LAZIEST Anti-Communist Debater Yet

okay so i have no idea anything you just

said capitalism is the thing yes it

works if you say it doesn't work it's

like saying boeing 747s don't work yes

they do they fly

right there there is no need to consult

biology to accept a barefaced fact

average capitalism fan versus communism

enjoyer is taiwan not part of china or

are you based

hey everybody tonight we're debating

capitalism versus communism and we are

starting right now

with t-jump's opening statement in

defense of capitalism t-jump the floor

is all yours yeah so uh communism is

shit

my opponent and all communist debaters

face an impossible task in the debate

because economic and political systems

are kind of like technologies if one

works better you don't need to debate it

you just you don't need papers you don't

need cherry-picked examples of

successful companies if it works you can

just start a company and make millions

improving it successful and inspire

others to follow in your footsteps if it

works for most people it will take over

because it's more successful someone

debating economic systems is like

whoever looking at a boeing 747 and

someone saying i can do it better well i

mean okay then if you can do it better

stop spending your time debating and go

do it but for some reason no communists

or socialist debaters are going to go

out and start companies based on their

ideas

i wonder why that is is it because it's

hard because

most fail

if communism and socialism are so great

then go out and start socialists and

communist companies and communities

so and show that they are successful and

inspire people to make more until it

grows to be a serious competitor to

capitalist economies this is the only

way for communist and socialists or any

economic debate to be one go out and do

it and make enough success to compete

with the current biggest leader in my

camp on the capitalist side i have

hundreds of thousands of successful

capitalist businesses supporting

billions of people improving everyone's

quality of life more than any other

system ever in human history the

communist socialist and i'm adding those

two together they are different things

but i'm going to give them as best

evidence i possibly can by adding them

together and if you do you have few

thousand or so successful communist

businesses socialist communist

businesses and to be fair many of them

are more successful than some capitalist

companies but even so like every brian

squirrel can find a nut once in a while

any system can cherry pick a few

successful examples in that system but

that's not evidence it's a better system

to have evidence of a better system you

need to show that on average any random

person can choose to go with your system

and have a higher rate of success than

the other system in order to do that you

need to go out and start your own

companies or societies your communities

and show that the success rate of this

kind of system is higher than the

success rate of the competing system

that's why in in my world view i believe

i my knowledge of economics gives me the

ability to start a company and so i'm

starting an atheist church with the goal

of lowering the cost of living as much

as possible by buying apartment

buildings and lowering rent because i

believe my economic system can work and

can make a profit but we don't see this

in the communist socialist camp they

just like talking about it so if they

really think that their system can work

go out do it make a system that works um

again cherry-picked examples of some

successful companies or papers do

nothing the proof is in the proverbial

pudding we can have lots and lots of

examples of papers of successful

capitalist countries but we don't really

need them because we can just look

around us the effect the positive effect

of capitalism can be seen in essentially

every country in the world it has

increased the

quality of life for everyone

throughout every society

pretty much with a few exceptions of the

aborigines who

don't have any technology

and it's done this consistently it is

the most successful system that we have

in human history and but the reason we

don't we can't expect any communists or

socialists to actually start their own

companies is because there is a

fundamental issue with communism

socialism which is the lack of the most

important resource for any economy

confident confidence is the ability to

get the majority of the populace to

trust in the system and play the

economic game most laws and economic

policies have little to no direct impact

what they accomplish is indirect in that

they cause people to act differently

through the law which was never going to

be able to force them to the presence of

the law encourages people to choose to

act differently without it realistically

being able to be enforced as an example

you can think of like tax evasion some

people think that most tax evasion you

need like some offshore account and only

rich people can take advantage of it but

in reality anyone can invade taxes a lot

of cash transactions can't be traced by

the government so most people can just

not report any cash-based funds and

evade taxes pretty easily which is why

you were required to do your own taxes

because most people report more and pay

more in taxes than the government knows

about so if they just calculated it for

you and sent you a bill they would make

less money so

the honest people end up paying more

because they actually report their money

it's it's quite an unfair system but in

reality the irs can't really do much

about it even if they had adequate

funding which they don't they would

never be able to actually account for

most people's tax evasion and they

wouldn't be able they'd only be able to

catch the minority of people who are

committing the crime most political and

economic systems are like this it's

mostly smoke and mirrors to encourage

people to act in a way which is

beneficial without actually having the

ability to enforce the policies directly

much like running a red light how many

people who run red lights are actually

ticketed like

0.001 percent how many times do you

think you could run a red light without

being caught probably a lot you probably

have but the presence of stoplights the

law and the minority of people who are

ticketed for breaking it encourages

enough people to obey the law create a

safe and stable driving experience for

the majority of people most political

and economic policies are like this

smoke and mirrors why do we have money

confidence that someone can take your

cash and trade it for an equal thing why

is religion so popular because it

provides people with confidence why do

people why does advertising which is

just pretty and has absolutely nothing

to do with the product works so well

confidence why do politicians who are

completely useless idiots and will do

nothing get the majority of votes they

inspire confidence the fundamental

problem with communism is that it

doesn't create or provide this

confidence nearly as much as capitalism

for example imagine a communist poker

game where

you leave the game with as much money as

you entered how many people are going to

play this game nobody imagine a

communist lottery where if everyone buys

a ticket they win a dollar back so buy a

ticket for a dollar get a dollar back

how many people would pay the lottery

nobody the reason people play the

lottery in poker is because they want to

win big and take everyone else's money

that's why poker and lotteries are

billion dollar industry of course there

are extreme examples of communists that

don't usually advocate for like 100

equity in everything so these are

extreme examples but this kind of

confidence that results this is the kind

of confidence or the lack of confidence

that results from communists like like

playing a poker game where you walk away

with exactly as much as you walked in

this is why people prefer

companies that are capitalist because

you have a chance to win big people are

inspired by these win big opportunities

and the one of the and the ones with the

biggest possible wins are the ones that

get the most traffic even though they

have the lowest win rate the lottery

that's the super powerball with the 22

million dollar win

rate her prize gets a lot more ticket

sold than the one that's like a hundred

dollars or a million dollar this is

confidence is the fact that people are

stupid by design from evolution we have

thousands of fallacies biases

misconceptions illusions delusions and

each of these drive the way we think and

how we make decisions religion lotteries

capitalism people will happily follow

stupid ideas and completely reject

objectively better rational decisions on

math in order to make successful

political economic systems you need to

accommodate these stupid biases

ingrained in human form from evolution

and socialism communism don't do that

for example imagine every casino was a

communist casino in the world and one

day somebody decided to build one

capitalist casino what's going to happen

everyone is going to start flooding into

the capitalist casino and losing all of

their money with a few big winners and

those few big winners will act as

inspirational stories for everyone else

causing people to be motivated to go to

that casino because they feel like that

could be me at the same time the casino

is going to start making mad profits and

be able to pay their employees better

wages than the communist kissing and

then the second place third place fourth

place prizes are going to begin to

increase because you have excess money

until even a minor win at the capitalist

casino is going to put you ahead of the

major winners of the communist casinos

and this capitalist casino is going to

continue to grow at an exponential rate

until there are more winners in that

than all other communist casinos

combined now

there will also be a significant more

losers in the capitalist casino because

it's not a fair system but the employees

will be paid more everyone has a higher

standard of living and there is an

evolutionary reason for why this is the

case in order to innovate and grow you

need to fail many many times in order to

resolve to discover the new successful

thing most things end up failing like

thomas edison's 2 000 ways to not make a

light bulb and he needed one way for it

to work there's this is the evolutionary

purpose of

men and why they have such a much a

larger spectrum of intelligence of more

smart and more stupid people because the

evolutionary design to be expendable and

try a bunch of random crap which mostly

kills them but then there is that one

lucky guy who gets some huge discovery

pushing humanity forward this is what's

the most successful evolutionary pattern

throughout human history which caused us

to have this ingrained fallacy of go for

the big win even if the chances are

stupid low because it was so successful

evolutionarily the golden idol of world

capitalism is a statue of liberty that

inspires and draws people in even if

they are more likely to fail which

consequently builds the economy

innovation and growth which communism

can't compete with because capitalism

plays to our basic human desires and

