Six Reasons to Oppose Socialism

I co-hosted regular series with Zarathustra serpent and King Crocodoc called complete croc discussing issues of the day in the next episode we will be discussing does socialism have merit as a set of video in this video I want to run down 6 reasons to oppose socialism in less than 5 minutes number one it's morally wrong it's the politics of envy we all know that I should not cover thy neighbor's ox Jordan Peterson perhaps put it best when he said it is the morality of Cain from Cain and Abel witnessed this Guardian article from may 2017 in which a woman on 70,000 pounds a year essentially money because your house is smaller than your neighbors which brings me to my second point it is built on lies Jeremy Corbyn will continually tell you that the poor are getting poorer but what does this mean our today's poor children poorer than those from the 1890s or how about the 1930s or even the 1960s look at today's poor it's hardly the road to weaken Pierre is it a third reason to reject socialism is because it is arbitrary why focus only on the inequality of money what about looks what about talents what about IQ what about height what about health the absurdity of the egalitarian impulse is summed up by the title of Alfie Hartley's novel facial justice for it leads to corruption look no further than Eber in London who annoyed the taxi drivers Union because their decades-long monopoly is challenged and lo and behold uber lose their license and London's labor mayor supports it this is what happens when you replace market power with political power categorical top-down decisions override what people are willing to spend their money on which leads me to my fifth point it is always dictatorial it doesn't really matter what the people want because it's the anointed philosopher Kings who decide what is best on their behalf it's ironic the people supposedly so opposed to the patriarchy should want their government to be so paternalistic 6 it leads to worse outcomes I'm not even talking about the famines in Ukraine Poland Vietnam berea Ethiopia North Korea Zimbabwe or Venezuela here or places previously known as the threat baskets of their respective reasons I'm talking about the difference between a municipal council one institution run by public officials on guaranteed salaries and a private institution run for profits by employees incentivized by performance-based pay recently I have been looking at wedding venues in those buildings run by the council you should see how little care had been taken in even the most basic of maintenance horrible government mandated health and safety signs destroyed any sense of ambience there were works going on one side of the building but we could get no guarantee of when these works might be carried out the structures of the public sector are too impersonal for anyone to own it or to care about it compare this to the immaculate buildings run by private families who have a vested interest in insuring the people book weddings this pattern of private incentives providing a better service than public government-run institutions is the case in practically all areas thank

  1. This is a rather bad analysis. One of the key flaws is that it views socialism as being an absolutist egalitarian philosophy, which is an external perspective that doesn't really fit. Socialism, as an umbrella term, is not so much against inequality as it against exploited labour, where the value of labour is appropriated from the workers by the owners of the means of production. Some variants of socialism are absolutist in terms of egalitarianism, but socialism is not inherently opposed to some people being more wealthy because their output is genuinely more value.
    Your point that the poor are richer than they were in the past ignores basic psychology. The human experience of satisfaction, happiness, and stress is based on comparison to peers, not to one's parents. You're essentially arguing that happiness should be measured using an inappropriate metric because accurate metrics don't support your ideology.
    Your point that state control of the economy can lead to negative impacts is valid, but is not a general critique of socialism. A free market economy can be socialistic if cooperative, rather than private, ownership is predominant, so rejection of state interference in the economy does not require rejection of socialism.
    Your point about poor economic outcomes is an absurd generalisation. Most of the examples you cited are due to the failures of collective farming and central planning, which are not necessary for socialist economies. Venezuela is an exception; Venezuela's economy failed because of an over-reliance on oil exports, which would make just about any economy unstable.
    I suppose, if we were to accept all your points, you've offered a compelling case against communism and state control of the economy, but that's not actually socialism. Socialism refers to economic systems owned and controlled by workers and consumers, and you've offered essentially no arguments against this, making your video very badly titled.

  2. 1. It is partially the politics of envy (not that I can see an issue with that, given envy keeps the capitalist society functioning as otherwise why would people bother buying the next smartphone?), but it is also the politics of justice. Capitalism has never and will never produce a remotely fair system for the majority in society. Capitalism has done some great things in terms of innovation and maintaining itself and of course is a step up from feudalism, but simply it is a system that is mostly for the wealthy and serves the wealthy. Also on the Guardian article, yes it is scientific fact that inequality is a bad thing for society and people's psyche. Just read the Spirit Level for a comprehensive analysis of this.

