General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Jubilee
comments

Comments by "" (@krasmasov6852) on "Can Socialists and Capitalists Find Middle Ground? | Middle Ground" video.

@Paisleyess Not when the poor can't afford them, no. Also, the US specifically has a lower life expectancy than Cuba. Class mobility is all but a myth these days, and people are starving to death in western countries, though most of the externalities of capitalism are being exported to the global south where people are starving to death despite being capitalist. Even so, there are millions of food insecure people living in the richest country in the world. How is that anything but a colossal failure?
19
I'm still trying to find a capitalist system that's successful. How are you defining success by the way?
14
Is this a parody comment?
6
But only capitalists get the benefit of that productivity. If you look at the past few decades, productivity has increased drastically while wages have stagnated.
5
But Steven Crowder shrinks into a little ball at the sight of Sam Seder, so I'm not sure that'd work.
4
@aaronmcintosh7705 Bread lines literally happened under capitalism
4
@janieswanson2549 Oh......oh no
4
@janieswanson2549 You're making them sound more sympathetic
4
@janieswanson2549 No, they want to get the full value of their labor and not have to worry about basic healthcare in the richest country in the world.
4
@Nanofuture87 Bro, what are you talking about? You've been failing to defend capitalism for months now.
4
@Nanofuture87 That's the hardest projection I've seen in a long time.
4
@Nanofuture87 Work or starve. ThErE iS nO cOeRcIoN
4
@Nanofuture87 ....coercion doesn't have to be direct. Are you for real? How do they grow their own? They have no land. Unowned food? Like what? Ah charity. We all know how reliable that is. And yes, they can exchange their labor since none of the other options you listed are feisable for the average person. Therefore, they're stuck under whatever labor conditions they can get. Coercion.
4
The global south has been absolutely gutted by capitalism. Stop lying, bro. And no, the poor are still poor. Making more than they used to doesn't mean much when cost of living increased at a faster rate.
3
Innovation happened long before capitalism. It'll keep happening long after capitalism too.
3
@tumbleweed4315 The only exceptions are employee owned companies, and they don't really exist.
3
Yeah, pretty horrifying that we have no choice but to buy clothes that were made under an exploitative system most of the time.
3
That's literally capitalism. Workers get the crumbs while capitalists get most of the pie. That's the system we have now.
3
Capitalism incentivizes selfishness.
3
Lol keep simping for oil wars
3
@janieswanson2549 Well yeah. That's most people. You just described the entire working class.
3
@janieswanson2549 Lol that's not how that works. People go on strike. They get laid off. They get cut hours. Have you ever spoken to a working class person or do you just bend over for every capitalist you've ever met?
3
@janieswanson2549 "I own my own business" There it is. No wonder you hate working people. I hope your employees go on strike and take everything you have.
3
@Nanofuture87 There is no voluntary exchange under capitalism. The worker employer relationship is coercion.
3
@jokerpilled2535 No, humans are inherently cooperative. Capitalism incentivizes greed.
3
What kind of freak does?
2
Because individually, things are expensive. Together, things are cheap.
2
Lmao imagine still saying soyboy.
2
@mouwersor You do have to constantly compete. How do I live off the land? I don't have any land.
2
@mouwersor Ah so live as a hunter in the middle of nowhere or participate in society and get ruthlessly exploited. These are the options you're supporting?
2
@Jack McCabe "You live in society yet you criticize society. I'm very smart." -you
2
Socialism is already a concession. It's already the middle ground.
2
@ivanstoqnov3441 Does socialism establish a classless, moneyless, stateless society? If no, then it's a half-measure.
2
Yeah, that's just capitalism. Crony capitalism and capitalism are the same thing, and oligarchy is always the natural result of a system that funnels power to a select few.
2
@Peaceforanimals6 Of course I was joking, but I do genuinely believe that if libraries didn't already exist, conservatives would oppose the idea labeling it as socialism. And yes, I did take Trump's checks.