instincts which inspires confidence this

is why communism is doomed to fail when

given the option between going for the

big win or a mediocre life people are

going to go for the big win and because

of this more money and more resources

will go to the capitalist government

allowing it to provide better jobs

better standard of living more

innovation more technology and

everything people want in a society is

capitalism immoral yes but it works and

produces better standards of living you

just look at the amenities of poor fam

households today

this was from 2005. 92 have a microwave

81 have an air conditioning 75 percent

have a car 70 percent have a bcr 64 have

a dvd player you can just go on and on

and on the standard of living today due

to capitalism has been significantly

increased even though it is in unfair to

immoral in um

inequity between the amount of money

people have the standard of life today

is significantly better thanks to

capitalism so the question is is would

you rather be in a society with slavery

where most of the slaves have tvs and

air conditioners or would you rather be

in a society where everyone is equally

starving i choose the tv and the

compulsory appointment i will conclude

there so i agree to an extent that any

debate as to the question of communism

is already off the bat going to be

misleading there can't really be a

debate about communism but that's not

because

some

obligation is uh

imposed upon communists to go and prove

it instead of debating it rather to even

debate this question of communism one

has already conceded the terms

to the communists that there is a common

social sphere in which we expect the

minimum of adequately providing for

people's standard of living

attending to their needs attending to

their wants in other words treating it

as a system that can be swapped out for

other systems in order to fulfill more

or less the same goal which is to lead

to more or less the common prosperity of

a given people so when one treats

communism as if it's just a system that

can be swapped out with another system

called capitalism in another system this

very way of politicizing the economy

toward the fulfillment of common and

social ends is already in a sense

inevitably be going to be a communist

paradigm we have to remember that

capitalism did not arise as a system to

fulfill a specific type of ends but as a

kind of spontaneous amalgamation of

different enterprises who are pursuing

the very uh selfish ends of just

acquiring profit and by selfish i don't

mean in the sense of the fulfillment of

individual uh interests i mean selfish

in the sense of the mere propagation of

money for money's own sake through past

the 19th century this specific type of

economic order if you can even call it

that i would call it an economic

disorder fundamentally collapsed in the

1929 stock market crash and afterwards

capitalism has been maintained and it's

been on its lifeline because the

government has treated the economy as a

facet of politics and politics we should

remember doesn't just involve um

governing people and ruling over people

by force but also ensuring that the

material premises of being able to

govern are attended to in this case the

economy after the stock market sorry

after the global collapse of capitalism

in 1929 various

capitalist governments which were under

the control

of the ruling financial and industrial

oligarchies found it necessary to fix

the economy satisfy the population or

risk being overthrown in a violent

revolution so already

socialism in a sense has already

prevailed and won as the dominant mode

of production at the most essential and

fundamental level our political

superstructure and our ideology has not

awakened to this fact but what has

driven our economy since then is not

some kind of spontaneous amalgamation of

competitive markets and different

enterprises that are arising

spontaneously and organically but a

heavy-handed form of state intervention

in the economy together with um

corporations which are fundamentally

have become an arm of some kind of

central state planning in order to

ensure ensure that the economy can

maintain its uh its vitality and can

survive now this view of communism as

merely a system and different level a

different form of social organization at

the level of the factory floor or even

at the level of a mere community as

compared to so-called capitalism uh is

very convenient for people who want to

create vacuums with which we we can test

theories and systems right but we have

to take into account that our very

subjective positiveness before these

kinds of vacuum can't be taken for

granted the very idea of being this

social engineer elevated over all of

social uh reality and economic reality

with which we can just experimentally

play and insert and

remove specific types of systems

within vacuum

context this very type of subject is

part of a community and it's part of

themselves part of a society hence why

marx and engels would insist that the

utopian forms of experimentation which

would fulfill the uh this standard of uh

success or failure offered by

my opponent they critiqued these utopian

communities not because they weren't

successful actually it's interesting

because in the americas the utopian

socialist communities were so successful

that they did you know spread like

what is it spread like mushrooms they

were emulated and replicated because

they proved to be so successful even in

competing on the capitalist market but

marx and engels critique them because

they did not actually address the

economy at the most fundamental level of

our common sociality which is mediated

through the state the means of

production can't be isolated in some

kind of vacuum the means of production

are funded are the fundamental means by

which a given society reproduces its

existence and in the age of capitalism

this is necessarily global at scale but

as far as politics is concerned it's a

national and scale confined to the

sphere of the state but the more

fundamental point here that's uh i'm

trying to make is that this is why

communism and socialism is inexorably

political it is tied to the fundamental

transformation of society at the level

of the state it's not reducible

obviously to the state and the state's

interventions in the economy but it

neces in order for it to be uh

sufficiently uh

the commons

that's in question or our common social

sphere the only thing that unites us at

this level is the state so to treat

communism as just some specific form of

experimental social organization is

beyond the point under a communist

society

there may exist various different forms

of like social engineering experiments

of how to organize people into different

um systems actually china is a famous

example of a country that did experiment

with different forms of social

organization as did the soviet union in

its early days in the 1920s it's not

this which defines a country or an

economy as communist it's the

government's relationship to the economy

specifically in the form of a

fundamental ownership of the means of

production and in china this takes the

form of land right which is the most

fundamental means of production thereby

ensuring that the means of production

are to be used to fulfill

expressly social ends and social

uh

social purposes in other words the

economy is rigged for the people now the

specifics of how that system

is going to work can vary obviously

china is a radically different type of

economy than the soviet union in the

states in the 20th century but that's

also because they belong to different

historical periods in 20th century

communism the reason why the economy and

the organization of the economy was so

heavily tied to the law as my opponent

was talking about wasn't because this

was the kind of final form of communism

but because these were agrarian

countries that

required the baseline necessity of

creating

a primary uh level of industrialization

and one moreover that is that was

independent from the west and therefore

was unable to tap in

to the inequalities and the

concentration of capital that countries

can otherwise take advantage of it and

kind of exploit in order to build up

their own means of production so it was

required almost from scratch and from

ground zero to separate the vast

majority of the peasantry that resided

in these communist states from their

original means of production in order to

undergo a process of rapid

industrialization thereby modernizing

the economy and providing the people a

baseline and primary standard of living

now before you can go compete on markets

and do all the things this gentleman is

talking about you need to kind of have

the baseline of medicine and ability to

kind of have a base standard of living

you know clothe yourself feed yourself

do all these kinds of things and it was

a turbulent and rocky road but more or

less the communist states were far more

successful in being able to do this as

far as the the relevant countries were

concerned that are comparable to them

than the capitalist ones one only needs

to take the example of china as opposed

to india throughout the 20th century

there's not even a competition or a

comparison it's true that the if the

communist movement is going to be

successful in a sense does just have to

happen and marx famously recalled that

communism is not an ideal with which we

want to conform society but the real

movement that sublights or transcends

the present state of things and that's

precisely what communism is it's a real

movement that is in a sense already set

in motion and is

his victory is in a sense historically

inevitable it's just that politics is

also the decisive site with which this

communist transformation is going to

take place it's not just it's not

specifically going to be different forms

of organization for different

enterprises to start up businesses it's

going to be a movement that is social in

scale and addresses the real common of a

given society specifically in the united

states we are witnessing a transition

into a completely different type of

economy the forces of production have

transformed so fundamentally tens of

millions of people are at risk of losing

their jobs and their livelihoods my view

is that communists are the best equipped

in being able to address this common

social crisis as it they did in the

transition from feudalism to capitals

now one last quick thing is this stuff

about casinos i didn't really get to

everything else that's not specifically

because of the dream of the reward it

has something to do with the

relationship between systems and their

contingency right

systems for example are produced in the

midst of chaos and then there lies a

certain complacency when one just

relegates back to

norms and systems

and so on and so on but there is room

for

communists to uh appreciate the reality

of uh the creative power of chaos i mean

marx himself talked about this china

does this far better than the united

states which is a very bureaucratic

country with a lot of red tape and china

undergoes regularly structural reforms

which do risk

systems that are already in place

in the midst of chaos now i wanted to

talk also about this issue of trust and