    2. Right so a few points on this. Yes, since Thatcher the working class' income has declined in real terms by about 5% from what I can remember. Also right now we are in a large slump in living standards. These are facts and the fact that populist parties and movements have risen in popularity significantly since Blair suggests that this absolutely isn't some kind of leftist fantasy. Also as one of your images implied it, a family having an iPad isn't really an accurate indicator of socio-economic well-being. What is more significant is your house, whether you have a car and how good it is etc. An iPad is a significant one-off purchase certainly, but not an amount that a fairly poor family can't save up over a few months to buy.

    3. Because, as I say, inequality effects society and how well it functions. Social unrest and problems like crime and health issues like drug abuse occur as a result of inequality, for the simple reason that human beings do not feel good when they see someone else earning loads and feel they work hard but don't get anywhere and as this becomes starker, these problems only increase.

    4. Every society has immense corruption. If you think capitalism is exempt from corruption, I would like to direct you to the US and the 6,000 lobbyists that worked on the God-awful GOP Tax Bill of this year. As much as I presume someone will make a "but that's corporatism!" argument, that still is capitalism and second of all, it is as if it is a great idea to have no government interference, given society has massively improved due to social programs. On the Uber point, I would like to say that there were complaints mainly because Uber was abusing the self-employed status to deny workers basic rights. Whilst I disagree with what Sadiq Khan did, I do feel that acting as if Uber are better and therefore the GMB complained is arch-dishonesty.

    In addition, what about socialists that oppose the state? Surely that is a bit different. Also given this happened in a capitalist society, maybe you are just complaining about an abuse of state power in some regard? I do however completely agree that unions shouldn't have the kind of power that means that Labour has to agree with them otherwise funding gets cut. I want a complete abolition of large campaign donations, and I hope everyone does frankly.

    5. Right, so, I suppose we are excluding Catalonia, Ukraine, the Seychelles, Chile, Hungary, the Paris Commune and Iran? These are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. Sure, Marxism-Leninism and ideologies like that were dominant in the 20th century and there were a hell of a lot of dictatorships but to argue it always leads to or is from the beginning a dictatorship is a childish argument.

    6. That isn't always the case, see Yugoslavia, Burkina Faso, Catalonia, the Seychelles, Iran, and the Incans as the evidence of this, and even when socialist countries don't work out too well, there are often external factors, however this is not to deny that China, the USSR in particular absolutely failed due to extremely poorly implemented socialist policies and a ridiculous idea of society. The fact that the world superpower with a military 8 times the size of its nearest competitor is a strongly capitalist nation, and that there was a 50 year cycle of proxy wars in every continent in the world going on, certainly makes the argument that socialism always leads to bad outcomes very silly and context-less. Also Venezuela is not socialist, and anyone who uses their brain can tell this. 80% of the jobs are in private hands ffs. Also its failure was due to a severe drop in oil prices. Making blanket statements like that really isn't sensible. Also socialism doesn't have to be public officials. There are ideologies like libertarian socialism, which wants to minimise or eliminate the state. Also to the moron that said Grenfell Tower is a good example of socialist ideals failing, no, it is an example of horrific austerity policies, cutting costs for expendable high-rise flats, as well as shitty tactics from a private company to win a contract selling the council snake oil for cladding.

    AA, I really do enjoy your videos as an interesting right wing figure to have my ideas challenged by, but seriously this is a genuinely half-arsed video, unlike your brilliant videos on race and IQ.

  3. Just going to see if i can predict your 6 points without watching the video: 1. Socialism is anti-meritocratic 2. Economic calculation problem 3. Bureaucracy 4. No innovation 5. Force/Coercion/Theft 6. No freedom of choice.

  4. I'm struggling with point number 3. You can't change your height etc, but you can change your economic situation. What on Earth does height have to do with Socialism?

  5. uhm about 1 coveting is the basis for capitalism. but yes socialism in part is envy politics also the other reasons are flawless.

  6. 7th The historical record of failure. Everywhere it's been implemented it has ultimately failed the people it purportedly intends to help. Socialism is just exchanging one class ruling class for another. Winston Churchill put it best. "Capitalism is the uneven distribution of blessings. Socialism is the equal distribution of Misery." Only the Ruling Party benefits from Socialism. Everyone else suffers.

  7. Concerning equality (egalitarianism), do you reject all forms of it? Have you read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ' Discourse on Inequality '?

  8. Left-wing beliefs are, at their very core, stupidly immature. It boils down to "Everyone but me is stupid. That's why the government needs to tell them what to do."

