Comments by "Digital Footballer" (@digitalfootballer9032) on "Is This The End Of Capitalism? | Answers With Joe" video.

  1.  @Anna-1917  While yes it is true that communism is not inherently totalitarian in nature, nor is it intended to be, every large scale example so far in history has ended up as such. The end result in any system, communism included, is that power ultimately shifts to a small group that ends up controlling everything. While yes, in theory communism is supposed to be communal sharing of work and products of that work, it never quite works out that way because of two main reasons. 1) Most humans are competitive by nature, and beyond that some are more ambitious than others, some lazy, some are cooperative, and others are selfish. Not all people are the same and therefore a system that relies on every "cog" being more or less the same doesn't work. And this leads to 2) there must be a government to enforce law and provide order, and enforce rules to make every "cog in the wheel" perform basically the same because people are not going to just do so left to their own devices. By creating a government to control this situation, you have now created a separate class in a society meant to be classless, but yet at the same time you must have it to maintain the very system you want to function as a classless system. It's a catch-22, it's pradoxal and it's self defeating, and it eventually leads to autocracy or oligarchy. No system works 100% or else that would just be the way. I am in favour mostly of capitalism but also recognize its flaws, and in my opinion a society must be able to pick and choose the most optimal parts of every system, patch them together, and do what uniquely works for them. In other words, what works for Norway will be different than what works for the USA, which will be different than what works for China. Population, culture, a homogeneous vs a heterogeneous citizenry, norms, work ethic, laws, even religion play into what economic system will work best for a specific country. Again I tend to favor a system that is 51% or more capitalistic in nature, but also don't deny that other more socialistic elements are necessary, the scope of which would vary by country. Some of these include social welfare systems, regulation of truststs and monopolies, minimum wage, and labour unions, though for unions I believe in limiting them to private sector only, and am against compulsory membership (right to work). I don't believe communism is a completely flawed concept, but I do in terms of any large scale population because it requires homogony to a very high degree and I don't believe that can be achieved in anything outside of a very small population, closed society, such as a small island nation. Everyone has to be on board for it to work, just a few mavericks and the system goes to shambles. Hence why historically we have seen authoritarianism as the driving force in these types of societies. To think about it logically, it isn't that hard to get an individual or a small group on board with an idea, but trying to manage a mob is a different story. Diversity of thought, work ethic, and ideals are too strong within a large group and force is the only way to homogenize it. Don't forget also that most people are short sighted. A simple promise of a prosperous future if everyone would just work together isn't enough. People want to see results fast. Capitalism, despite all its negative side effects, provides that for some, and others see that and can be inspired by that.
    7
  2. I don't always agree with Joe in terms of sociopolitical aspects, in fact more often than not I don't. I still enjoy his work because he is brilliant, he explains things in a way people can understand, and he can present a counter point to my own beliefs that is fair and rational and challenges me, which is a good a thing. Agreement does not need to always be reached to respect another point of view of it is presented logically and tastefully. That said, I mostly agree with Joe on this subject and think he does a very good job in his analysis. It is rather obvious to me that he is to the left politically of my positions in general, but where we come together is that we both believe in capitalism, but just like him, I believe it does need another round of major revamping like was done 100 years ago. I was impressed that he didn't just jump to the conclusion that we must scrap the system and just start over with socialism, which many other critics of the modern American system do, and they are wrong. Capitalism is indeed a system that brought many positives to our society, but when left unchecked for too long can get a bit out of control and leave too many people behind. It is time for some adjustments indeed. It is the same concept as freedom. If you take it for granted and get lazy and just "let the system work itself out", you eventually lose it. Capitalism, just like any other economic system, will also turn into an oligarchical nightmare if not continuously tweaked and checked. For example I believe strongly that every different type of labour has a different market value. Assembling a part on an assembly line, while important to the whole process, requires less skill and education than managing the companies finances, so naturally the assembly line worker should not be paid as much as the CFO. However, if the company enjoys success, the assembly line worker does not often see much of any of the fruits of this success, hence why the gap in wealth has grown so dramatically. Putting some of that additional profit back into the hands of the bottom tier workers is not only fair, but even throw fair out the window and it is also productive and increases morale, and has often been a model of success in many companies that have experimented with it. Even big evil Walmart has had profit sharing for lowly sales associates. Yes that's a drop in the bucket, but it is a start.
    2