“Would you ever consider voting for a communist
government, or is it an evil doctrine?”
What, how is that even a question? After what
we saw of the 20th century you're asking a
question like that? “Where you say you're
coming from and I've got to be honest, I still
don't get this, What do you call yourself,
it's a Fully automated luxury communism...”
This one really takes the piss. “That's
something which my colleague Aaron Bastani
came up with. So the idea of fully automated
luxury communism is that because of automation...”
Oh no not this argument again, oh my head.
“Is that workers are becoming more and more
expendable...” What, how did you draw to
that conclusion? You literally pulled that
one out of thin air. “And what Marx says
in the Grundrisse Is that this does two things
which are contradictory; The first thing is
that makes workers precarious because you’ve
got more unemployed people, means you can't
agitate for wages and conditions, but on the
other hand, It shows you a glimpse of a possible
future of a world where human work isn't necessarily,
you don't need it...” Oh my God man, she
actually just says that. She actually means
it. Just wow! Just wow! I just… oh my brain.
Oh my brain. Hmm, surely I'm missing something
here, going to have to do a lot more research
on her. This just doesn't add up, where is
she getting all this stuff from? Oh, will
you look at here, Owen Jones, might have known.
“Communism, boo! That's supposed to be a
big scary word which is associated with the
horrors of Stalin and the gulag, but communism
is back baby and it’s back because Ash Sarkar,
a prominent activist and journalist, disclaim,
a friend of mine as well, went on national
television with Piers Morgan, one of the most
odious people that's ever existed and when
accused of seeing Barack Obama as her hero,
replied: ‘He’s not my hero I’m a communist
you idiot!...’” Oh, I’ve heard it all
now. Oh, oh my God. “what actually is communism,
can we disassociate it from the horrors of
the 20th century and what about the horrors
of capitalism as well?” What, what horrors
of capitalism? You mean all the stuff your
socialism caused such as the wars and the
booms and busts cycles that you tried to project
off onto capitalism because of what your socialism
caused? “So imagine a semicolon in the middle”
“It’s doing a lot of work the semicolon
I can tell.” “I had to say it, literally
a graduate, I love a semicolon. Communism
is the belief in power of people to organise
their lives as individuals…” What are
you going on about? You’re going on about
to do with this of individuals, as if to say
individuals just go and do their own thing.
That’s all well said and done, but have
you got any historical examples of that? My
God man. How you doing, folk? Scotty. So yes,
I just obviously looked up this Ash Sarkar,
I was requested to. Ash Sarkar I see obviously
is heavily into this communism. And then I
realised that somebody else had made a request
for me to look at Novara Media or something,
that’s something I will get around to as
well. This Ash Sarkar, completely blows your
mind. “Would you ever consider voting for
a communist government?” No, you honestly
think somebody with a brain would honestly
vote for socialism? That’s right, I said
socialism, I never says communism, I just
say socialism because that is where socialism
leads. It’s all well thinking you can ignore
economic reality, but when you go to put it
into practice and you try to, you know, defy
the study of economics, you’re only going
in one direction. This Ash Sarkar, she goes
on about this utter nonsense about the private
sector and individuals. Again, let’s just
listen to what she says on her description
of what communism is: “Communism is the
belief in power of people to organise their
lives as individuals, their social lives,
their political and economic lives without
being managed by a state,” Folk like Ash
Sarkar haven’t got a clue what communism
is, in other words, socialism. They don’t
even understand the first thing to do with
collectivism with the collective ownership
of the means of production. All of them try
to correlate and bastardise socialism and
they even try to correlate socialism with
decentralisation. The word socialism, ‘so-cial-ism,’
what does it mean when you’re socialising
property, what does it mean when you socialise
medicine? Your universal healthcare. It means
you’re collectivising it. Collectivise is
to centralise, that isn’t decentralisation.
It’s not even an if, it’s not a but, it’s
not a maybe, socialism is defined by political
centralisation. It’s one of the biggest
parts of what defines socialism because you’re
taking it out the hands of private individuals.
You’ve taken it away from personal ownership.
A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron because
the bottom line is, if you take away from
the private individual, you’re stripping
the individual of their rights and their liberty
because you’re taking away from them their
liberty to owning their own possessions and
their own property. Like I says and I have
to repeat this; the main reason for why communal
ownership led to starvation was because the
individuals never had the freedom to work
for the fruits of their own labour. In translation,
they never got to keep their own possessions,
that was the whole reason why they were dying
of starvation. “...and private property
is a barrier to the distribution of those
resources that we need to, not just survive,
but thrive and not a facilitator of it.”