2
That pursuit of constant growth for growth's sake literally destroyed the planet.
2
@crazycrayon4247 There's no incentive to do that under capitalism. We will be long past the point of no return by the time it becomes profitable to use clean energy. Capitalism doesn't aid anything. It only serves to make the rich richer.
2
@crazycrayon4247 No. I mean under capitalism it is, sure, but the point of growth inherently is to make life easier for people.
2
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Considering climate change is predominately caused by about 100 or so companies, removing their motive to pollute for profit would make a pretty big impact.
2
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 No, because without the profit motive, production will be based on need, not profit.
2
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Production under capitalism is. It doesn't have to be. And demand can absolutely be manufactured.
2
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Advertising. You can just trick people into buying stuff they otherwise wouldn't.
2
Capitalism always creates corporatism. It's one of its main functions.
2
This is true. And while this is better than capitalism, it's not better than communism.
2
@janieswanson2549 No, I mean at their jobs at restaurants, factories, retailers, etc
2
@Nanofuture87 Most workers don't. Most live in the city and rent. They can get some planters on their balcony if they're lucky. You can't fish and hunt for food while working 70 hour weeks and having an entire family to feed. Reliability is an issue when it comes to someone's livelihood. We have enough food to feed a world of 10 billion people. Why can't it be a guarantee? Reversing the argument will never work for me, bro. I have no sympathy for the plight of the employer. Anything less than giving their employees equal ownership of the business makes me think of them as nothing but labor exploiters who are enemies to be defeated. Making it harder for someone to exploit labor isn't coercion.
2
@jokerpilled2535 That's capitalist realism, not an actual fact of biology or nature. There's nothing about socialism that goes against our nature or whatever nonsense you're trying to say.
2
@jokerpilled2535 Haha no. Most of the time, conflict is resolved nonviolently.
2
Yes, you do. If you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, your business has failed.
2
Correct. Why is that a bad thing?
2
Who does capitalism work for exactly?
1
@milanmohan7731 Yes, it does. It only works for the rich. Innovation and tech doesn't mean much when the poor don't benefit from it. And people will work when they're compensated fairly for that work. That doesn't happen under capitalism.
1
@MMDelta9 No, capitalists just need capital to get rich. They don't really have to do anything. The best way to make money under capitalism is to own, not to work.
1
There is no way to be ethical and stay rich. ALL profit is accumulated through exploitation
1
I mean no one really wants to work. Work sucks. If we do have to work, though, we should be getting the full value of our labor out of it, no?
1
@nugget814 Because flipping burgers is more valuable than the minimum obviously. EVERY job is more valuable than the minimum.
1
@Nanofuture87 Except they have to agree to the compensation offered when those bills are coming up and they don't want to be homeless.
1
@MMDelta9 Nothing, but oppressing the rich is totally fine.
1
Socialism is easier to implement on a larger scale.
1
If you can't afford to pay your employees, then you have a failed business.
1
@Jack McCabe Lol I have no compassion for business owners who underpay their workers. I have compassion for workers. I'm not empathizing with anyone's inability to exploit labor as much as they'd like.
1
@Jack McCabe Yes, it does. That's exactly what that means. Being unable to afford your workers but still retaining workers means you're underpaying them.
1
Nothing will make everyone happy, but socialism would certainly make things better. Capitalism has proven to fail every time because it's not actually designed to make people happy. It's designed to make a small few amount of people happy at the explicit expense of the rest.
1
Laziness isn't actually a thing. People will work if their work has meaning.
1
Is this a joke comment?
1
@SamuelHernandez-dg9ez Income tax is the most important tax to have. Means you can get a lot from rich people.
1
@SamuelHernandez-dg9ez There are people who work 60 hour weeks while still struggling to make ends meet. How is that not enough to live comfortably? Why are you okay with a system that lets someone who works that hard struggle that much?
1
@SamuelHernandez-dg9ez How do you get a better education while working 60 hour weeks? If you have kids, there is physically not enough time in the day. Moving to a better state can be outright impossible, especially if you have a sick relative to take care of.
