From Donald Trump, Karl Rove, and Fox News to an invigorated progressive movement and many newly elected members of Congress, many are saying that socialism will be the issue in the 2020 elections – a viewer mailbag segment with Dharna Noor and Paul Jay
Visit https://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at https://therealnews.com/donate.
** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **
Make the rich pay they're fair share in taxes. Pass the VAT tax and UBI that Andrew Yang was talking about. Repeal the cap on social security. Pass Medicare for all. Invest in infrastructure. Move towards green energy. Get rid of right to work laws
Note; frequently (More often than not) the writer Dharna Noor is not a source of uplifting content.
Dharna Noor's content strategy is largely negative – she's topped into a niche of creating controversial topics that are not aimed at providing a solution… Essentially frequently she's a part of the outrage journalism creation squad. Mostly darkness…. Mostly negative…
Note: the above is not judgment but rather identifying behaviors and styles of monetization of a individual's digital publishing style.
Re: capitalism failing? Not so fast. Get one thing straight; in the USA public education and mediocre parenting Does not in any way shape or form prepare students for the perils of adulthood.
Modern education is a catastrophe. Let me explain; The combination of mediocre life preparation from academic institutions and meet and gross negligent parents are often creating students airing adult hood who were functioning at a low level… Emotionally insecure on multiple levels.
Generation after generation prior to completing 12th grade a large percentage of students are suffering from PTSD, severe emotional wounds, as a result often turning to drugs and alcohol as a painkiller from their lifes delivery emotional pain.
Lastly; Our society does not have any established codes of conducts, official best practices and guiding principles that if followed would lead the majority of the population of students to prosperity and good fortune. That being said you can't place the blame entirely on capitalism for the decline of Western civilization.
In 2001 we are largely a bunch of imbeciles running around like a chicken with our heads cut off… No the above is a figment of speech.
Flakes are think in here
This is strange. I'm really trying just to understand what this guy is saying without really taking a side. But what he says doesn't make sense. He talks about some things other countries have done and there downfalls. OK that's fine I guess. Then says we need public ownership of everything or else we will have no civilization at all. That makes absolutely no sense. He just made a giant leap without enough substantiation to justify it. You have to listen to these arguments carefully. Just because someone sounds like they have a good argument doesn't make they do. The girl is just nodding her head in agreement. Is she really examining what this guy is saying?
Wonderful discussion about socialism and capitalism. Something I think is missing from this conversation is that we are reflexively talking about socialism and capitalism as if these are the only solutions and that there is no "third way" or, beyond a synthesis of the two, a completely different way of structuring our society, politically and economically. Something else I think is missing from these conversations is the historical reasons why certain economic modes have failed greater society but have created enormous value for other parts of society, to the point that they actively seek to keep the system in place and that these advantages allow them to do so. Something I believe many "socialists" ignore to their own peril is how the economic structures of capitalism have provided widely successful (e.g., distributed ownership, financial instruments, etc.) and how these very systems could be co opted or improved above in a system that doesn't look like capitalism, or at least not like its contemporary iteration.
Paul, some of the points of failure in socialism you pointed out are communism and corrupt communism.. corrupted by power of their ruling dictators…….
To be completely fair here, socialism is people owned… cooperatives, and programs that are people inputed….Social security pension, health care…The peoples money.. "choice by the people through their elected representatives", via taxes and contributions put into these programs…..of the people, by the people, for the people……This is true socialism, that is not spoken any where near enough……
There are tremendous successes here that are constantly attacked by Neoliberal capitalism…
Please keep in mind, as Chomsky once stated…I cannot remember the exact quote.. paraphrasing here…Stalin called his corrupt communist dictatorship "socialism", to soften the tyranny….and America agreed… that communism was socialism…..It was absolutely NOT….Stalin's state was communist… it was never "People owned socialist"..This is Key…..
Socialism has been bastardized by many dictators… Cuba called it's form of communism; socialism..but it was not…. Hitler called it's Nazi Party the Socialist workers party… None of these were socialism… We need to be clear about this… It is Capitalist fraudulent demonization of Socialism…..None of these countries or dictators were practising socialism…
Venezuela under Chávez was Socialism.. He was elected, and turned his resources over to the people…however he was economically attacked by U.S. Neoliberal capitalist Imperialism wanting to literally confiscate Venezuela's oil and resources….
