Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "Second Thought" channel.

Millions of people die of hunger when food is produced at a surplus, thanks to the market economy In some cities there are more empty homes than homeless people We literally just had a pandemic that could have been contained, instead the market demanded that our governments infect as many people as possible
7
Socialism
6
" the need to grow and increase market share also inevitably lead to improvement in the so called products and service" I mean, both of those are objectively getting worse, by design. So swing and a miss. "An individual will also need to innovate during the tough period and not expect things for granted." You said 'innovate', but you meant 'starve' right?
4
Friendly reminder that the market economy is killing millions of people every year
4
"But please explain, how we, as a society, we would pay for this large amount of services" Save a trillion dollars by not bombing the shit out of other countries for 20 years, put the 'genocide' money into something good like public transit Alternatively, make rich people pay tax. You have a good point about changing everything though, since any small change will be reversed later.
4
"other post capitalists say that the main difference between capitalism and socialism is not what is produced or how but who gets to keep the benefits of labour and the relationship between employers and employees." Ask yourself - do you think we'd be producing the same stuff in the same quantities if the ownership of production changed? Here's an example - sometimes the food industry destroys excess food to reduce supply and increase demand because sometimes this is actually more profitable than trying to sell the food. It does this knowing that people are starving and hungry. In a Socialist world...would that happen? Would there be any incentive to starve people to death so that your product was more valuable?
3
You're incorrect - a fair distribution of less resources would be the opposite of austerity for all but the wealthiest people. It would be a significant boost to living standards. " i would like to point out that every material that isn't directly being involved in nuclear rections can be recycled infinite ammount of times and at practically 100%" Yeah okay Captain Picard, let us know when you invent the replicator. We can wait, not like there's anything urgent in the near future going on or anything. "I had calculated a few days ago that is we doug up al the deserts of earth 5km deep" You don't know anything about mining - let's acknowledge this and move on. There's one point you forgot to address. Climate change is happening. Many of the coastal regions of the world are about to be underwater. We're going to have serious food and water shortages. Degrowth isn't a choice, it's not a debate. It's happening. Either we shut down some of our excess production or the planet will shut it down for us. Good luck cranking out more shitty funkopops during the new flood season. (As a side note, stop listening to anti-marxist lunatics like Maupin/Dore etc. They're not even left-wing)
3
You acknowledge that the people who make the rules aren't going to change the rules unless it benefits them. So where does that leave us?
3
@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 My dude, the 'progressives' already won in the USA, and they were in office last recession too. Didn't work. Didn't do anything. Thousands of people died and thousands more were made homeless. These 'progressives' won't even stand with striking workers, what makes you think they give a fuck about recessions?
3
@Timmahist The catch is that it's not profitable for investors
3
Capitalism stifles innovation, remember that electric vehicle technology was popular in the 90's but suppressed by those invested in the oil industry. Same for wind/solar energy. Or think about how we just needed a few million dollars for coronavirus research and we could have had a vaccine before the pandemic, saving so many lives. Private companies won't invest that money until after the pandemic starts, however.
3
"more production" is an insane thing to say about a world where excess products are buried in giant holes in the ground before anybody can use them
2
@shaochiavang True I didn't actually give you the answer, here it is: Recessions are bad because low growth means less incentive to invest money, and that means less money is invested. This is bad because companies need investment to continue existing. So during recessions we see companies collapse, people become unemployed and everybody gets poorer. This means that 100% viable companies stop existing because they can't produce 100 million dollars for the shareholders. It doesn't make sense, companies should only collapse if they can't pay the bills, not because they're 5% less profitable than before. In a planned economy, companies don't need investment. They aren't expected to make profit. We work out how many resources are needed to keep it running, and allocate those resources. Don't get it twisted though, this doesn't mean 'THE' Government is making the decisions. The Government that you know is made up entirely of the ruling class. They're not able to plan an economy, mostly because they don't want to. But in Socialism, those people wouldn't be in charge. The working class would be, and would be making decisions based on whats best for them. Finally, while the USSR and China had made some significant errors that did definitely kill people...planned economies are still way less lethal than market economies. Capitalism has killed more in a decade than Communism could in a century.
2
"GDP per capita means a lot for the wellbeing of people" This isn't true. " They produce for the market aka "our needs"" If this was true, marketing wouldn't need to exist "Any sources for the claims of big corporations making recessions and wars happen so they can profit off it?" Yeah it's called lobbying and in the USA it's completely legal. You can watch footage of people lobbying for war for the benefit of defence companies. "Growth is equivalent to life improving" False. "Growth doesn't mean higher footprint" False.
2
1. So what you're saying is that there's an incentive for them to prevent a balance of political power? That lines up with the increasing authoritarianism we see. 2. Other nations did exactly that, then they lost their services because of pressure from capitalists. Take a look at the UK for example - nationalised industry, healthcare, housing...once the envy of the world, now all gone. And I don't even mean 'replaced with a privately-owned alternative' - I mean literally just gone. It's like trying to farm foxes and chickens in the same pen. Only one possible outcome. 3. It's not an assumption, we've seen it happen over and over again. If capitalism was natural, we would have invented it thousands of years ago, not 200 years ago. It doesn't reward merit, as those who do the work are not compensated for their share of the work. So it's actually the opposite of what you said.
2
"They will tell you what it meant to live under Marxism/Socialism/Communism" I mean they lived to tell the tale, so it must be better than what happened to the victims of capitalism, who didn't.
2
@ezanchi5422 "Had it worked, it would have spread all around the world by now" Were you homeschooled or something
1
@ezanchi5422 Maybe I was being too harsh about the homeschooling comment Hey, did you know there were plenty of socialists who were fairly elected to run countries in a peaceful and democratic manner? Did you know they were all murdered or exiled? If Socialism didn't work, why would it be necessary to murder millions of people around the world to stop it from spreading?
1
@DodoLP That's capitalism. You're describing capitalism. You're describing what happens in the richest capitalist nations on earth.
1
Literally the only reason we invented money was to make it easier to allocate food and other useful things to the global population That's all the economy is for, if your work produces money but you don't get what you need - the economy is unhealthy. It's bad. It's broken. Under no circumstances should you let yourself take any lessons from anybody who tells you otherwise.
1
Not being funny but why would you want to be in HR if you weren't pro-capitalist and anti-labour?
1
@wavey61 You misunderstand. If there's a 'throne' for you to sit on and declare yourself King...the system isn't socialist. In socialism there wouldn't be a position like this for you to take.
1
" I don't even know where to begin on the whole working as a collective to freely produce stuff to exactly match supply and demands through central planning. That is straight from the Soviet Union and it failed miserably" Millions of people die of hunger ever year despite a massive surplus of food production That's only happened in capitalism
1
@richardtomaszewski3569 " Literally tens of millions maybe even hundreds of millions of people died of starvation as a direct result communist policies in China, The USSR, North Korea alone" Was there a surplus of food in those countries during their famines? There wasn't, was there? That's why people died. Because there wasn't enough food. In capitalism, people will die even if there's too much food. That's only possible in capitalism.
1
@BarrySlisk India, Yemen, Ireland, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Somalia, Niger, Afganistan, DRC I could very easily go on
1
@BarrySlisk You realise you're bragging about overproduction that doesn't benefit society right lol That's an L on your part
1
@BarrySlisk "African countries etc are low in the freedom index and therefore not true Capitalist countries." This is a lie, you don't believe this. That's not how people around you use the term, that's not how it's defined in the dictionary, and that's not how the term was understood when it was popularised.
1
@meeraj-4774 my dude thinks prosperity didn't exist before capitalism?
1