She thinks that private property is the barrier
to allocating resources and creating wealth.
When you use a welfare state through socialism
to forcibly remove from one individual over
to another, you're not creating wealth, right,
that's not multiplication. All you did was
you took from Pete to pay to Paul. The point
being is the fact that you're dividing. You
cannot multiply wealth by division. That's
why Margaret Thatcher says: "The problem with
socialism is you'll eventually run out of
other people's money." Because that is all
you're doing with socialism. That is the very
reason why India ended up in extreme poverty
that it did. It had nothing to do with Great
Britain. Great Britain left in 1947, India
gained independence in 1947. So the reason
why India for five straight decades was in
extreme poverty was because of socialism and
what they did was they shut off trade to the
outside world. So, if there's no trade coming
in and out of the country, then how they going
to get about? Well, that's it, all you're
left with is the money that is already left,
the wealth that is already there, eventually,
you run out and everybody ends up in extreme
poverty and unfortunate as it is to say, throughout
that entire time period, India was living
in extreme poverty. They used up 70 percent
as I says in the previous video, 70 percent
of their natural resources. Why did I use
this example? If they try to turn around and
say to you "Oh, this was just the fault of
Great Britain." Really? Well, that's quite
interesting that because Hong Kong was under
British rule. Although the British government
was extremely limited to what it could do
in Hong Kong, it doesn't change the fact,
unlike India that had vast arable land and
India had vast natural resources, they used
up 70 percent of their natural resources.
Yet, there was Hong Kong that was once a tiny
small fishing village, equivalent to the poverty
of Cambodia. In 1948 they had an average household
income less than $200. Despite having no natural
resources, Hong Kong went on to become the
richest city in the world and lifted the masses
out of poverty. You know, the mid-1990s sitting
around $16K-$20K for an average household
income. Whereas a country that was living
under socialism with vast arable land and
natural resources, India was living in extreme
poverty throughout that entire time period.
Now, the reason why I used that example there
is because she's banging off about, you know,
resource allocation because your supercomputers
are not going to be able to achieve it. It
doesn't matter whether you argue for a moneyless
based economy or you argue for socialism,
basically what it typically is controlling
prices; the reason why I reiterate so often
about the economic calculation problem is
because it is the primary reason for why socialism
cannot be democratic or libertarian, for why
it leads on the road of totalitarianism and
the very reason why you end up down the road
such a catastrophe where resources are overused,
misallocated, etc, etc. That is to say, there's
nothing in the entire study of economics more
important than that of the information of
prices because prices are not obstacles to
getting things that you want, prices are signals.
If you've not got the information of profits
and losses, how are you supposed to technologically
advance, how are you supposed to do anything?
Where she's going on about this automation
again. Again, you can go and watch my video
on automation I'm not going over that again.
"The first thing
is that makes workers more precarious because
you've got more unemployed people, means you
can't agitate for wages and conditions..."
Again folk, there's a lot of contradiction
in what she says and she starts going on about
wages. So, this implies that she's now speaking
about people having wages. But then she confuses
me, she starts going on about people will
not need work. You see, these socialists are
all over the place; one minute they're talking
about "Oh, let's have fully automated communism."
Which communism in theory, by the way, basically
means you have a moneyless based economy,
but then they start contradicting themselves
and they start going on about wages. They
can't make their mind up. The reason why they
can't make their mind up is because they don't
even know what it is to start with. They don't
even understand the theory of communism, never
let alone that of how it turns out in practice,
but she also says this: "...but on the other
hand, it shows you a glimpse of a possible
future of a world where human work isn't necessarily,
uhm, you don't need it in order to generate
abundance that we can all benefit from." Folk,
go and watch my video on the economic calculation
problem, get to understand the whole thing
to do with that of scarcity. This is something
that socialists, they don't live in the real
world. They don't understand the fact that
your land is scarce, housing is scarce. In
other words, it's not just a case that you
can just have an open door policy, as if to
say placements such as education or healthcare,
or whatever it is, it's not a case that it's
unlimited, that you can just flood as many
people in as you want and you can just completely
ignore the laws of supply and demand and that's
exactly what people like her are doing and
they're speaking about resources as if it's
infinite. I've stated this before and I'll
say it again: see if resources were infinite,
there would be no requirement for the study
of economics. She doesn't understand the fact
that economics is a study of trade off's,
she thinks it's just a case you can just do
whatever you like and that's it. "You might
have heard from Nigel Farage and his merry
band of reactionaries that the country is
in grave pearl. No, not from that, it's from
migrants crossing the channel in rubber dinghies
you consider too flimsy for pootling around
Shadwell Basin, let alone navigating the world's
busiest shipping channel or carrying women
and children. In contrast to the government's
hostile environment for migrants, the media
has fostered a much more hospitable one when
it comes to super dumb opinions about immigration...