1
@SamuelHernandez-dg9ez So what's the best thing to do for poor people who already have kids? Just daydream about what could've been? Ignore their children for work and night classes?
1
@SamuelHernandez-dg9ez That's insane, dude. Why in the world would you defend a system that forced you to sacrifice so much? This isn't a warrior mentality. It's Stockholm Syndrome.
1
Who determines what they are worth?
1
@jayjaycee406 Lmao imagine unironically making a might makes right argument.
1
@jayjaycee406 "that wasn't a result of political/military hostilities" Lol what a qualifier. Why can't I use those as examples again?
1
@kuhen25 Soyboy isn't a thing. Spend some time offline and throw your piss bottles away.
1
@kuhen25 touch grass
1
@kuhen25 Lmao yeah because that's what wanting to be paid the full value of our labor means. Keep licking the boot that exploits you
1
Yeah, it's almost as if capitalism necessitates a poor working class in order to function. Probably why the whole system is bad. China and Amazon are both capitalists and enemies of the left, dude. What are you talking about?
1
@johnbreen5668 No, China didn't achieve communism. They function using a state capitalist system. Amazon is run by liberal capitalists. Leftists are anticapitalists. Socialism is also an economic system. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand really any of the concepts you're using.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 But when production is done based on need rather than profit, people will overall be working a lot less and have more free time to pursue their passions and what they enjoy in life. Shitty jobs still have to get done, but it doesn't have to be done by a singular overworked and underpaid person.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Lol of course not. What are you talking about? And capitalism doesn't produce based on demand. Well, it does, but the demand isn't inherent. It can be manufactured. People aren't rational actors, and not everyone will act in their own best interest. You can just trick people into buying things.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Lol no. What? Where is that even coming from?
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Right. Where in that does it even remotely imply that I'm in favor of not letting people make their own choices?
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 How? What are you talking about?
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 No, I'm being polite. I know already that what you're saying doesn't make sense. Capitalism allows demand to be manufactured. You can trick people into buying stuff. Absent the profit motive, this problem wouldn't exist.
1
The world is largely capitalist. The left is pretty weak globally.
1
@mouwersor Not really. Liberalism is strong culturally. You dont see too many anticapitalists around.
1
@mouwersor And they have zero power. Also, tankies aren't the only anticapitalists.
1
@mouwersor LMAO trying to control the spread of a disease is too leftist now?
1
@mouwersor Jesus, dude. You sound like a 15 year old who just read Ayn Rand for the first time.
1
@mouwersor Lmao way to reinforce my previous comment. But for real, that's not how the left-right divide works. By your argument, you should also be opposed to tax-funded fire departments and roads.
1
All capitalism is right wing. It creates hierarchies, and that's the central thing leftists are against.
1
@CMan-x7k No, it's pretty true. It's like the main thing.
1
@CMan-x7k Nope, in practice too. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. The only way you can attack leftism is by pretending it's something it's not, in this case the polar opposite of what it actually is. Isn't that the very definition of a strawman?
1
Why would you have to raise product prices when you can pay bosses less?
1
@MMDelta9 You.....you just made his point for him. Maybe try working at this job you hate that you're not free to leave because you don't have resources unless you're working.
1
@MMDelta9 And how does that pay the bill coming up?
1
@MMDelta9 Gulags are bad actually. Hey look at that. I'm against gulags and still a communist. Crazy how that works, huh?
1
No, you cannot be a capitalist and not exploit people.
1
@Nanofuture87 Lol yeah if a poor person agrees to be hunted by a rich person on their private island because they're that desperate for money that they'll be paid quite a bit if they survive after 12 hours, that should totally be allowed, right?
1
@Nanofuture87 The fact that they have to choose between one or the other in that scenario makes capitalism look outright evil.