  9. Capitalism and Socialism defined by Ludwig Von Mises. These are pretty much the definitions I use, more or less, and the definitions I think everyone should use.
    "The market economy is the social system of the division of labor under private ownership of the means of production. Everybody acts on his own behalf; but everybody's actions aim at the satisfaction of other people's needs as well as at the satisfaction of his own. Everybody in acting serves his fellow citizens. Everybody, on the other hand, is served by his fellow citizens. Everybody is both a means and an end in himself, an ultimate end for himself and a means to other people in their endeavors to attain their own ends."
    "The essential mark of socialism is that one will alone acts. It is immaterial whose will it is. The director may be an anointed king or a dictator, ruling by virtue of his charisma, he may be a Fuhrer or a board of Fuhrers appointed by the vote of the people. The main thing is that the employment of all factors of production is directed by one agency only. One will alone chooses, decides, directs, acts, gives orders. All the rest simply obey orders and instructions. Organization and a planned order are substituted for the "anarchy" of production and for various people's initiative. Social cooperation under the division of labor is safeguarded by a system of hegemonic bonds in which a director peremptorily calls upon the obedience of all his wards."

  10. One doesn't have to fail miserably when they make an (allegedly) anti-socialist video. Here we go. What a disgrace to capitalism.

  11. Good points AcAg, however the last issue: private provides better service than public, is not necessarily true. It depends on the incentives of the private sector and if they align with the needs of the customers and their ability to pay… & if it is considered necessary for citizens to have access. And it depends on the work ethic of the public sector organisation. Maybe something like extrinsic rewards vs intrinsic and whether or not they align with customer service need. A public utility with dispersed infrastructure or remote customers that is costly to maintain may not be a good fit for private sector ( e.g. telecom or health services in remote Australia or Finland), the profit incentive would be to eliminate the loss making areas of service and keep only the profitables in cities. I have worked with public sector professionals who take their work seriously as a calling and provide the best work they can do. (And we have all experienced shitty service from under-motived who are just soaking up a paycheck). But in essence, you are right, it is about incentives and reward, and socialism provides neither, except for avoiding the gulag.

  12. I'm a little afraid we won't have much of a debate. I don't really disagree with any of that.

  13. First point is weakest. Nothing wrong with coveting thy neighbor’s ox. And to be fair, most socialist politics, misguided though it may be, is not motivated by envy but by compassion with the less fortunate.

  14. 1. Kain did nothing wrong!! Kappa
    seriously, I don't know how to answer to 1. – but since it is an "argument" on a morally basis, I can just say that it is morally wrong to not feed starving people, even if they don't have the money or other means to feed themselves.

    2. Corbyn meant relative poverty. And you can't deny that the gap between the rich and the poor grows each year.

    3. Sure, Socialism just wants to distribute money, and nothing else. Or was that socialdemocracy? Oh, now I remember! S E I Z E T H E M E A N S O F P R O D U C T I O N! But what about all the other things you talked about – height, looks, etc.? Well, to quote Lenin: "But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. […] The first phase of communism [i.e. socialism], therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production–the factories, machines, land, etc.–and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs)." (Lenin, State and Revolution Chapter 5.3 The First Phase of Communist Society)

    4. So if Socialism (A) leads to corruption (B); A => B; and everyone who knows logic, knows that (A => B) is equivalent to (not B => not A); therefore only if we had no corruption at all, we would have capitalism (under the assumption that the negation of socialism is capitalism and vice versa); therefore you're admitting that either we don't have real capitalism (i.e. all the "good" sides cannot be applied to capitalism), or your statement A => B is wrong.

    5. "dictatorial" is just a meme. No, seriously. There were examples of democratic socialist states. In some ways you could even say the USSR was democratic, since the representatives which were written to the election list, were chosen in local democratic councils where everyone could go to.

    6. (Really? Venezuela? Well, good that the oil price is not definitely not the cause for "starvation" in Venezuela, since it would mean to regulate an economy due to prices you don't control would be devastating)
    Maybe that's different from country to country, but here in Germany the cuts in the public sector led to some expiration and not the other way around.

  15. I bought Thomas Sowell's "the vision of the anointed" because of this channel. It's money well spent in my humble opinion.

  16. So what do you want to do with socialist safety nets like old age security?  Throw old people out on the streets? Or are there socialist exceptions you'd like to make?

  17. Cain. The first human conception of socialism. Killing off the brother whose work and sacrifices would have paid off and improved the future. Never goes well in the long run.

  18. "Whom do I hate most amongst the rabble of today? The socialist rabble. The chandala apostles who teach the working man discontent with his humble lot in life," _Nietzsche, The Antichrist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *