressing consumerism, environment, etc. Or maybe mises was just really, really well done. Only compliments on that. Thank you for your work
@@ibnbattuta7031 I would honestly argue that the CIA has proven that its biased on both sides. What you are saying is true. But Different people in that same organization defend communists and Antifa while blaming Trump for what those groups do to towns. Its biased all over. The point is, though, is that the statistics they present have sources and citations. These liberal college papers people post as alternatives to these statistics have zero sources, no critical reception, and often just make a hypothesis and conclusion and that's it.
Fascism is a capitalist ideology, and is naturally what capitalism becomes after its late stage. Alternatively, we could bring about real change and prevent this from happening with socialism. Long live the revolution!.
@@aikout4403 I've argued with Commies and seen Anti-capitalist videos and they say a lot of what Marx said in this video. Unless you have something to add to the table.
Honestly, the people who say "Stalin didn't do what marx said, but I can" are dumb. If you think that if its been tried that many times and failed, and yet still say we should try, its dumb. It ain't broke, don't fix it.
It hasn't been tried. Stalin was just opportunistic dictator who didn't adhere to any principles of socialism. Only reason he called himself that was, because it was easiest path to power in a post civil war country.
@@vlakatvlakatn1465 ok I shouldve said it differently, but Lenin tried to do it and it failed, as Stalin became a dictator. This always seems to happen, maybe, just maybe, communism and socialism cause this to happen.
@@NotJeff3 Lenin yes tried and failed. He died early after revolution, which pretty much caused a power vacuum and that lead to Stalin getting in power. But that's really just due to nature of violent revolutions with power vacuum rather than communism or socialism. Other than that, it hasn't been tried has it? There was a revolutionary Catalonia for example, but it was destroyed by foreign intervetion(To which soviets contributed) before it could try anything. Other "communist" countries like in eastern europe for example were literally vassal states installed by soviets or were done in context of cold war where they literally relied on soviet aid.
I suggest reading actual political philosophy instead of listening to a meme-ish rap battle on RU-vid whose only purpose is to "dunk" on the opposition. Both sides made incredibly stupendous points.
Use this video to expand our knowledge, this video has referenced some books like human action, which I recommend reading, I also recommend reading das kapital, the communist manifesto, then once you have read das kapital, read bohm bawerk s critiques on Marx
There once was a man called Rousseau who wrote a book containing nothing but ideas. The second edition was bound in the skins of those who laughed at the first. -- Thomas Carlyle
The rousseau gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 f4) is actually pretty good and works especially on the beginner to intermediate level, thanks for asking.
We already kind of say that, but we word it this way: "What we have is not Capitalism, it's Corporatism"... we need to break up the major monopolies, and terminate money-based lobbying, be it by corporations or unions.
I think we can be man enough to say that all capitalism isn't the same. Just look at Russia and Norway, both are capitalist(I think) but have vastly different laws and levels of government control which leads to different standards of living. One capitalist country failing does not disprove the entire economic idea
@@Eliamaniac you can think about that all you want, I think that socialism will never build a utopia, it's okay if you don't agree, just tired of seeing people trying to erease history and say that followers of their ideology aren't real followers just to try and keep a clean record, I don't think any ideology has a perfectly clean record
@@حَسن-م3ه9ظ Its called "garbage." If people won't invest in themselves and learn skills to be successful, they deserve to fail. Survival of the fittest. The human race would be better off.
Just curious is that just the cost of supplies and labor directly into building the iPhone? Or does that also include the cost of building the software designing the hardware, testing all that, marketing, and all those other things?
A centre right politician in my country said "You'll all be voting for us in a few years." What he means is when economic realities set in generally become more conservative.
This, I think, is one of the most important lines that is directly relatable to today's events. "But you gotta break eggs if you wanna eat. Don’t like violence? Admit defeat!" My translation is: We are going to kill people along the way, surrender or die. Sums up alot of what I'm hearing chanted in the streets these days.
That's the thing. It's a 'by any means necessary' approach. That is authoritarian. No one individual has the right to dictate their free will over another. In an actual rap battle, He would get disqualified if he actually tried hurting the competition with real violence. Using violence is an admission that you've run out of refutation/reflection.
@ObviouslyKaleb, I disagree. With you’re philosophy, no action that is violent can be worth looking at. With your own logic then wouldn’t people like George Washington, William Wallace, Fidel Castro and or any other revolution would be seen as ideas not worth having. The problem is, you can do good things even if you have to resort to violence, you can also do terrible things if you don’t resort to violence. Hitler was appointed as chancellor by the president as one example.