1
@Nanofuture87 They're scarce in the sense that they're not infinite, but we have more than enough resources to feed, house, and clothe a planet of 10 billion people, so that scarcity isn't really a problem when it comes to the basic necessities. Capitalism doesn't allow for improvement though. It necessitates that the vast majority of people remain working class while wealth is concentrated at the top.
1
@Nanofuture87 How are you defining poverty? There are food insecure and unhoused people in the richest country in the world. The poor getting richer than they were in the past doesn't mean much when cost of living increases even faster.
1
@mouwersor Exploitation bad
1
@mouwersor It's the opposite. Under capitalism, your boss steals the fruits of your labor. And you don't work voluntarily. You starve if you don't work.
1
@mouwersor Before companies existed? You mean before capitalism. We're talking about capitalism. Stay on topic. And no, when you decide to work for a boss, it means you're settling for less than you deserve because the alternative is even worse.
1
@Nanofuture87 lol imagine dying for the rich who would sell you into slavery for a dime.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Liberty Prime is a parody of people who think like you.
1
@toxicsheep9203 Would you be happy with just the bare necessities?
1
@MMDelta9 China uses a state capitalist system...
1
@MMDelta9 No it's not. Lol oh I get it. You dont know what socialism is.
1
@MMDelta9 Nope, not quite. Turns out it's a bit more complicated than that.
1
@MMDelta9 Why? The concept of socialism existed long before them and has evolved quite a bit since. You know Marx and Engels aren't prophets handing down unchanging holy scripture, right?
1
@MMDelta9 Nope you still get your individuality and basic rights. What in the world are you talking about, dude?
1
Yeah, socialists are based. Cool.
1
How do you get a trade when you're working 60 hours a week? How do you get a degree if you're poor?
1
@BeastMode-ts6eg That sounds horrific. Shouldn't you be pissed at the system that forced you to sacrifice some of the greatest parts of life?
1
@mouwersor You can get an education for free too. So can your kids. Teachers, farmers, and builders.
1
@mouwersor No. In my previous comment, I was describing how things would be with my ideal policies enacted, not how things are.
1
@KaiserClone Socialist nationalism, huh? That anything like national socialism?
1
@Jack McCabe The capitalists would still come across as wrong.
1
@Peaceforanimals6 Reading books for free? Sorry, buddy. I'm not in the business of taking government handouts. Maybe you're happy being a freeloader, but not me.
1
@Peaceforanimals6 What in the actual fuck are you on about?
1
@Peaceforanimals6 Turns out there's more of a generational difference there rather than a racial one. Younger folk tend to be cooler with LGBTQ people and abortion rights, and that includes younger people of color.
1
@Peaceforanimals6 Bro, I live in Atlanta. I'm in a poor neighborhood every day.
1
@Peaceforanimals6 How does quoting someone who was wrong address what I said?
1
@Peaceforanimals6 Lmao the people you hang out with sound like they suck. Can't build solidarity in your community if you're a bigot. Also, how dare you imply I'd be friends with a liberal.
1
@YorkerEli Lol what?
1
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Ah yes let us all be thankful that the overlords let us do backbreaking work for pennies. Yesa masta thank ya masta
1
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Except starting a business costs money, and money is also required to survive. So you gotta do whatever work you can to eat.
1
@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Is that why most people are poor and wealth is concentrated at the tippy top? Because there are so many choices to make money?
1
Cost of living is also cheaper in socialist countries, which is why Cubans have better access to housing and healthcare than Americans despite being paid less.
1
America is the richest country in the world, yet we have millions of food insecure children, widespread inability to access basic healthcare, and more vacant houses than homeless people. America is a colossal failure.
1
@wb6mc129 Socialism? No come on. Communism.
1
@MMDelta9 Socialism isn't extreme at all. It's the middle ground. The true goal is communism.
1
@MMDelta9 Nope, wrong. Socialism is the transitory period between capitalism and communism. Communism is a moneyless classless stateless society.