confidence it's relationship to the

norms of civil society and so on and

communist i don't think i'll happen

tonight but we might be able to get into

it afterwards so that there you go

yeah i got a question let's see i mute

myself

um he mentioned that you can't debate

communism because if you debate

communism you've already conceded to

communist terminology uh it seems like

he's defining communism as like any kind

of government designed to help people is

that right uh it's more so to do with

treating the economy as a common

political site of uh common prosperity

and welfare and so on which the

government in some capacity ensures

fulfills uh some manner of social and so

this is not so much the essence of

communism as it is something that was

not a feature of 19th century classical

liberal capitalism so any government

which recognizes the economy in fact

people's lives is communist no a

government which treats the economy as a

facet of politics actively it doesn't

just recognize the economy needs should

help people but

it ensures the economy does so

so it sounds like what you're saying is

that any government who recognizes that

if they

manage the economy that that can have

impacts on people's lives make it better

or worse is communist

and and that they do this they treat

them they have the macro economy as a

political category uh

and a category of uh political planning

yes so as far as i know literally every

government has always done that

throughout the history of time do you

have like a reference of any kind of

academic economist book that gives this

definition because as far as i know like

with the emergence of 19th century

liberal capitalism it is true that

beforehand for example england had laws

that you know specifically in a form and

this was in the form of the ownership of

land and the agrarian economy in order

to kind of you know ensure some level of

social reality to the economy but with

the outgrowth of capitalism and

specifically 19th century industrial

capitalism you had a fundamental social

crisis and an asocial system that was

arising which had no regard for people's

livelihoods it had no regard for any

type of common prosperity and it did not

proceed along this president's path i

have no idea what you're talking about

as far as i know yeah what are you

talking about

right is what i'm talking about is the

basic reality of proletarianization

where people work

different questions

into city right with absolutely no would

you mind letting me finish the question

first before interrupting um

you said

that in the like i think 19th century

was the first time that government was

starting to be formed that just didn't

care about anybody's economic status or

something like that no it's the first

time an economy started to arise that

completely uh had no re that was not uh

somehow integrated into the level of the

government to their policy so it's that

the economy is that the forces of

production outpace the relations of

production and marxist terms so as far

as i know throughout all of history

that's always been the case throughout

every economy the economy has always

been in some cases independent and in

some cases dependent on the government

um in the 16th century in the 15th

century the 14th century we can go

through literally any kind of society

ever and there's always been facets that

are controlled but capitalism has been

an outlier in the history of humanity

well my question here is that it seems

to be the case that you've simply

defined any government that interferes

with economies as communism and that

that doesn't seem to no i haven't uh

economy communism only arises to face

the unprecedented challenge capitalism

has given to humanity now governments

may have appeared to you know directly

interfere in the economy for purposes of

social ends retrospectively we can see

that but it was not explicit there was

no notion of just abstract common

sociality it's always took the form of

some kind of common religious or

you know uh monarchical and so on and so

on or dynastic type of community it was

never about for example the commons in

the abstract and what makes communism

different from these previous modes of

production whether the asiatic motor

production or feudalism and so on and so

on or slave society is that communism

inherits from capitalism the

constant revolutionizing of the forces

of production so communism integrates

this type of chaotic uplifting and

uprooting of traditional ways of life um

in the economic ways of life i should

say culture is a different story but

these economic ways of life uh so-called

the progress of science this is another

word for that right so that's what makes

what in other words

if you're basically saying that are you

implying that in a way communism does

return to the norm of humanity for most

of its history i would say absolutely

and marx actually said as as much i mean

when marx talked about the way in which

capitalism through the land and

copenhagen

uprooted the peasants from their

traditional ways of life and their

traditional common social bonds and this

radical alienation that was produced by

capitalism he was recognizing that

capitalism did entail a fundamental loss

of otherwise implicit sense of community

belonging and sociality marx rejected

the reactionary socialists and that was

a thing the feudal socialist the

reactionary socialists who merely wanted

to turn back the wheels of time and

return to the previous state of affairs

mark said no something has been

irreversibly changed but for him

communism itself was going to outmode

capitalism in the same way capitalism

did the previous modes of production

okay so i have no idea anything you just

said so mike the first thing you brought

up in your opening statement was is that

you can't debate communism because if

you debate communism you're already

agreeing to the definitions of the

communists and the definition you are

you are

you are conceding

the terms of debate terms

what do you mean the term of debate

being what system is better equipped to

fulfill

uh the common social ends of the society

right i mean you're not really coming at

us by saying oh a you know a communist

society simply is impossible and that we

have to make do with this this anarchy

of production that is capitalism you're

saying capitalism is a better system

it's a better system to improve our

common livelihoods and ensure some kind

of common prosperity well that's not a

capitalist intention right a capital

there's no a capitalist merely wants to

make money from money's own state so

you're basically saying capitalism

accidentally fulfills all of the ends

that the socialists and communists

wanted in the past now you can go with

that argument for me it'd be quite easy

to dispel and dispatch but sure let's go

with that argument so

well i didn't understand the words that

you said so but let's go with that

argument so let's say that capitalism

achieves more of the life standards that

communism wants than communism does i

believe that is accurately the case why

would you disagree

i would disagree because if the if the

so-called capitalist system is a form of

the anarchy of production then this

specific outcome that you're talking

about which was some level of

commonwealth and common prosperity is an

accidental result science begins when

instead of relying upon accidents and uh

things that are just like a byproduct

that's not explicitly for the gold

science begins when we distill the

essence of how things work and apply

them and in that case one is entering

into communism so all it takes is a

financial crisis like 2008 or some

meaningless contingency to completely

separate this cause from the outcome

right the purpose of capitalism is not

to ensure people's living standards and

common prosperity so things happen in

capitalism which lead to people losing

those things and capitalism can still

survive because capitalism survivability

doesn't depend

on fulfilling common and social ends it

survives on the basis of producing

profit for profits on sake so yeah it

seems like your argument is is that the

purpose of capitalism is not to improve

lives it only does it accidentally

therefore capitalism isn't as good is

that about right sorry what was the last

part therefore capitalism isn't as good

something like that it's not just that

it's not as good it's that

the reasoning you're giving for why

capitalism is superior is not itself

inherent in capitalism it's just an

accidental dry product okay so so

if i happen to accidentally save a

billion lives

is that better than deliberately saving

10 well let's put it this way let's say

you accidentally saved 10 billion lives

while you were on your way to the store

to uh to go get a banana something

stupid like that right sure exactly

science begins when in order to continue

to save people's lives is still the

essence of how it is you've saved those

lives because you can really go to the

store and get a banana without saving

anyone's lives you could still fulfill

the goal of getting what you wanted from

the store without doing that and just in

the same way you can you can pursue

profit for profits on sake and make that

be the driving force of your economy

which it hasn't been by the way in

western country since 2008 you can make

that or you can at least accept that as

the driving force of the economy but

that won't ensure that in the face of

economic crisis and transformations in

the forces of production like we're

witnessing right now that it's going to

lead

to the common prosperity and the

well-being of the people sure so i think

i understand your argument here is that

um capitalism does happen to have a

better outcome but that outcome isn't

because of capitalism itself and so i i

haven't proceeded that i i'm not

absolutely

i'm not willing to concede capitalism

has a better outcome i'm just saying i

can accept that there are cases in which

the capitalist mode of production has

increased the overall wealth and living

standards of the society but actually

compared to communist societies i would

not concede that the capitalist

countries

are superior okay we'll get to that in a

minute so your argument is is that

capitalism does improve things but it

doesn't improve things because it's the

goal of capitalism and so we need to

find what the core reason of why it's

improving things is and try to focus on

that core reason is that about right

precisely all right so the core reason

is evolutionary i gave that in my

opening the reason capitalism works is

the same reason the lottery works for

casinos work people need confidence or a

belief that they can win the million

dollars to be interested in investing

their time into doing something so the

reason this is again is it's not you

mentioned at the very end of your

opening that this was societal or some

kind of social norm it's not a social

norm this is a biological norm it's a

biological fact due to evolution so how

how is it that we have something called

human history but we have more or less

the same biology over the span of let's

say tens of thousands of years we have

different modes of production but we

have the same biology how can you

attribute biology as the cause of