It is not fair to call Venezuela a failed socialist state….It was a successful Democratic socialist state…It raised the poverty levels, created health care, housing…programs for the people by the peoples representative.. It worked… It had not failed…But here is the kicker….That success was attacked by Neoliberalism. This success has been oppressed by American Imperialism through sanctions..So much could be talked about here… but lets park that, and look at America..
Social Security has had decades of success since the day it was created by FDR….
Health care is a social program of choice that would be less expensive for the people to break away from the capitalist privatism of health care for profit….or….Do we give tax breaks to the one percent wealthy instead? It is choice… but at present the choice is manipulated by the dark money of these corporations to persuade the peoples representatives to vote against it….
Here again Socialism would work if not for the intervened of corrupt privatism manipulating capitalism via dark money to the politicians…..
You are spot on that capitalism has failed.. Socialism has not failed, it is oppressed…..Capitalism fears socialism, and so it tries to strangle it.
Capitalism can no longer expand, and there is no credit left…Privatism within capitalism has been corrupted by the dark money that controls most government representatives…The Progressive movements all over the world are trying to change this… From Jeremy Corbin in Great Britain.. to the Yellow vest movement in France… to the Progressives and Bernie Sanders in the U.S….. The people are supporting these movements because they understand the inequality of capitalism.
There is less corruption in people ownership…..Cooperatives have been proven to work extremely well.. Take a look at this report on their successes…
https://www.thenews.coop/49090/sector/view-top-300-co-operatives-around-world/
Take a look at the Bank of North Dakota… a People owned financial institution that has been around for a hundred years…
In closing, Socialism works damn it!!!…… it has been the empathetic, ethical shadow of capitalism…..and it has also done well on its own… other than when it is attacked by capitalism….We need to have more of this discussion to illustrate this TRUTH.
Thank you Paul Jay, for bringing this to The Real News Network…. I have great respect for your Journalism, and the integrity of your News Network…..Being retired I have begun to look into doing some articles on this and other important topics our world is experiencing….These are monumental times for humanity…
Disappointingly, Corporate media has gone to the dark side of dark money and propaganda….
Which makes us so appreciate your Journalistic point of light in our troubled world….Please continue to stay your ethical course.
Blaming capitalism on World War One and Two seems a bit of an oversimplification. Numerous other factors involved arguably more to blame including nationalism, the interconnected allegiances of nations and monarchies – which were often related by close family ties, and as with nearly all other wars, the preceding history of the region. To state that capitalism gave us these wars is surely irresponsible and fundamentally incorrect. You could argue it was a strong contributing factor but I’d say that’s its limit.
I believe in a Free Market and if you work hard you should make a profit. But I also believe we need Medical Coverage for all and Free Tuition based on a sliding scale. We need more Highly Educated People in this country. And if you call that Socialism then I'm a Socialist. Capitalism in the United States today is downright Evil because too much MONEY is in the hands of the Few. And by the way Google who sits at the Pinnacle of Wealth.
"Capitalism has failed on a far grander scale." Exactly!
Check out Andrew Yang.
I propose another way: anarchy ala Rojava.
Capitalism is just fuedalism with branded party hats.
Anytime anyone questions socialism they are labeled right wing nazis right away without a conversation. Leftist are just like their stubborn ass mascot. I dont know much but I know if I work for something I shouldn't owe you shit cause I don't so get your own shit.
Venezuela is a mixed economy that has a private sector. Yeah they nationalized their oil company: we in Finland built our oil company as state owned already 71 years ago, state ownership isn't the problem. During Chavez Venezuela improved a lot, the difficulties came with dropping oil price and attack against Venezuelan currency. Problem to Venezuela is that oil was nearly all of their exports. After oil profits sunk, access to dollars sunk. Difficult to import without dollars: it's the currency of international trade. And Venezuela used to be able to import anything, even food. If Chavez and Maduro haven't focused developping Venezuela's agriculture, the problems would be much worse.
Thank You; TRN is the absolute best in the world!!!