1
@MMDelta9 You gotta stop citing Marx and Engels like they're prophets, dude. It's not the 19th century anymore. No, to communism, not more socialism. Currency. No, trade can be conducted without money. It has in the past. Again, you can still conduct trade, there's just no profit motive. Right, it is the abolition of private property. Just not personal property.
1
@MMDelta9 I'm not lying. You can just ask me what I believe. And nope, you don't need a currency regulated by a state or a bank to trade. Wrong again.
1
@MMDelta9 Like what? No, it doesn't. Why would private property be necessary for that?
1
@MMDelta9 Capitalists don't believe in freedom. They believe in the "freedom" to limit the freedom of others.
1
@westword6558 That doesn't mean much when you consider cost of living. Being in the world's richest 1% doesn't mean you can easily pay rent in America.
1
Capitalism is also what creates massive corporations. In fact, consolidation of power is inevitable under capitalism.
1
@monkeypants8074 That's not technically a monopoly, but big business and monopolies are both inevitable under capitalism.
1
@monkeypants8074 Oh that's not the only way something is a big business, but you seem to be equating capitalism with the notion of competition. Yet you're ignoring the ways that companies under a system in which power is determined by money can simply prevent competitors from existing by having more capital to work with.
1
@monkeypants8074 There is no way to get there fairly. Capitalism is an unfair system, and it incentivizes businesses to act as unfairly as possible. I get that you don't mind the idea of capitalism within a community with people working corner stores and all that, but the inevitable result of capitalism is businesses growing and consuming. There is no way to stop it. It is a fundamental flaw at the core of capitalism. If you value your community, fight against capitalism. Embrace a system better designed for the community. Maybe one that has the same root word as community.
1
@monkeypants8074 No, you shouldn't. If the company can't survive without workers, those workers deserve an equal share.
1
@monkeypants8074 Like a general strike? Sounds like a great idea.
1
@monkeypants8074 I wasn't being sarcastic. A general strike needs to happen.
1
Capitalists can thrive in a socialist society, just not to the extent they want to.
1
Right, and that's not why those entities should exist. Hospitals should exist to provide medical services to people. Pharmaceutical entities should exist to advance medical research. Movie theaters should exist as a place where people can watch movies. The profit motive is what ruins it all.
1
@raybarry4307 Not sure Marx would be a big fan of what the Soviet Union eventually became, but Marxism has developed long past Marx anyways. An interesting topic that you unfortunately only brought up backhandedly. The profit motive doesn't benefit all of society. It benefits the one profiting. Workers are exploited for that profit. The poor are restricted from getting whatever is being sold for profit. This is especially egrigious for items like insulin. And no, people work because work needs to be done. Someone's gotta harvest the food, manage the infrastructure, transport supplies, etc. And no, what you describe can be socialism, but socialism doesn't have to have that. What does a baker worry about? Whether or not they'll get their dough shipment in, whether or not their bread will rise properly, how soon their oven will need maintenance. This is true for the baker under capitalism and the baker under socialism. The difference is that the baker under socialism doesn't have the health and welfare of themselves and their family threatened if their baking fails. Everyone wants to keep themselves and those they care about happy and provided for. This is EASIER to do under socialism than it is capitalism because capitalism forces workers to only take a small fraction of what their labor is worth home. Meanwhile, those at the top hoard more wealth than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes.
1
Capitalism doesn't give money to people who work the hardest though.
1
@Nanofuture87 Hey I agree Marxist Leninists will never bring it about. Fortunately, they're not the only option for achieving communism.
1
@Nanofuture87 Oh come on, if we do that, we'll get couped by a capitalist government. And there's nothing problematic about taking stuff from the rich actually.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 That's not what advertising is. If it was just alerting people that a thing exists, it wouldn't be very effective in the modern market. You have to convince them that your product is the best even when it's actually not. I write copy for a living, and I know how it works. A car dealership hires you to write a comparison article for their website. Let's say it's the new Altima vs the new Civic or something like that. As long as you technically tell the truth and use phrases like "may be the best" or "the best for you," you're technically not taking a stand. The overall tone, however. leans heavily in favor of one over the other, and it's always the one that the dealership sells. Regardless of which one is actually better, the Honda dealer is going to say the Civic is better while the Nissan dealer is going to say the Altima is better. Both obviously can't be true.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Again that all depends on the context. And not every purchase people make needs as much deliberation as a car. But the fact that you conceded even that much proves my point. Demand can be manufactured.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Still wrong because of what I said. Demand can be manufactured by tricking people into buying something they otherwise wouldn't.