because there's no context images of brown
men in small boats are, no pun intended, 'floating
signifiers,' they're seen through the lens
of much of the prejudice, dishonest and alarming
coverage which you find in rightwing print
and political media... Journalists are failing
in their duty to separate facts from popular
feeling... The plight of migrants at sea has
already been reduced to far-right talking
points determined by Nigel Farage and given
governmental legitimacy on Priti Patel...
myths like, the UK is uniquely burdened with
refugees because other countries are failing
to take on their fair share..." So, you've
got the gist of it folk, she's going on about
the immigration and then trying to call it
a myth and everything. It's nothing at all
to do with the skin colour of anybody and
forget the point that you could go on about
"oh well, we need skilled workers and all
the rest of this." The main issue is to do
with an economy. You cannot ignore the laws
of supply and demand. When it comes down to
that of housing, everything to do with healthcare,
education, there's a legitimate argument that
folk have had, that you're letting specific
dangerous people into this country. Regardless
of whether you believe it's done through that
of a government or you want decentralised
immigration control, I think it's sensible
that you have a control over immigration.
People like her have not got a clue about
the laws of supply and demand, they think
it's just something that you can just brush
aside and it doesn't matter. "This is, I think,
a really damaging trend in our public discourse,
which is, if you criticise the way that Britain
has been run by elites, the outrageous that
have committed in our name, you are cast somehow
as a Britain hater rather than someone who
wants our country to be run better in a more
just way, in a more egalitarian way..." I
despise that word folk, I can't stand it.
This idea of egalitarianism. Equality stood
for equal opportunity and that was it. What
these communists have done, they've turned
everything into egalitarianism. How do you
do that without forcing your will upon everybody
else to try and create that so-called egalitarianism
and even if that person is better than you,
is more skilled and works harder than you,
you're going to force them to work for the
same wage as you. So, this idea of just wanting
a 'just society' and this 'egalitarianism,'
etc, it's all nonsense because folk like you
who have never, ever, ever touched an economics
textbook in your life, you've never studied
prices, you couldn't even tell folk about
price shortages, why it's created through
price ceilings, anything at all about where
money comes from, you just go on about this
theoretical fantasy world. 'We'll just do
this and we'll have a moneyless based economy
and everything will all be okay and we don't
need money, we don't need prices, what's that
for? We'll be fine without prices, we can
allocate resources, we'll know all that information.'
No, you don't. That tells you you've never
studied economics and it's the same thing
with the same argument I've had before and
somebody says: "Humanity is more important
than economics." Jesus Christ, man. Yeah okay,
you tell yourself that. It's like saying that,
you know, you could do whatever you like in
the economy and you'd face no consequences
for your actions. Well, that just isn't the
real world. "...and the reason why I think
Jeremy Corbyn most certainly doesn't hate
Britain is because I listened to him at a
talk just the other week and watch him celebrate
the history of the abolition of slavery, the
trade union movement, the charters, that's
not someone who hates British history or tradition..."
You're honestly having a laugh. Your trade
unions absolutely ripped the arse right out
the British economy, they were dictatorial,
that's the reason why Margaret Thatcher stepped
in and booted the Trade Union Congress right
in the teeth. In fact, by doing so, she ended
up creating 3 million plus jobs. They were
that totalitarian, Trade Union Congress blackmailed
non-union members and says to them "you're
not going to find work with us with any industry
we're involved with if you don't become a
union member." That's totalitarian and you
think that's alright? And then you go on about
how Jeremy Corbyn, the one who sympathises
with the likes of Hamas and he sympathises
with all the terrorists, the same Labour Party
that spat right in the face of democracy and
you're telling us that you don't hate Britain.