Actually Capitalism hasn't been much different from the old system of feudalism for most of us. The CEOs or owners of companies may as well be lord and master of the manor. Employees depend on them for even the healthcare for their families and now with so few unions, workers have no voice at all and can be fired on a whim, destroying lives.. There are no guarantees anymore and you can work for years and not even have the safety of a pension awaiting you. The wealthy control the rest of us, holding us hostage to our jobs until they deem we're no longer useful. It's feudalism. If the government can give what amounts to free moneyt in the form of substidies to the obscenely wealthy Walmart family to build more stores, why can't they give that money to a group of workers so they can own their own megastores or factories? The government shouldn't be involved at all after that. I don't see them telling Walmart how to run their business. The workers should own their own places of employment and share in the profits equally. If we lived in a true democracy, the time spent at work would also be run democratically, with any change being put to a vote. You would never see them shipping their own jobs overseas or polluting the air and water around their plants and businesses located close to where their families live .It's time parasitic shareholders and other wealthy people quit stealing the fruits of other people's labor. It's time the people who actually do all the work stop making the rich even richer. The people that make the products should get the profits. That would put an end to the oligarchy we have been conned into accepting. That would be Democratic Socialism, the fifth largest company in Spain has been run very profitably that way, by the workers for years now and it works.
People forgot that socialism in cuba generates too much doctors that they export across south America. USA could use some of them!!
Single-payer healthcare, worker-cooperatives, and public banks/credit unions give us successful, popular, socialist ways or having healthcare, independent business, and non-predatory banking. Use them to support one another, and one gets the Cleveland Model of Community Wealth that has lifted hundreds out of poverty in one of the poorest parts of America. These ways of working just need a major profile.
Socialism has failed EVERYWHERE and EVERY TIME it has been tried.
Capitalism, or free market economics with liberal democracy, has been AND STILL IS the greatest success ever when it comes to systems of government,
In comparison to all other alternatives, Capitalism is better.
And Socialism doesn't work…
You guys should read Steven Pinker's book 'Enlightenment Now'
I grow up in Soviet Union and know what was it like to not from US propaganda, but from my personal experience.
USSR was not Marxism, was Leninism for very short time, Stalinism was the “Evil Socialism”, then State Capitalism all way to the end of Soviet Union.
Property of rich was nationalized at beginning, but private property was never canceled in USSR. Unfortunately means of production always belonged to government and newer to workers themselves. Workers weren’t actively involved in decision making. There were cooperatives established at very and of USSR, but it was too late.
There wasn’t any country in history with truly established Socialism yet. For society to be called socialistic means of production must belong to workers NOT GOVERNMENT. Workers should be democratically involved in everyday decision making at work, where they live and country itself.
There is no one fully capitalistic country in the world. All countries have some social compensations in the system.
There are examples were some forms of socialism are doing great. All EU countries are hybrids capitalistic and socialistic to various degree. There are some great examples of cooperatives:
Emilia-Romagna was poorest region in Italy before cooperatives, but now “Emilia-Romagna is one of the wealthiest and most developed regions in Europe” Wikipedia. The same thing with Mondragon cooperatives in Spain and Scotland – Co-op.
There was no one truly democratic country in the world yet. When you are told by corporations for who you can vote, then elect electors and electors elect president and that president rules over you as crazy as he wants for 6 years and you can do nothing with that but obey is not democracy.
USSR failed not because it was too socialistic, but because of lack socialism and democracy. It was state govern capitalistic dictatorship.
People often mix failed dictatorships and communistic Utopia with 21st Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism.
Neo-capitalists conveniently forget to mention internal capitalism contradictions. As well as the fact that US is 3 times bankrupt and keeps running only by newer ending wars and going deeper and deeper in debts, and, with help of indebted citizens making, rich insanely richer. Often people compare US with 3rd world? Why not compare to EU? Or better China. Did you know that China owns US? Did you know that US pays tens of billions each year to China just to service its own debts?