1
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Was it? Would they have bought a car at all if public transporation was more easily accessible? Manufacturing based on need rather than profit will reduce the environmental impact of industry. And since the profit motive incentivizes manufacturing demand, it necessarily creates more than what is actually needed. And you're not even considering how many of the manufactured products simply go to waste under captialism. I've seen police officers guarding dumpsters because the system protects property and profit more than people.
1
@MMDelta9 There's no way to keep them separate.
1
@MMDelta9 Lol and who would enforce that? Under capitalism, systems respond to money, and corporations have more of that than anyone else.
1
Bro, capitalism has killed more people in the last decade alone than communism has ever. You don't want to play the numbers game here. Also, capitalism is actually more prone to greedy power hungry genocidal dictators because it outright incentivizes that.
1
@Nanofuture87 How can you possibly claim that? Capitalism is literally cooking the world and creating climate catastrophe.
1
@Nanofuture87 Again, capitalism is literally cooking the world and is on its way to end everything as we know it.
1
@noname2427 America sucks, dude.
1
@noname2427 America
1
@noname2427 Lol there it is.
1
How are you defining success there? America is a colossal failure.
1
@republitarian484 We do? Pretty sure farms exist all over the world. Also, why are millions of people starving? And how is working 60 hour weeks to barely scrape by a high standard of living? What are you even talking about?
1
@republitarian484 Because people hoard food. Because companies own those farms and withhold the food for people who can pay. America is a complete failure for working people. I don't blame anyone for trying to scam this broken system. And the 1960s is where it went wrong? The Civil Rights movement? Bro....
1
Most people who work minimum wage jobs are adults. And minimum wage as a concept is meant to ensure that a full time wage is enough to live on.
1
The worker exploitation and inequality
1
@jasonc8241 Of course
1
@jasonc8241 Do you have any examples of socialism not being actively sabotaged by the most powerful countries in the world?
1
@jasonc8241 Another weird question. I don't.
1
@jasonc8241 Lol no it doesn't. What are you talking about?
1
Socialism is already a compromise. It's absurd you'd call it an extreme.
1
@MMDelta9 Damn, way to tell on yourself. You're saying the quiet part loud. You're not supposed to admit that you hate poor people.
1
Literally everything you mentioned is actually capitalism. This happens every time. When some bootlicking capitalism supporter tries to criticize socialism, they just list problems with capitalism. Every single time.
1
@thanos8638 Everytime a capitalist tries to explain why socialism is bad, they'll describe capitalism.
1
@MMDelta9 Why? You still have personal property.
1
@MMDelta9 Sure there is. Private property is part of the means of production. Personal property is not. Easy.
1
@Nanofuture87 Yup. It'd be personal property. But yes, if you start to use it for a business, then it'd be private property. If communism is achieved, though, your scenario wouldn't make any sense.
1
@Nanofuture87 Correct. No, in that scenario, only the people who work on it do. That's what it means when WORKERS own the means of production.
1
@Nanofuture87 Lol innovation can still happen. As long as problems exist in life, innovation will happen. Don't need the profit motive for it. Innovation happened long before capitalism. It'll happen long after capitalism too. Cry about it. You gave up your right to it the second you used it as a means of production. It still belongs to you, but only in part. And practically speaking, your workers aren't going to want to take it home or anything. They're just going to want a say in how it's used for the business, so functionally, you can still watch your cringe Youtube videos.
1
That doesn't really matter. Capitalism is easy to argue against. I mean it's just so transparently evil.
1