capitalism when capitalism has only

emerged within the past few centuries

has our biology radically altered

no capitalism is what all society

started as two hundred thousand years

ago it was essentially i have seen that

let me take you well done that's that

sounds a little absurd to me do you have

any evidence that capitalism is what we

started out with yes it's how trade

started so so i have a product you

wanted

because capitalism is a system in which

all

all forms of economic intercourse

revolve around the production of profit

so bartering doesn't actually do that

right i'm talking about the profit here

thing so so the reason why people wanted

to attack tribe b is because they wanted

profit they wanted more land they wanted

more fertile stuff they wanted more than

they wanted

that's not no the reason people would

attack tribe a or try to be isn't just

because they wanted more for more zone

sake you have to situate it in its

historical context but regardless even

that specific form of profit which is

measured in physical and tangible things

would not be capitalist because

capitalist profit is in the form of

money and that's why in capitalism we

have generalized commodity production

and it's why marxists talk about how

before capitalism the circuit was

commodity money and commodity right you

end with the commodity

the accumulation of goods and capitalism

um commodities

means to an end to facilitate more

profit no capitalism is an economic and

political system where the means of

production and trade is in owned by

private entities that's all it is that's

all i mean so if you own stuff and you

want to trade with time first of all

first of all there that is so wrong on

multiple accounts first of all it is not

only the definition

dictionary

it developed i don't care what your

dictionary says let's analyze history

developed forms of private property as

they've existed specifically in the west

through the development of feudalism and

so on that was actually more or less

unique to the west that's why marx and

engels talked about the asiatic mode of

production which did not have a clear

system of private property right all

property was owned by the sultan or the

emperor more or less now people could

use it's a complicated system but

private property only explicitly

develops as a legal category in the most

advanced form uh in europe and in the

west leading to liberal capitalism uh

that we see in the beginning of the 17th

through the 19th century so if you're if

you're just going to disagree

if you're saying if you're saying

capitalism is just private property then

you're there's a multiple issues with

that first of all private property has

had an ambiguous status and existence

throughout the duration of civilization

i could grant you that private property

maybe in some form has always existed

throughout every civilization although

what exactly is private in the western

sense i wouldn't say so but i might

concede that to you but you can't really

call that capitalism because at that

point there is no way for us to make

intelligible the the clearly different

system that has arisen in the past few

centuries from for example ancient you

know sumeria or you know the indus river

valley civilization it's like you're

going to say that these are all

capitalists and so what changed in the

past few hundred years if we've always

been capitalist societies

if you want to disagree with the

definition of capitalism that's

literally in every economic textbook

that's on you not not my debate you can

debate all economists on that one sure

what my question was is i will bring

is this a new system that we're

witnessing for the past few hundred

years why are you saying this is

it's a new variation on human nature

which has existed hundreds of thousands

of years ago so if we listen

i'm about to answer i'm about to answer

so if we look back at early societies

like just hunter-gatherer societies

where people made an object and they

wanted to trade it to a different object

did they own the object they made or was

it owned by the city it was owned in

common by the tribe itself so was that

really private yes so so literally the

individual who made the thing owned the

thing and they could use it how they no

there was no clear no there was no

individual property rights i'm sorry

hunger gatherer societies had no

individual property rights at all so

you've studied every single

hunter-gatherer society from 150 000

years ago

in the main hunter-gatherer societies

owned their property in common where is

your evidence for this which which of

the hunter-gatherer societies 150 000

years ago

you can make you can make factually

contestable claims and so can i and when

you say where's your evidence i'm on my

fucking phone first oh what do you want

me to produce like

there's something out of my hand what do

you mean where's your evidence i'm

you're making a factually congestible

claim i'm making a factually congestible

claim so what where do you want to go

from here

it was not meant to be taken literally

it's it's i'm making fun of how stupid

your claim is by saying that people

didn't own their room the main consensus

is that in most hunter-gatherer

societies things were owned in common

again

and if you made an object you could own

the object and not give it to somebody

you're not obligated to give it to

somebody else if they wanted to use it

you could still you're not obligated

to somebody but you don't have any

rights you don't have any legally

identifiable rights to legally doesn't

matter here do you have the spear and if

somebody takes it can you stab them yes

that's a really primitive and crude way

of looking how these

sciences there were norms in place that

were based on the family and communal

structure of the hunter-gatherer society

as to what would be done with these

products and people

the individual subject of the western

society did not even exist people did

things for their families for their

tribe and for their their communal

society

if you made something to trade you

weren't doing it so you can fucking make

a dollar to go get bubble gum at

7-eleven you were doing it specifically

for your tribe for your family no that's

wrong so that's evidence

we can prove that wrong evolutionarily

we know for a fact how the brain works

and how evolutionary development happens

you don't

everybody's excited to hear both of you

and so just to hear both of you we just

want to be sure that there's not too

much overlap so so as i was saying we

know for a fact every single biologist

who's ever studied biology and isn't a

dumbass knows for a fact that yes

selfishness is a very very part

important part integral part of people's

interactions

wait don't interrupt don't interrupt

don't interrupt me

that's the plan i plan to finish it

thank you thank you captain obviously we

know for a fact biology people do things

for selfish reasons there are in fact

mental conditions that people only do

things for selfish reasons call them

psychopathy and

many other kinds of conditions we know

for a fact this is a thing people do

many selfish things do they do things

for family occasionally yet the

predominant motivation for most people

is self-worth individualism we know this

because if you are dying and your kid is

dying in most like chimpanzees and early

human societies you survive you always

kill time it's it's a complete waste

so your ignorance in biology here is not

my problem and this didn't have to do no

you are saying something that's not

relevant there is no need to consult

biology to accept a bare-faced fact

it has nothing to do with shut the fuck

up

so as i was saying we can know the

biology and the reason this is important

because the point we were talking about

was biologically people are designed to

prefer capitalistic system this is the

thing that works with biology it works

with our human nature that's what you

asked before that was the whole point

yes we know for a fact this is

biologically driven

okay finally so for fuck's sake when i

talked about first of all there's two

facets of this the first fast when i

talked about how the reason for the

system has to fulfill social lens and

distill the essence of the reason i

wasn't talking about the causal reason

that you're making up and pulling out of

your fucking ass and you're saying oh

the reason for capitalism is biology

that wasn't my point my point was the

reason for the system existing was not

for social purposes now if you want to

say the causal reason for the purpose is

something inherent to our biology that's

an entirely separate argument but if

your goal is to ensure the maximal

common prosperity the reason has to be

for that that was my fucking argument

you instead decided to go on a stupid

spiel about biology so i'll say this

consulting biology and moreover even

more pathetically psychology which is

even its status as a science is

contested regularly consulting those

things to address social and common and

political problems is this about the

most stupid fucking thing you can do

because our range of knowledge about

those things is so insufficient and so

limited you cannot hold transforming or

changing a society to the standard of

very incomplete imperfect and um

primitive i would say sciences but

regardless you don't need to address

biology to know that most people are

selfish we just know that people are

born as individuals so obviously they're

going to make it their primary focus to

attend to their own needs i'm not saying

people do everything for others i'm

saying the reasons why they do things in

the first place has a communal

rationality and that doesn't mean

they're doing it only for the commute it

means for example that fulfilling their

own ends their own selfish ends is

something that is situated in the

context of their status in the society

and in the the community so for instance

when you're talking about people

unless

we could do three minutes but otherwise

i've got a that was two minutes two two

is good he's gonna bring up way too many

points yeah he sounds like a hegelian

with all the gibberish he's saying that

has absolutely no bearing on reality so

what he started with was he said that in

the beginning we need to assess the fact

that capitalism has a better impact

capitalism itself isn't the reason so i

addressed what is the reason the reason

is biology the reason some political

systems work and some don't is because

they are consistent with our biological

drives if it is inconsistent with our

biological drives and motivations it

will fail which is why a communist

casino will not work but a capitalist

casino will work even though you're more

likely to lose people want the big win

so they're because of their biological

biases they're going to try and gamble

to win if you have a system that is

aligned with our biological

preconditions it will succeed if you

have one that is not it will fail that

is the underlying reason why capitalism

works secondly the accidental result

thing is just an appeal to consequence

fallacy or people with purpose fallacy

it doesn't make a difference if the

result was accidental or not science has

many axes and results which happened to

be the greatest discoveries of all