I think I would prefer at least one more on a panel when talking about socialism and that would be Prf Richard Wolff. But overall a good start.
you can't have socialism in one country. and, i remember yelling at my computer screen over and over again when venezuela did these things to isolate themselves, in ways that didn't make any sense relative to their own professed ideas, and then got killed by trade sanctions and whatnot. and, see, this is the correct tweak: it's less that socialism failed, although we're going to have to try it a few times before we get it right….we should expect it to fail the first few times…..and more that social*ists* failed. and, there's two ways that socialists failed – they either didn't understand the critique well enough, or they didn't bother with it, which was more the case in the soviet union. lenin was crystal clear that the attempt was to industrialize first, then figure out socialism later. maoism was a more honest attempt, but it was a victim of it's own success.
more sincere examples are things like the paris commune, or the anarchists in spain, and in both cases they were simply killed by capitalist forces, indicating the actual lesson, here – this idea that we can have little communist countries is hopelessly wrong. i guess rojava is the newest example. if the enclave doesn't get strangled through trade, it gets slaughtered. socialism needs to go global or forget about it altogether, because it cannot ever compete with capitalism.
If the religious Fundamentist come to power with the likes of TED Cruz or a Michael Pence you may yet find yourself in jail Paul Jay LOL
The level of economic stupidity in this video is off the charts! Let's be fair – some capitalistic economies and succeeded and some have failed. No economies based upon socialism have succeeded in a long-term, sustainable fashion. So one must ask whether one would prefer to follow a path of guaranteed failure or a path of possible success and possible failure. I think that the answer is blatantly obvious (at least to those who aren't patently insane).
facepalm
What an absolute idiot. Not only does Jay completely misrepresent history, he utterly fails to look at how history developed.
First, Hitler's fascistic state cannot be capitalism by its very definition (fascism is the centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, with severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition). A country cannot be a fascist state and be capitalistic. Nazi Germany more closely represented a socialistic system than anything.
Second, I fail to see how capitalism has utterly failed and he provides nearly no substantive evidence to back it up. For starters, the number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 PERCENT from 1970 to 2006. Poverty worldwide included 94% of the world's population in 1820, whereas by 2011 it was only 17% (take a look at Oxford University's Martin Roeser's article for details: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/amazing-chart-shows-thanks-to-capitalism-global-poverty-is-at-its-lowest-rate-in-history). Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40% from 1988 to 2008 (Adam Smith: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/oxfam-wont-tell-capitalism-poverty/#). The world Foundation for Economic Education's Steven Horwitz identified that the world is 120 times better off today than in 1800 as a result of capitalism (the gains in consumption to the average human by the gain in life expectancy worldwide by 7 (for 7 billion as compared to 1 billion people). Socialism did NOT do this. By the 80s we saw the massive decline and collapse of socialistic regimes such as the USSR, and the shift to more capitalistic markets like China's in the 90s. However, the United State's market has been a constant force in the global economy outstretching these others.
Jay miserably fails to avoid the main contention that socialism fails by stating capitalism failed (which it hasn't). He never definitively identifies how socialism has succeeded (sorry your Netherlands example users, those countries are not purely socialistic and don't support the level of migration other countries like the US does, so its an apples to oranges comparison).
Vote for Trump
input 365 ——NWO is not communism —-it is feudalism
in america –any government that spends peoples tax dollars on peoples benefits is SOCIALIST —–I SAY BRING IT ON
Jay. come on back to Canada !
To say that Socialism failed in Venezuela is very inaccurate and not in touch with reality on the ground Paul. FACT: The reason Venezuela's economy is failing is because sanctions by United States and other Western Nations are WORKING! The desired orchestrated effect, Western and Venezuelan Oligarchs in getting rid of current government after they decided it must go, is coming to fruition..
Well explained and thanks for sharing
in Venezuela was socialism ???? thats interesting.
Society has a 25% fast thinking rich, a 50% slow thinking poor. and the root cause of it all is you. For your greed driven middle-class so loves to function as the slave drivers of society.
In order for there to be peace between nations and neither rich nor poor, there would have to be no motivation for competition or sports, no desire for the glory and power of wealth. For the only motivation would have to be compassion and charity for those in a lower class, wanting nothing in return but the humility of a grateful response.
For since the beginning of civilization, the more intelligent upper-half of society has hoarded all of the land, wealth, political power and healthcare. For the illusion that being born more intelligent entitles you to greater wealth, power and glory, this is the root cause for everyone being allowed to enrich themselves upon the misery of those with less education, less wealth or less whiteness of skin.
