Quick reply to Esoteric entity:
1.) I Never Said income* mobility didn’t exist, I said that it is very low. That was the conclusion the paper you sent me on the topic came to
2.) I Never said classes are determined by identity, they’re determined by relation to the means of production
3.) i don’t what I did to you, I thought I was very respectful during the debate and it was you who didn’t know what primitive accumulation was and didn’t read your own source
4.) You literally sent me the IRS paper, that’s just a fact. Here it is: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15rpintergenmobility.pdf You even said IN THE DEBATE that the paper was by the IRS, and I linked it in the description. Then in your afterthoughts video you linked a pew research study which is even different from the one in this video. Here’s that one: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_artfinal.pdf You’ve used three different sources all of which don’t prove your point. The first one you cited wasn’t about income mobility, the second one showed the opposite of your argument, and this one in the description of this video is saying that the American poor would be considered middle class on a global scale. Here’s their conclusion:
“This means that many Americans who are poor by the U.S. standard would be middle income by the global standard, living on more than $10 per day. As it turns out, the $10 threshold is close to the median daily per capita income of U.S. households (officially) living in poverty: $11.45 in 2011, according to Pew Research estimates. In other words, more than half of Americans who are poor by U.S. government standards would be middle income when compared with the rest of the world. A fair share, however, would be either low income or poor, globally speaking.
Nonetheless, the majority of Americans are part of the global high-income population that resides almost exclusively in Europe and North America. These two regions accounted for 87% of the global high-income population in 2011 – only slightly less than in 2001, when their share stood at 91%. The rest of the world has a lot of catching up to do.”
So I still don’t see how this refutes my point about income mobility especially when it’s you who provided my source for a lack of income mobility in the US. Not to say it doesn’t exist, just that it’s lacking.
5.) as we can clearly see, it’s been you the entire time who inconsistently cites studies, makes up nonsense about others, and lies about our previous discussion just to confirm your biases. I haven’t really been asking people to get me on your stream I’ve just wanted you to unblock me on twitter so we can talk.
6.) No one argues that what existed in the former USSR was free market capitalism, I didn’t even say that the restoration of capitalism and the problems that came were because of the free market or even capitalism for that matter, if you’d play the video for literally just a few seconds more you’d see I said what caused the economic degeneration was the political structure of the USSR, hence why I brought it up in this video. When economic historians say capitalism was restored in the USSR, they mean that the planned economy was replaced by a market driven economy. It was even referred to at the time as market socialism by both US and soviet economists. Furthermore, the property voucher system was essentially overturned when private industries began buying the state ones. Property vouchers existed for decades before the restoration of capitalism, what confirmed capitalism’s restoration would be the dominance of private capital over the property vouchers. See here for detail: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf
7.) You’re equating capitalism or socialism with how tightly countries control their economy. This entire rambling is all about a minor point and really has nothing to do with the video as a whole rather than introduce the topic so I really don’t get why you’re spending so much time talking about it.
8.) I honestly don’t even think I need to refute the claim that socialism still existed in the early 2000s in modern day Russia. You’re just associating anything that isn’t not government with socialism which is laughable. There is even a large debate on whether the USSR was socialist to begin with because they allowed commodity production for the market to persist and here you are saying Russia was socialist after the collapse of the Soviet Union? So are you saying that there was no difference between 1940s Russia and 2000s Russia’s economy functions?
9.) I really don’t advocate a centrally planned economy anymore because I don’t consider myself much of a socialist, however the claims you make about central planning are just too laughable to not be refuted. Firstly, you say “it doesn’t matter what they were designed to do” which again shows your ignorance of why I included this section in my video in the first place, this isn’t even what this video is about for the most part. Next, the Russian economist Leinoid Kantorovich proved your point about resource allocation wrong through linear programming, see here: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
Next, scarcity would not go out of existence in a centrally planned economy, the whole point of the planned economy is to achieve post-scarcity. If there already was no scarcity then there would be no need for planning. The planned economy is designed to set prices and allocate scarce resources which is actually possible without a market dominantes economy, see here: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
The extent to which the planned economy is superior to a market economy is almost non existent, hence why I no longer advocate it, but it’s still worth pointing these things out.
9.) Next you say “China’s economy is not a free market” however I never said it was. All I said was that they liberalized their economic system, which means they allowed markets and foreign investment to take hold. You’re just tearing down strawmen. Also you say china is still very socialist to this day while not realizing that’s an argument against capitalism because china has the most economic growth of any country in human history so… ya. You say that the economic collapse of the ussr and the poor conditions in Asian countries were caused by socialism, but then are you suggesting it’s just a coincidence that these happened at the exact same time capitalist reforms did? Like I’m not saying market reforms aren’t good in the long run, but how can you deny they’re bad in the short run? Not even Austrian economists really deny this, given they’re not ancaps.
10.) I don’t think you’re understood my argument about the collapse of the USSR, im saying that liberal democracy existed to be the enemy of socialism and hence can’t be used to build socialism. Saying socialism itself lead to liberal reforms does not refute this fact rather just gives a different context to it.
11.) I don’t see what you’ve refuted already for my point in advocating direct democracy. This was the first time I brought it up so I don’t see how you’d refute this, and why not read the sources I provide demonstrating the restoration of capitalism instead of just showing something like “private property =/ capitalism” when clearly I understand this because the USSR always had private property even during the period I consider it to have been socialist.
12.) I think the reason you think I’m using circular logic is because you don’t understand the main argument for the video. The main argument was not that capitalism was restored in the former socialist states, it was that we should have direct democracy if we want to build socialism. That’s the path of logic that I was following and because you misrepresent the conclusion of the video, you pretend you don’t know that.
13.) There is no one definition of direct democracy, what I’m advocating is a unique system not specifically the form of direct democracy you described. I literally say I do not advocate every single person voting on every single issue, hence why I brought up the selection by lot and citizen assemblies in the first place.
14.) if you’d read the paper I cited as the basis of my video, then you’d know that the system I’m advocating does not give so much power to the people that they can kill whoever they want or even vote on every single issue. Everyday policy issues would be decided by assemblies and experts on the topic.
15.) saying that the poor vote away the rich’s money ignores the point of moderation in direct democracy advocated in the paper I cited which you obviously didn’t read. You literally heard my argument about what democratic system I advocated in that video then said “nope that’s not what you advocate, here’s what you really advocate” and then attached your own strawman once again. Starting to see a pattern.
16.) what about “selection by lot represents the population as a whole” means I advocate a tyrannical state? Like are you being serious? I honestly don’t understand the connection. On your point about Marxist class theory, how does it not see differences in people? Have you never read Leninist imperialist theory or anyone that’s further developed Marxist class theory? Even the original theory saw institutional differences between owners and workers.
17.) How does every government fail when, in the period on human history with the most prosperity and peace (right now), democratic governments are prevailing everywhere where there isn’t chaos. Also your argument isn’t even a tragedy of the commons, it would be an argument on the iron law of power. How do you not know your own arguments man?
18.) The whole point of the video was to advocate an alternative to what the past socialists did. The entire video is explaining what the past did and what I advocate. But I’ll just restate the argument: past socialist systems had parliamentary systems and not direct democracy and that’s the main reason why they decayed into dictatorships. I don’t see what’s hard to understand about that.
19.) How is saying socialist parties in the 1800s advocated direct democracy but the party leaders didn’t like that a conspiracy theory? I’m genuinely confused on his argument there.
All in all once again Esoteric entity has shown himself to be a lying dumbass who has no respect for the truth at all.