Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Actually, Leftists aren't STUPID people" video.

  1. Very well TIK. I'd describe myself as a socialist. A libertarian market socialist specifically. After I shortly explain my views, I'll tell you what you have to do to win me over. I like the free market, I just don't like the capitalist framework in which it functions (my main issue is the ability of capital investors to gain permanent ownership of a company, and a passive right to a portion of its profits even if they contributed nothing other than a one time investment). I think authoritarian states are abhorrent. Biggest lesson from the 20th century is that authoritarianism is ghastly and planned economies do not work. I accept the subjective theory of value, that's just basic economics. I think free market economics do a great job of allocating resources where they most efficiently meet the demands of the market(/society). And most importantly, a free market WORKS on a fundamental level. I'm in favour of a free market in which businesses ONLY distribute profits among people who actually directly contribute to it (i.e. workers, including the people at the very top of the business). And I'd like this distribution to be reasonably linked to how important the contribution of a person is (I say reasonably because it's rarely possible to put an exact number as to the value of someone's labour, since value is subjective after all). This way, if the business runs well, everyone who made this happen receives the fruits of it. If a business doesn't run well, there is no profit distribution and perhaps even a cut on the wages of that month. Everyone in the business shares in both the profit and the losses. NO third party can gain ownership of another's business. Third parties may loan businesses capital for interest (reasonable interest) and other means of for-reward capital investments, as long as the reward enjoyed is reasonable and NOT permanent. Beyond this, the worker-owned businesses compete on a free market in the same way they do within capitalism. One important element is taken out: the concept of a shareholder does not exist. Only those within the business itself are entitled to the profits of their labour. So.... tell me this one thing: why is the extreme emphasis that capitalism puts on rewarding capital investors NECESSARY for a functional economy (I call the idea of a one time payment entitling someone to a PERMANENT right to a part of the profits of others' labour extreme)? Or in other words, why can't a free market be organised in such a way that wealth is more evenly distributed? Why does a market supposedly collapse the moment you tinker with the ability of third party investors to grab a piece of the profits of a business? I'm open to arguments, if I think you're correct I'll watch the entire economics in one lesson video you proposed and seriously consider becoming a capitalist.
    3
  2. Very good response when it comes to leftist ideologues specifically. But not all leftists are like this. Most seem to be though. Most socialists seem to be stuck in very dogmatic thinking about how capitalism works. I once had a discussion with someone who insisted loans, even with a 1 dollar interest on them, are inherently exploitative because it's "dead labour vampirising living labour" (this is a Karl Marx quote). These people are so stuck in dogmatic thinking that they unironically call giving someone a 1 dollar reward for loaning you a million dollars is so exploitative it ought to be outlawed. Can't argue with dogmas like that. But there are also socialists who are simply critical of f.e. capitalism's growth imperative, capitalism's tendency to have a lot of wealth concentrate in the hands of few, etc. and propose a different system that they view as superior. Those types are less dogmatic and can be argued with just fine. You're honestly better off ignoring the more dogmatic types, as discussing is pointless anyway.
    1