For the very few who are good natured and consider only the wants and needs of others, always striving to improve things for others, they can have nothing to do with people who love this world. As always is our good nature taken advantage of and more harm than good is all our charity. For in 79 years of life, all that I have accomplish is to inflate pride.
To say that capitalism has failed is an understatement. Capitalism is outdated and there is no need for it. Oxfam did a study like eight or nine people owns more wealth than 3.9 billion people world wide, I forget the exact number but it is close. The point is this type of inequality is unstable. Capitalism is for the rich that is it. People are just ignorant about socialism. For example, the message that was showed like "look at all the cars and houses capitalism works". What this individual failed to mention was how much debt did people get into to get these cars and houses. Also, why didn't Mr. Paul Jay talk about socialism for the rich. Amazon gets tax payers money and GM and banks. When the rich get something everybody has to pay.
State ownership is NOT a characteristic of Socialism at all – NOT if you accept that MARX is one authority on it's definition. The workers OWNING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION is. Lenin btw also disagreed: he called the system they had STATE CAPITALISM, and saw it as an intermediate stage. Stalin on the other hand declared the goal of the revolution as achieved.
Both Stalin AND the West found it convenient (for very different reasons) to declare the Soviet system (the dictatorship) as the embodyment of what Marx had envisioned and "Socialism" could be.
Imagine more moderate, democratically minded forces had prevailed. They would have attracted a lot of people from the West (also Germany). Which would have been extremely helpful for building industries and jumpstart machine building.
They would have tried to increase food production (relying on small co-operatives or letting people have their little farms / homesteads to provide specialities for which the economy of scale is not that relevant. Exporting a lot to be able to build up industry AND above all a strong military. (They exported wheat WHILE people died of starvation in the Ukraine. They either ruthlessly ignored the death toll in the race for armament – or it was like the British did with the Irish – famine will break their will and political resistance.
On principle they were right to push the militarization – Lenin and Stalin KNEW the oligarchs of other countries would be coming for them. By some weird coincidence they got away. The far away huge country, at the end of WW1 Europe was not doing well, the U.S. did not attack them right away (busy elsewhere), then the Great Depression hit the world. The colonial powers France, U.K. Netherlands, etc. had their hands full with the colonies. The Irish and Indians created troubles for the British empire.
They never found the time to attack and invade the Soviet Union.
Their unforgiveable sin was that they dispossessed rich people and gave a very bad example to suppressed citizens elsewhere. Who might be getting ideas. Being a terrible dictatorship and having caused (or not tried to soften) a famine was not the reason Churchill hated communism and the Soviet Union. He was fine with atrocities – but not with dispossessing the upper class.
Owning the means of production.
That has a strong grassroots vibe – Marx had at least in mind that the workers have say in how the surplus is distributed. Which in turn indicates at least SOME participation in the decision making.
The Boshevics hijacked a succesful revolution after a few months and established a dictatorship. Sidelining (and later killing) any people that stood in the way (including former comrades within the Boshevic group).
That is not new – since the French Revolution we know: The revolution is eating it's children.
If change requires the use of force – it will inevitably attract the more ruthless players – and those who are also talented (military) leaders have good chances to rise to the top.
The U.S. U.K. and France (plus Japan) supported the troops of the toppled czar. They even occupied Russian territory – but their population was tired of war – it was not possible to sell ANOTHER war to their citizens after / at the end of WW1. So they restricted themselves to meddling, financing.
Left to their own devices / support / means the White Army would have likely given up earlier. They needed food – also for horses, ammunition, etc.
– meaning the more democratically forces on the other side (those who put the czar and his family under house arrest but did not kill them ) might have prevailed in Russia – had the West abstained from interfering. (The same scenario repeated itself in China some years later).
Marx hardly mentions the state. Being managed top down by the boss, the management put in place by the shareholders OR the state bureaucrats is not that much of a difference for the degree of freedom for the workers.
We can’t truth mass redistribution or mass accumulation. I don’t believe more politics will ever be the answer to our problems.
I generally love listening to you but this particular show ticked me off. You constantly confused socialism with State capitalism. Russia China are state capitalism they were never socialist. Venezuelan and Cuban socialism may have worked without the sanctions from the US and the other bad influences from the US
Capitalism gave us ww2?