mankind the fact that was accidental is

irrelevant all that matters is does it

work and why it does capitalism work yes

why does it work it aligns with our

biology as i brought up in the opening

and he said the most stupid thing you

can do is base society on how people act

in psychology that

any rational human being knows that you

have to base enough psychology that's

kind of the point if you're not based

off psychology you're just making shit

up and he said that whenever people in a

society do something they do it because

of their status in society when someone

hungry and they steal food or they kill

their neighbor or they rape someone is

that because of their status in society

like what a stupid thing to say like

obviously that's wrong all right i'll

yield on to let him go on whatever

gibberish he says yeah my actual point

wasn't that like i didn't have time to

explain the relationship between

individual motivations and their social

reality but my point is insofar as

production is socially mediated in these

hunter-gatherer societies which it is

the reasons why people do things for

example to feed your family to feed your

community and that can be a selfless

motive because it's going to elevate

your own status and it's going to

fulfill your own individual status so

that has nothing to do with the question

of why do people rape and why do people

kill i didn't say that the all the

reasons people do things in every

society is for communal or whatever

purposes i was talking specifically

about the economic forms of intercourse

in hunter-gatherer societies now you're

talking about how any russian person

pursue psychology why don't i just spit

it out through that psychology is 100

complete stupid bullshit and if we had

no psychologist in our society there'd

be no net difference second of all

you're talking about how

the reason for capitalist prosperity

being better something that was never

conceded to you in the to begin with by

the way is because of biology um that

has nothing to do with the point if it's

not because of capitalism then

capitalism can lead to outcomes that are

incompatible with the goal if the

reasoning you're giving for capitalism

being better is that it fulfills a

certain goal which is common prosperity

that reason is not inherent in

capitalism you again do not understand

the basic fucking point because you

can't use basic logic biology and the

rest of that chip has nothing to do with

it talking about it is a waste of time

if the reason you're giving for capitals

of being better is that it increases our

social outcome that reason is not

inherent in the capitalist system that's

why we have capitalist crisis mass

unemployment people being laid off their

fucking jobs and having their

livelihoods destroyed while people are

the stock market is still in the fucking

green all right so clearly this

ignoramus doesn't understand how an

appeal to consequence fallacy works like

the fact that capitalism whether it has

an ingrained purpose of actually making

society better is irrelevant if it

happens to work and it works better

objectively whether or not it was

designed to do that is irrelevant i

think it's a genetic fallacy appeal to

its origin or something there are many

scientific discoveries that were made

purely by chance not because they were

designed that way there was no

intentionality in making these things

penicillin viagra plastic microwaves

vaseline strikable match gun powder corn

flakes

anesthetics all of these were just by

chance by scientists messing around with

stuff as an accident of some other thing

they were doing the fact that it's an

accident that capitalism happens to have

the most best effects for people's lives

doesn't matter at all it's just an

appeal like probably an appeal genetic

found somebody's gonna go with the

genetic fallacy when he's just saying oh

well because it's intention wasn't to

help people then it doesn't matter if it

happens to help more people which is

clearly batshit um

clearly he doesn't understand basic

philosophical argumentation uh the most

again saying that

all of the world will be better with

psycho without psychology how dumb do

you have to be there's been tons and

tons of amazing discoveries in

psychology like oliver sachs vs

ramachandran tons of psychologists make

great discoveries that have benefited

the world significantly he just seems to

be ignorant of basic science um

like

wow

i don't really give a shit about your

dumb soy reddit fallacy fucking logic

lord dumb shit let's get into the meat

entertainment of what you actually

fucking said scientists find out that

you can discover things accidentally all

the time fine even if i were to concede

that to you that has nothing to do with

the point that there is a discontinuity

between the reason for why capitalism is

the the procedural reason for capitalism

and the outcome if you are saying that

the outcome is what matters primarily

and that is the reason for its

superiority the fact that that is not

inherent to capitalism doesn't mean that

i'm saying capitalism didn't produce

that outcome which is wealth and a good

standard of living and that's something

we have to debate by the way because

it's not something i even conceded but

granted even if i did if that is the

reason for why it is better just use

basic logic then if that is not inherent

in capitalism then there may there will

inevitably arise just based on fucking

chance itself just based on chaos and

randomness itself that there will be a

disjuncture you can still accumulate

profit or profits on state the stock

markets will be in green but the outcome

that you're giving for why capitalism is

better won't be produced that's my point

it has nothing to do with this dumb

redditor whatever fallacy you're talking

about because that would be an argument

that it couldn't have produced that

outcome well i'm not saying it can't

produce that outcome i'm just saying

it's not essential to what capitalism is

and by the way you're saying capitalism

just works i can test that how did

capitalism work in 1929 how did it work

in 73 how does it work in 2008 something

we still haven't even recovered from our

economy is not even based on capitalist

profits anymore it's based on

quantitative easing and the printing of

money and government credit just re

we're seeing an implosion of the global

capitalist system as we speak how the

fuck can you say that it's just working

it's simply and patently not finally as

regards this question of psychology

psychologists can give us nice insights

that are nice to think about but they

have no practical utility and no

practical value whatsoever so i repeat

and i reiterate if there were no

psychologists on earth or in history

there would be no net difference as far

as the meat and potatoes of our daily

lives is concerned time uh yeah so the

dumb story reddit fallacy is the fact

that he doesn't understand that because

something happens to be a side effect

doesn't mean it's not the absolute best

at that side effect he seems to think

that it must be innate ingrained into

the purpose of the design in order to

make it the best at something no that's

why i listed all those different

scientific things people have discovered

penicillin is like the best

antibacterial ever discovered and it was

never designed to be an antibacterial

the fact that something can happen by

chance doesn't mean it's not the

absolute best at the thing because

saying that it's not ingrained into the

purpose no

doesn't mean it's still not the best

thing ever designed ever basic logic

here um

yes capitalism is working you know how i

know that because more people are alive

and have food and technology than ever

before in human history capitalism is

the dominating thing everywhere it's a

mixed economy capitalism plus socialism

but capitalism is the thing yes it works

if you say it doesn't work it's like

saying boeing 747s don't work yes they

do they flying right there it right

there it's doing the thing you lose um

again like

his basic ignorance of basic psychology

is absolutely pathetic there's so much

work that's been done in psychology that

has a significant impact on our everyday

lives like understanding um the car

crash experiment multiple different

angles of people looking at car crashes

have different conclusions and how bad

testimony is and why it isn't accepted

in court and how it overthrew a bunch of

false convictions because we learned how

bad testimony was or how understanding

how recognition works in children and

how they learn from growing up and how

that helps us to better teach them so

they can learn faster and better and

have different cognitive disabilities

that like autism and synesthesia and all

these different things which are learned

by psychology to help improve people's

lives yeah psychology's had a huge

impact you're just basically ignorance

of pretty much everything in science i

will conclude there yeah science

psychology has absolutely zero impact

all those things you're talking about

court depending the courts the what the

courts treat seriously they don't treat

seriously it's completely arbitrary and

it always has so don't use the fucking

court fallacy as an example whatever

you're talking about is psychology is

good at raising children and treating

people's desire to be happy yeah but the

communal societies that have

predominated whether feudalism or even

slave societies whatever you want to

call it before capitalism all of these

traditional societies were far better

traditional villages in the countryside

in random third world countries are

better at fucking raising children than

what psychologists are going to fucking

tell you uh for anything right so that's

lindy that's been tried and tested it's

worked for hundreds and thousands

thousands of years even so yeah

psychologists haven't proven their worth

in that regard either but finally

regarding this thing of like oh with the

discovery of penicillin we can find it

it's the best at producing that result

but that is what we are debating about

capitalism is not essentially the best

at producing the result maybe it has

produced that result maybe it has it i'm

arguing right now specifically it hasn't

and it's failing at do it and we'll get

into that debate in a second but it is

not essential to the capitalist system

that the living standard uh that the

vibe that this byproduct will happen it

is essential to the procedure that's

replicated afterwards and these

accidental scientific discoveries here

talking about it that they do produce

this

this outcome now that may not be the

reason

like for their creation of the procedure

but that has nothing to do with my

argument in the first place i'm not

arguing that because capitalism wasn't

designed to make people's standard of

living better that uh this is why it

inevitably leads to this contradiction

i'm talking about which you have yet to

address even once by the way in the form

of the various capitalist crisis and the

current crisis that we're facing all i

was talking about is how it is

inessential to capitalism the burden of

proof is upon you to prove that the

capitalist type of system we have which

is basically europe america and

other countries that are under the