And now we see of recent, the BBC, typical
left-wing BBC is wanting to do away with Rule
Britannia or anything makes British people
proud to be British. It doesn't matter what
you think of the context to the song Rule
Britannia. I'm not saying I'm proud of stuff
to do with the imperialism or colonialism
of the past, but you show me a place in this
world that's been absolutely spotless. You
could go through all the Empires throughout,
you know, the world history, such as the Roman
Empire, etc. Does that mean that I should
look at Italy and scorn, you know, and stick
my nose up at Italy? There's many things that
Britain has done that we can be very proud
of and fair enough, Jeremy Corbyn goes on
about the slavery, so what? He supports socialism,
that is slavery. "What are we talking about?"
"It's a world without scarcity and it's saying
that just because of robots taking your job,
it doesn't mean that you can't feed yourself,
you can't feed your family, or you can't home
yourself." "But, where does the money come
from?" "So, what it's saying is that instead
of that money being kept by a few tiny elites,
it's distributed amongst the people that generate
that value." What is she going on about now?
Now she's contradicting the entire theory
of communism being moneyless. She's not even
got a clue, oh but, Karl Marx said this and
Karl Marx said that. The theory of communism
is moneyless, classless and stateless, that's
the theory of communism. So, obviously you've
never read and understood communism to begin
with. She's now conceded to the fact that
she supports money. Number 1. You've conceded
to the fact that you want money, money can
only come from either two places (1) the private
sector or (2) the printing press. The printing
press inevitably, without even a question,
not even an if, a but or a maybe, printing
press leads you right on the road towards
hyperinflation. She doesn't understand a single
thing to do with economics and she expects
people to take her seriously. Red Hood goes
on to mention: "Capitalists towns cannot exist
in a socialist society, while socialist communes
can exist voluntarily in a capitalist society."
See, one of the things that a lot of folk
don't understand about that of individualism,
you have individuals that have the freedom
to choose whether they go and work in a collective
group or not. Of course, like you said, you
could have these individual communes if they
freely wish to. Whereas, when you live under
socialism, it forces its will upon everybody
else, takes away individual ownership, that
means all personal ownership, takes away private
ownership and it leaves you destitute. Peewee
goes on to say: "The argument of not having
a choice but to participate in a capitalist
society can be also used against socialism.
Because in socialism, every land is collectively
owned meaning that you have no choice but
participate in the collective." Peewee's absolutely
spot on. The other thing to note is the fact
that it's not just the case that it's all
collectively owned, it's a case that they
end up building walls and that, they can't
have folk leaving their country. The reason
why in such regimes like that of East Germany
or why they had to build the Berlin Wall,
why you had the Iron Curtain, etc, when you've
got people working in communal ownership under
these socialist regimes and let's say one
individual is putting in all that hard work
and then he decides to just give in and pack
up and wants to leave the country; how that's
actually viewed is, it's viewed as treacherous.
This person is then viewed as a traitor. The
reason why he's viewed as a traitor is because
the fact that, the work that he's doing is
doing for every other person and since he
stops that work, then he's a traitor, he should
be punished for doing so and that's the very
reason why you cannot leave these socialist
countries. Backwardsman95 goes on to say:
You need to compare actual capitalism with
actual socialism and ideal capitalism with
ideal socialism. You rightly mock ideal socialism
as not translating to reality, but then you
can't put up there real version with a real
free market." I've got historical examples
to show where the market was far better off,
the 19th century for example in the United
States of America. You would say: "Well, it
wasn't exactly fully free market." You're
right in saying that yes, there was periods
of government's intervention. If you look
at between 1794 to about 1845 with the private
turnpike industry in the absence of government's
subsidies, the market was far better off.
Yet, when government intervened in the 1860s
throughout Abraham Lincoln, once he began
the internal improvements, the corporate subsidies,
it basically resulted in that of bankruptcy;
roads were left unfinished because of government;
they started buildng roads through people's
own private farmland without their consent,
etc, etc, resulting in bankruptcy. You have
to look at periods, because nothing is black
and white, you have to look at parts of the
market where it was left be and then compare
it to what happened when government interfered
in the market and in the real world of free
markets, well, they've performed far better
off than any of the mixed economies or that
of just socialism in general. If you've got
anything you would like to add yourself, comment
in the comments section below, of course,
I'll be sure to get back to you, be sure to
like the video, share the video and, of course,
it's been quite interesting. Like I say, thank
you for watching, I shall talk to you's later,
cheers!