It’s crazy how many simple changes to society that could be made to improve everyone’s life but are stopped by the 0.1 percent I wonder why so many things like doing the improvements RU-vidr Some More News suggests, is called Socialist. I wonder if its worth a thought why literally all Voldemort's Tweet "Me = Hate Socialisttt" anyway, but getting more specific only makes it funnier. That youtuber aint even a socialist, despite what some random clown i once met randomly claimed (guess he doesnt care for truth or somethin?) because his whole channel is about listing/adressing/exploring Issues, local like global Your thougts on the suggestions?
Chocolate bankers who got their money from Nazi gold laundering and refusing to give back money to the Jews? History of sending mercenaries to the highest bidder. Civil wars over religion.
Socalists go out dressed out in black and wear masks. Then they vandalize now that doesn't seem like a good cause to me if that's how they show their side
"Even carbon will bend to creative destruction" Yeah but when? In a 100 years? I like Mises but this argument is weak af. Because right now carbon emissions are only increasing, and we don't have enough time to stop climate change. Mises doesn't take into account that speed is the name of the game, and markets can be slow and don't care much about carbon emissions. This is what we call in economics "negative externalities".
@@---uf2zl what do you mean we dont have enough time. Fucking quantum computers are being created and you think resources are going to be a problem in 30/50 years? As technolgy progresses its easier and cheaper to do everything, and technology is quickly moving forward. There are enough resources, but we are still learning to use all of them effectivly at a very fast pace.
@@---uf2zl Solution to climate change is green technology, not socialism. The communist countries used to be the number 1 emitters of Co2 because of focus on heavy industries and coal industries. So climate change is kinda to blame on communism.
@@fofolacosa123 Islands are already being conquered by the sea, we're going through the 6th mass extinction event, and temperatures are reaching record high levels with no end in sight. Tell me more about how your quantum computers are solving climate change. In addition, CO2 levels and emissions are higher than they ever were.
OMG the double reference by Commanding Heights to Marxist ideologist: Lenin and the fact that Marx was an Atheist, also the Reference to Schumpeter´s Creative Destruction is superb.
That WAS Marx theory. That Capitalism was progressive and necessary to create the wealth socialism needs. He didn't believe you could go from backwater to socialism without capitalism in the middle. My understanding.
@@jeremyjirasek4658 That's true, which is also why China and Vietnam decided to open up to markets for a while. Let's see if they actually manage to transition to socialism before 2050 like they promise...
Mises wins, although he was arguably portrayed a bit more favorably. Afterall, Marx threw a rich dude off the balcony and praised boots of control, but Mises didn't laugh with glee as a child employee got his arm torn off in the projector. Next battle, please! Seriously, this video is awesome. It's very informative, history teacher-friendly, and yet still quite epic.
@Whitney Woodington That's corporatism, you dumbass. Capitalism paved the way for laws forbidding child labor to be passed. In Soviet Russia, children had to work to help make ends meet, so don't pretend like your glorious revolution is without fault.
@@combativeThinker "Capitalism paved the way for laws forbidding child labor to be passed." Even better, it made people so wealthy their kids didn't need to work any longer, and the law was just kind of an afterthought at the end of that period.
Yeah, like a critical brief of field socioeconomics with their most influencial fathers. Mises have more weight definitely especially in scientific - critical sense but surely Marx has some good points. I prefer Mises with some Marx elements in it like control and syndication.
I'm quite disappointed that they used the "eNviRonMenTaLiSm iS cOmMuNiSm" cliché, since Marx never really talked about issues like Climate Change or the North pole.
@@---uf2zl How could he? Nobody knew about that back in the day. The problem is that the countries of the world do not want to fight climate changes, because it would cost too much and they do not want to interfere in the free market economy and thats why we are all doomed and a completly free market contributes to the problem scince the companies are all focused on short-term profit and this will not change unless the state interferes. But total controll is not a solution either. I personally am a big fan of the social market economy it combines the best things of both ideologies.
I honestly agree with the mixed system, it’s the most popular system by far and I believe if we take the best from both communism and capitalism, we could make an ideal as possible government.
@@zirjaeger4037 why do people think we when it comes to this stuff means everything. It is no WE it's the very small number of people that will make the laws or change the government.
even if we attempted heavy handed equality based policy equality in outcome is still impossbile soley due to difference in human competence there a reason why there a winner and loser in any game.
@@Ouroboros2291 also when you lower the estimate for how is considered in poverty while at the same time inflation is rising, guess what mate poverty will go down! Truly a miracle of capitalism!