fucking tyranny of the imf and its

policies um the burden of view is to

prove that this is the essentially best

way and you're saying all capitals

people are being fed and people are

living and surviving well is capitalism

essential to that because the capitalist

system a fundamental basis of that

financially is collapsing right now as

we speak to the next segment yeah it's

definitely not like saying that because

there are problems with capitalism

therefore it's not working it's like

saying lebron james missed a few times

therefore he sucks at basketball like

clearly the fact that it works in most

cases and that we see the standard of

living increasing for everyone

everywhere by a significant margin kind

of outweighs the the little weaknesses

it has here and there all the economic

crisis is like take the one in 2008 what

did it do to like world hunger not much

we still all got food still lived it it

got better capitalism worked there was a

problem which happens to every system

and then it overcame that problem and

not millions of people died what happens

in communism um

mass starvation millions people die so

capitalism wins on that one the fact

that it has challenges doesn't mean it

doesn't work all systems have challenges

not an actual criticism

um

next you said that

communism is inevitable well that's

quite strange since everyone's going

away from it at a quite fast rate it

seems like capitalism is inevitable

because it exists again the the way to

actually do this debate is go make a

company

go do it go if you think you're

political and your economic system will

work go start a company get off your

butt off your twitch channel go start a

company that's what i'm doing i'm

starting a company because i actually

understand economics and philosophy and

psychology and fallacies and everything

that you don't i actually know how to

make this work in practice instead of

just talk about it with a beard

i will conclude there yeah the first

thing you said was something more or

less along the lines of

capitalism is continuing to work because

it's alleviated so many people out of

poverty and solving global hunger the

overwhelming majority of poverty

alleviation that's attributed to

capitalism within the last few decades

has come from china and it's

specifically because china is not a

capitalist economy that we see such a

rapid alleviation of people from poverty

now if you ask chinese marxists why in

other countries this standard of living

seems to be going up not as nowhere near

at the rapid pace as china's growth but

you know people are getting a lot more

access to food and healthier i know

these all these things are debated

heavily so i'll just concede it um which

is a really big advantage to you that

i'm just conceding that because it is

something debated but the reason for

that isn't because of capitalism it's

because the forces of production overall

are being developed and generated but

we're seeing a lot of countries reaching

an upper limit in being able to develop

their own forces of production because

the capitalist path isn't cutting it for

you to underplay and downplay the global

capitalist crisis that we're now

witnessing simply because of this stupid

stephen pinker bullshit idea that well

everything's been pretty good so far and

this is like lebron's success you

underestimate the extent to which all

these processes that ensure people can

beat themselves and clothe themselves

and so on and so on are dependent on

extremely like esoteric financial

abstractions like derivatives and

securities and the global capitalist

financial system which when it finally

does completely implode or at least

implode to such an extent that it leads

to a fundamental political economic

crisis all those things will suddenly

become vulnerable right because the

economy is not based on ensuring those

type of things in the first place now

finally you say why don't you just go

start oh you mentioned the communist

countries links with famine and whatever

listen in the history of the development

of capitalist economies you take all of

the worst famines in the communist

states combined and it is nowhere near

the extent to which the emergence of

capitalism fundamentally uh led to the

famine death genocide uh completely

eradication of all peoples in the form

of colonialism slavery and so on and so

on the famines in india under british

colonial rule the irish potato famine

all these type of different things

scratching the surface

wiped out way more people as a

proportion of their population than the

communist states the communists merely

had the burden of not having colonies

overseas with which to fucking um

with which the burden with the

inevitable disruptions in the form of

the agricultural production that

capitalist modernization leads to so

don't give me this shit

so yeah apparently he's using china is

his shining example of communism yes we

love those camps where they just put

anyone who they disagree with and then

harvest their organs communism is great

love love the chinese communism

phenomenal phenomenal example of

communism uh yes clearly there are

economic crisis coming out of the debt

crisis which is oh guess what also a

thing in china china's in more debt

congratulations son your own system has

the same problem um secondly most of

these can be solved with different kind

of economic policies the fact that they

collapse doesn't necessarily mean that

the entire economy is going to collapse

like the banking collapse it did happen

many banks went down and the economy

dipped but then it recovered it wasn't

it wasn't like an entire collapse unlike

what happens in communist countries

where everyone died um

so yes he mentioned the rapid

alleviation of poverty apparently he

doesn't know how statistics work if you

have the most people in poverty living

off a dollar a day and you increase them

to two dollars a day then yes you've

alleviated a significant amount more

poverty than people who make twenty

dollars an hour it's going to be harder

to alleviate poverty in that country

because the standard of living is

significantly higher so yes china is

alleviating poverty because they have

the most people in poverty of them like

india so that's an example against your

case and why china and communism is crap

not why it's good all right back to the

argument

he said communism is the best to equip

to assault unemployment well then why

does china have so many unemployed

people why does every communist country

have so many unemployed people if it's

the best to employed i'm still waiting

for him to like start his own company

i'm going to do it i'm working on it

i've done it i'm actually doing these

things does he have any plans can he try

this for us i'd like to point and laugh

when his company collapses because it's

a crap idea that would be incredibly

interesting and he mentioned something

about

systems and contingency is the reason

that um casinos work not because people

want to men to win money that is just so

stupid the reason casinos work is

because people want to win money that's

that's the point and you said something

that china does something better than

the us i'd like to know what that is be

very interesting

harvesting organs they do that a lot

better than america prisoning

you're basically throwing a bunch of

shit at the wall waiting for something

to stick a thousand different things

i'll go one by one the camps think

complete bullshit organ harvesting

complete bullshit

propaganda now you're also talking about

china also china also having a lot of

debt yeah that doesn't change the

fucking fact that when you have things

like the evergrande collapse in china it

doesn't lead to the destruction of the

entire economy and the chinese

government doesn't bail those companies

out it's the free market in practice now

you're saying that china only

contributed to success and poverty

abbreviation to the fact that china was

the poorest country in the world no it

fucking wasn't india was always poorer

than china it still is the countries in

africa were always way poorer than china

they still are the same goes for latin

america and actually most of the world

china is not even a third world country

anymore it's now a middle-ranking

country according to most categories so

now for you to underplay china's poverty

alleviation why can't india do the same

fucking thing india has such an extreme

level of poverty that it would make any

it would make the fucking amount of

poverty that existed in china pale in

comparison it's so bad it was so bad for

india in the 20th century that even

during the great leap forward famine in

china there were more deaths as a

proportion of per capita of the

population due to malnutrition in india

then there wasn't china during its

fucking famine so don't sit here and try

to underplay china's success in poverty

alleviation finally you're saying things

like um i don't remember all the dumb

shit you said you said something about

what is china doing better than america

i don't know developing its forces of

production building national

infrastructure poverty alleviation and

ensuring a baseline center living

building cities i mean what do you want

there's like literally a million

different things china is better at

doing finally on this question of

unemployment sorry to burst your fucking

bubble but the unemployment rates in

communist states have always been lower

than in capitalist countries not even

pro-liberal capitalist economists would

deny this this is a really stupid angle

to come with when it comes to that and i

don't remember the other side oh yeah

let's talk about starting a company you

have yet to address my initial rebuttal

to that claim which is that you can

create a vacuum sealed environment with

which to test these types of theories i

argued this in the very beginning of our

debate about how communism and socialism

is necessarily national and political

and scale you didn't address the fucking

argument so shut the fuck up about me

what was what's the argument because i

did vacuum sealed something what's the

argument you're saying that a community

communism is just a different form of

social organization that you can

implement in a vacuum sealed like

environment of a company or a business

that's not what communism is simple as

that i don't care if bosch and all these

other type of people are saying it's

just workers managing the means of

production of

every communist theorist has recognized

that communism is political and scale

and encompasses the entirety of the

economy and not isolated uh units or for

businesses it's a really odd argument

i'm not i'm not unders so so like if

china is a country it it it supposedly

implements communism by your standards

so isn't that an isolated system it's

not isolated how is it well

this is why i'm not understanding like

and a country adopt communism while

other places is socialism in one country

possible yes of course it's possible

okay but the difference is it's not

vacuum sealed because china's growth and

rise has already fundamentally changed

our global economy right now we just

haven't really awakened to it yeah china

has been assaulted china is what kept

our global economy chugging after 2008.

so you can implement communism in like a

country or a business you can you can do

it that way it'll have impacts on other

economies not not the re the theoretical

basis for socialism in one country is

about the level of the state so politics

is about states there's no such thing as

a global politics maybe beyond

geopolitics but we don't have a global

state so yes communist politics is going

to be at the level of the state so it's

not a vacuum but that's not a vacuum's

field isolated

so if you owned a company you could

treat it as if you were the president

and give it the same kind of communist

policies you think would be good well

you couldn't you couldn't because

communism encompasses the whole of a

polity a polity is not just a business

top down it's civil society the state

um the organs of the state and civil

society in the form of corporates as

hegel would call it i guess it's

a politic is national in scale or at

least even civilizational and scale if

you want to call it that it encompasses

the relation between citizen and state

unless the company is going to encompass

every facet of life politically and it's

actually going to be a political power a

sovereign political power it's not going

to apply communism is at the level of

sovereign polity it's not at the level

of local businesses so it seems like

you're just basically basically ignorant

of how politics works like a country and

a business are essentially the same

things the relationship between

the president wait wait wait wait two

minutes so so you can have a company and

you can treat it as if it's a your own

country you have the country of the

company and you can treat it how you

want and you have to interact with other

companies and other states and whatever

you're gonna have to treat them like

they exist just like china has to treat

america like it exists you can treat a

company just like you could a country

pretend it's your own little country and

treat it that way it's not very hard if

you do it'll fail because it's a crap

system and you'll learn real quick why

it's a crap system

but that's the point here is that you

can do nothing by your own admission you

can do nothing except just whine on

twitch about how you want global

politics to change i can actually do

something i can start a company like hey

look here's my economic policy and it

works and i can act as a like someone to

inspire others and they can like oh i'm

going to start a company and use that oh

that political system too because it

works and i can do it but yours is just

crap because no one can do it it

requires like global change like doesn't

doesn't that give you some indication

that your system is kind of bull crap

that it requires an entire global change

to implement and you can't do it on an

individual level why do you think that

if it can be done on an individual level

a system may be more prolific than one

that must take global stances do you

think that might be a bit of a problem

for your silly system no it's not a

problem at all the only problem here is

your deranged larp fantasies about

replicating a state and a country at the

level of a company that is 100 larp and

don't get me wrong larping looks a lot

of like it's fun you probably look like

you know a lot about barbie and stuff

you look like a dive bar but anyway

you're treating it as a larp you're

doing what those dumb people who try to

find islands in the middle of the

mediterranean do which is i want to

create my own state listen unless you

have political sovereignty on bond of

violence in a monopoly on violence those

kinds of things you do not have a state

or a country when you have a cult which

is not even a country but so much as a

cult that it claims to have this level

of sovereignty it is such a threat the

state to the u.s federal government even

that it finds excuses like in wacko to

go and rape and whatever that shit that

is how important political sovereignty

over the the citizens of your country is

for a state so no a business is not just

different from a country in terms of the

quantitative skill it is a qualitatively

different thing now it does involve the

mobilization and command of bodies um

from a central command that's not the

essence of politics that's lark right

just how larpers want to reenact the

glorious fights of the middle ages on a

battlefield where i'm using a sword and

i'm wearing the outfit what's different

what's different is the fact is that

your individual experience of something

is not the same as the actual material

reality of that thing a country isn't

the same as a business you can't

replicate it at an individual scale like

how you're saying because what communism

is addressing is our common sociality in

the first place it's addressing the

common something beyond our

individuality that's why communism has

always been radically opposed to western

liberal individuals it's addressing

something beyond us but which at the

same time conditions

us right so what you're saying is uh why

can't you isn't it a problem it's not a

fucking problem it's an issue of

politics communism for marx he called it

the riddle of history assault he said it

is the real movement already in motion

all communism more or less means is that

the economy is tending toward not only

an increased level of socialization but

an increasing conditioning of the

purpose and rationality of the mode of

production

for the fulfillment of social and common

aim of humanity there you go all right

so i'm ready to just give a closing

statement go to q a i think i've

destroyed this guy enough um

so just basic facts

it's it's really hard to make a

successful political model that can

accommodate people's feelings enough to

motivate them to participate in the

economic game and give them confidence

most political systems fail meaning most

people lose confidence and start

breaking the rules such as high rates of

theft or crime or whatever else and the

economy becomes unstable like the

bolshevik making their own economy and

russia not liking that because they need

theirs to work like if if you have a

crap economy like any communist economy

is going to lose confidence and people

are going to start making their own

economies like hong kong or taiwan

they're going to leave because yours is

shit and so in order to make a

successful system and by successful i

mean most people not dying of starvation

or crime or poverty like in china and

having crappy poor living standards like

in china to make a society where people

are not dying is very hard this is why

conservatives have a valid point that

society we build works the society we

have built works very well and keeps

most people alive in good condition by

historical standards all historical

standards and making changes puts that

at risk most changes will have some

negative effect and will fail research

and development is the most expensive

part of any company failure is the

common thing not success we have to

change things slowly the only way that a

communist system could work is if we had

ai overlords who governed everything and

humans were not in control until then

it's a crap system you have to

accommodate humans fields and it's not

going to work

you ready infrared we'll give you your

closing as well yeah so you didn't

really understand the point about the

casino and the system and the

contingency and the reason is basically

this when you have any given system when

you have any given set of norms and laws

or structures whatever you want to call

that

what that has originated from can't

entirely be accounted by the system

itself so systems will have blind spots

in which the contingent chaos of the

external and outward reality out of

which the system has been born and uh

molded from that will be a source of

novelty and innovation so when you're

talking about gambling you are betting

on what you don't know you're betting on

what can't be you can't be certain about

and that's what's going to yield more

results because the material source of

wealth for example in the form of nature

the form of external reality of natural

resources and the reality of science and

technological innovation we don't know

all of those things right so we are

going to produce more novel results and

innovative results and more wealth when

we take risks when we take risks that

come at the expense of the systems that

are already tried and true but what we

are seeing in today's

global economy is rather curious in that

regard because we're seeing in

capitalist countries stagnating

establishments pegged to rent here

monopolists who have fundamentally

stifled any semblance of a free market

stagnating bureaucracies salaried

parasites that are living off of the

labor of the majority of the population

and producing no wealth and terms the

complete safe space english if you will

of the entirety of the economy there's

no longer any room for large systemic

wide risk so you have a very much

socialistic and a collective bad sense

of the term according to right wingers

economy that's emerging in the

capitalist west and it's adjacent

countries well in communist china you

have a paradigm of constant and

never-ending structural reform clamp

down on the monopolies and help the

little guy that is a fundamental

systemic risk because monopolies have

the precedent of working already while

the little guy and the promotion of

small to mid-tier companies isn't

something that you know you don't know

what they're going to do or what and so

all of that has here's room for comedy

to integrate that dialect between

systems and chaos so it's completely

beyond the point i don't have time to

address uh the other shit you were

saying but uh about taiwan and hong kong

being isolated systems which is not

fucking true betrays a complete lack of

any understanding

don't worry i'll leave you with that

i'm jumping into the q a thanks for your

question coming in from bubble gum gun

says this is literally average

capitalism fan versus communism enjoyer

mango tea says t-jump let's be honest

all these economic models came from

demonically possessed individuals the

west are filled with demonically

possessed people

yep i mean most of them i actually

unironically kind of agree with that

next up mb khan says t-jump should stick

to debating flat earthers he's out of

his depth here

next up sj thomason a long time friend

of the channel and of t jump says if i

work hard should i expect to be paid

well of course

this is the communist problem infrared

we'll give you a chance to respond it

has nothing to do with communism even in

the soviet union which is an example of

an economy doomed to stagnate because of

its uh

systemic systemic uh rigidness and so on

you you had differentials and

compensation based on the extent to

which people worked

but i think with the example of china i

just think this is an obsolete argument

like it's not an issue at all mango tea

says infrared do you believe capitalism

turns the populace into independent and

strong people whereas communism turns

the populace into slaves and dependence

the opposite is true we see as the

result of the capitalist economy an

increasingly overly socialized populace

of soy drinking over you know a safe

space riddled politically correct uh

completely lack of manhood uh you don't

have any strong individuals in our are

increasingly a capitalist society amazon

all this big tech say do you where are

the strong and independent individuals

we have none we have city dwelling

snowflakes that are ruling over us and

ruling over the american people moreover

in the united states this is the result

of capitalism whereas communism uh by

attending to our common social needs and

and questions does lead to strong and

independent individuals i mean what do

you think is more strong a starbucks

drinking soyboy in the united states or

for example a soviet farmer who's you

know hunting with a pack of wolves in

the forest or something i mean just

really use common sense you know so

mango tea says oh that's mark reid says

infer why do you trash psychologists

when they help people with mental health

issues do you think that mentally

disturbed people would be better off

without psychologists existing or

without professional help

no i'm not i'm not downplaying the

therapist help people therapists do help

people they help people work through

their problems it's usually by fostering

interpersonal relationships and i'm not

saying you won't learn anything from

psychology as a therapist i'm just

saying when you try to apply that to a

social scale and have like policies that

apply to all of us that's where things

get fucked up right if you're talking

about you know getting advice from

someone who's studying maybe some things

will work maybe they won't work i'm not

against it i'm not against that kind of

thing but making policies based on this

very very inconsistent whatever like un

it's not an airtight discipline right so

whenever i see people talk about like

communism or capitalism i make

references to biology or psychology it's

just especially psychology it's like

it's laughable right this psychology is

only going to apply it like it's utility

at an individual or somewhat small

interpersonal level the minute you try

to apply it to a scale larger than that

um you're going to have absurdities and

stupidity

you got it dan thank you very much for

your question this one coming in from

sphincter of doom says china's reduction

in poverty is due to it becoming less

communistic and more capitalistic

opening markets up to competition

uh this is not true the the the

communist soviet model system that

existed in the 20th century wasn't more

or less communist it was more it just

had more involvement direct involvement

by the state and the economy that's not

really the essence of what communism is

the essence of communism is a state is a

policy is an economy that is rigged

toward ensuing the common prosperity of

the people which the chinese system has

done actually better than than it did i

mean it served different it was two

stages of its existence the old soviet

inspired model did what it was meant to

do which was create a national

industrial system create a primary basis

of the economy and then beyond that they

did have more allowances for markets and

and private exchange and all these kinds

of things but as you can see this is

perfectly compatible with china's unique

form of socialism so it's not that it

became more capitalist it's that it

opened itself to the global economy and

it also

it also took advantage of the

independent form of capital accumulation

primitive capital accumulation that was

a result of the great looking forward

this one coming in from mango tea says

infrared do you believe the reason

capitalism is quote failing is because

the young generation are brainwashed

with the poor communist mindset no this

is not a communist mindset it's a

mindset that corresponds to the fact

that the people controlling our lives

and raising our children now are it's

all coming from these stagnant overly

socialized monopolies uh the big tech

companies are a good example the

financial institutions are a good

example corporations are a good example

and they want to save their positions so

you think it seems like communism to you

because our free the free market is

being stifled but it's not it's a

capitalist ruling class trying to

protect its power at all costs um it has

nothing to do with communism

is what i'd say you got it there's one

coming in from do appreciate it mango

tea says infrared you realize capitalism

is in alignment with the laws of nature

the strong have the food and the rest

need to find their own food or work

yes nature is immoral

i don't see any

capitalists about that you can have a

communist society where people have to

work to get what they need we have

enough wealth so that people even in a

capitalist country we have enough wealth

so people don't have to starve i mean if

you're if you need food you can get food

for free even in america right it's a

level of starvation but you know i get

what you're saying this level of

competition or whatever you're talking

about exists in communist states it

exists in china it's always existed and

even existed in the soviet union so yes

the strong uh

will do better than the people who are

not strong and i agree that's not

something communism is going to

eliminate you have to understand it's

not a question of the individual versus

the society

we uh society is controlling us either

way look at our look at how much we're

controlled by big tech and the

monopolies it's a question of is this

going to serve the people and the health

and well-being of the people or is it

going to serve a tiny minority of elites

so that's the choice you're faced with

you got it ann this one from turbo says

infrared

by the way have to give you a quick

debate challenge from someone after this

question but turbo says infrared is

taiwan not part of china or are you

based taiwan is 100

part of china the taiwan is called

formally by its own government the

republic of china and the minute that

you know taiwan's separatism has been

suppressed for decades they recently

opened up because of american influence

but if they do try to succeed from china

and claim that taiwan is an independent

country china will re respond swiftly to

that fact i mean regardless of whether

you like communism or not both the

nationalist government republican

government in taiwan and the communist

government in china both came to an

agreement that we will not

separate we will not cut china into

these are both china they just disagree

about who should be in charge you got it

and

speak of the devil infrared your brother

dylan burns is interested in a debate

with you in person at debate con on this

very question uh yeah well i'll be there

so you know is he are you interested

whoever yeah whoever i have to debate

i'll debate i'm gonna be there so you

know i'll debate anyone

isn't dylan a communist i thought he was

or an handicap

next up this one coming in first picture

of doom says slavery isn't unique to

capitalism the irish potato famine was

exacerbated by government disallowing

exports slash imports

something occurring with capitalism

existing does not equal that it's due to

capitalism

okay well this is the kind of it's not

real capitalism type of thing and look

i'm kind of sympathetic because i see

libertarians as utopian socialists you

guys think you guys critique the system

and you critique people in power you

just don't recognize that the cause and

the effect aren't separate the reason

why capitalism leads to this form of

state

uh you know subsidies and rigging of the

restrictions and all this kind of stuff

uh is because it's inherent to the

system itself you can't separate the two

right um

but regardless my point was i mean if

you're just going to say that all the

instances of barbarity and you know

starvation and slaughter and genocide

and famine in the history of capitalism

is because of the state and not

capitalism the question stands has is

there a single example of a country or a

civilization that is purely just

capitalist and has none of the bad

socialism that you're attributing it to

there's none because the two are

inexorably linked the state ensures

that the ruling class maintains its

power

um and capitalism is inexorably tied to

the power of the state it always has

been this one coming in from sphincter

of doom says saying capitalism is

inexorably linked to government

interference doesn't mean they're

interchangeable or that every element of

one can be attributed to the other as

well

well for you to try and isolate

capitalism as its own essence

separate from that i just question where

does that exist everywhere we see that

what we call capitalism exists

it is tied to the state interference in

the government so i have yet to be

confronted with an example of capitalism

that is not inexorably tied

to state interference

before there were any governments would

be the answer to that that's when guy

with biggest i forgot capitalism is when

people were trading beats and stuff

right yes because we have pure

capitalism it's just guys the biggest

stickers

that's the most dumb shit i've ever

heard in my life but continue

yeah you make sure you treat it do

appreciate all of your questions folks

and want to remind you our guests are

linked in the description so if you want

to hear more from t-jump if you want to

hear more from infrared you can find

their links in the description box right

now what are you waiting for

and that includes if you're listening

via the podcast you can find both toms

and for and infrared's links in the

description box at the podcast we highly

encourage you check them out you can

hear more capitalism communism type

debates at their channels we really do

appreciate these guys and so thanks t

jumping infrared it has been a true

pleasure to have you

thanks james for hosting us appreciate

it thank you haas for joining appreciate

the opportunity and i do have a question

have you seen china uncensored the

youtube channel yeah it's a

misinformation youtube channel that's

been debunked many times

you got it but we want to say i'll be

back in just a moment folks to give you

updates about this upcoming epic

conference modern day debates first ever

debate con in dallas texas in january

you don't want to miss it folks tickets

are going to be on sale soon more info

about that as we are pumped that both

t-jump and infrared have agreed to join

us for that conference for some juicy

live debates in person and with that

thanks so much everybody we will be back

in just a moment or i'll be back in just

a moment with updates on that so stick

around