Why Are You Still a Capitalist?

Why Are You Still a Capitalist?

Posted by

Uh, (617) 830-4750 is the number. Let’s go next to our color from the nine one
nine area code. Who’s calling today from nine one nine. Is this me, David? That is you. Fantastic. Hey David. My name’s Joe. I am from Raleigh, North Carolina. And I actually had a quick, I had a quick
question for you. I heard a rumor that I could not find out
online. Were you ever a student of Professor Richard
Wolf? Oh yeah. Yeah. I mentioned that in almost every one of my
interviews with him. I had him for introductory macro at the University
of Massachusetts in 2000 it must have been 2003 I guess. Oh Wow. So that leads into my question, how are you
still capitalists, man? The guy’s barely in the way. He explains, um, how he wants to implement
socialism. And I would assume that you’re not so ardently
against his concept of like worker cooperatives, right? No, no. I have no problem with worker co-ops at all. I mean, listen, do you have, does having one
class with someone in college make you fully buy into the full extent of their ideology? I don’t. I mean, I don’t, I don’t think so. Like I had his class. I’m more or less, I’m more, I’m more or less,
I was being a little blip obviously, but I’m just explaining that I really do think that
his idea of converting over to a worker cooperative style form of socialism is what an ideal system
that I would want. And I was curious what your, um, problem would
be with converting to that kind of a style of system where we take out this connection
between employer and employee and his entire concept conception of what socialism. I’m all for democratizing the workplace. I think that for any company that wants to
do that and believes that that’s how it would be best run, like that’s fantastic. And there are companies that have done it
and it works for them. There are companies that have done it and
then have changed their minds cause it didn’t work so well. I’m completely open to all of that. But my broader economic view is social democracy,
where democratization of individual workplaces is great, but I still, um, am okay with a
system that is a very well regulated redistributive form of capitalism, which is not what we have
here in the United States to be clear. Right. Um, so my question would be is I don’t understand
what is inherent in capitalism to that exactly. What exactly is inherent scaffolding that
you would like to keep? Well, if you’re wanting to, I, so when I look
at, if you look at any of the pieces that, um, uh, sort of distinguish free market capitalism,
real social democracy and an actual socialist system when it comes to private property,
when it comes to taxation, when it comes to entrepreneurship and, and private business,
uh, I align with social democracy, which is an extremely well-regulated form of capitalism. Not with socialism. I mean, I guess we’re sort of like, we’re,
we’re going circular here in a sense, but I’ve sort of outlined my views on this and
we’re, well, I know, I know, I’m sure you’re aware
that like marks distinguishes between, you know, personal property and private property. And not necessarily, yes, he does the, you know, like a fundamental, like the
state with like not like a Soviet style system. That’s not what a lot, you know, most people
would advocate for. I think most of those shows would advocate
for like community land grants. Um, like I said, worker cooperative style
programs. Like for example in Italy I think they have
something to the effect of like you like nine people can get together and um, take their,
all their total amount. They would get in social welfare for that
year and start a worker cooperative. Like those would be the kinds of programs
that socialists would want here. So I once again, I’m not quite understanding
what, yeah, so listen, let me go to that example. I am not in favor of the government saying
if you start a business and you hire at anyone, that business now must be shared ownership
with everybody you hire. Like I find that to be an authoritarian imposition
from government. So I’m all for businesses deciding that’s
what they want to do. I’m all for people going into business together,
et cetera. But I would not be for a government saying
any businesses that are started need to have a, you know, a socialized ownership like that. I, I’m just not for that. Okay. I understand that. I think that that that would be more of an
option cause like I said, if you’re giving, if the government’s just giving you a grant
to do something, it’s not necessarily a forcing. You don’t force the structure of that either. You can do a different forms of socialized
structure within that system. So I understand your, your concept of that. But I, I appreciate you taking the call that
I’ve been actually trying to follow you for almost three weeks straight on that I asked
you this question. I really appreciate you taking my call day. All right. Thank you. Yes, it can be tough to get on, but I’m glad
that you did and appreciate the phone call. Let’s take a quick break. If you’re holding, don’t hang up because we’re
going right back to the phones. Don’t hang up if you’re holding, don’t hang
up if you’re holding, because I am going to take more calls right after this.


  1. Georgism is the least talked about but one of the best models, especially for urbanized communities. Look at Singapore.

  2. I can't wait until Bernie & AOC turn America into socialist Venezuela, so I can watch our starving children eat out of a dumpster during a street riot. Our new socialist country is going to be great !

  3. It doesn’t have to be either or. We could have a mixed economy where we remove the barriers and structural difficulties with setting up a worker cooperative but still allow the top down capitalist style business.

  4. because capitalism is falsely blamed in order to push pure statism with ZERO personal freedom. Corporatism, centralized banking, etc is NOT capitalism.

  5. You are NOT a capitalist unless you own means of production (Factory, utilities, banks, machinery, real estate) etc.

  6. The problem with worker coops is that they can’t compete with the greediness of the capitalist system. The most profitable companies are the ones with the worst labor practices. For example, Apple workers have suicide nets outside their factories & Walmart the largest employer has the most workers on food stamps. I’ve heard GM had good benefits for their employees, this does not offer and advantage to your competitors in the market however just look at what happened to them.

  7. David here is making a libertarian talking point. We have to debunk this idea that socialism is authoritarian but capitalism isn’t. Private property law is not universally recognized, neither is intellectual property, and other forms of business law. You need a state to enforce these laws and that’s what they would call “authoritarian”. Right now if the workers were to go on a massive strike under the Taft-Hartley anti union legislation the millitary would be sent in to crush it, that’s dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or dictatorship of the capitalists.

  8. The Simple Reality is that so-called “Free Market” is NOT FREE. "Free Market" is a "Lie" !
    There's NO "Fair Share of Freedom" in Marketplace.

  9. There's nothing preventing people from starting co-op businesses. If that's the type of work some people such as the caller want, just pool together & do it. I've actually seen a few succeed before. But you can't just talk about it; You gotta roll your sleeves up & get at it.

  10. In a perfect world we would be able to pick and choose what's good for the collective from all the various ideologies. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. However, capitalism has worked for America and has worked well. We just need to know when to say NO to a president like we have today!

  11. There are TWO Theories in Socialism.

    "Democratic Socialism" is INTERCHANGEABLE with "Social Democracy".

    "Democratic Socialism" ISN'T the Same as "Social Democracy".
    In democratic socialism, the OWNERSHIP of the PRODUCTION is socialized whereas
    Social democracy is capitalism with REGULATIONS and welfare to make it more
    "socialist". This distinction is pretty important since the differences are huge.

    And Denmark is a Social Democracy.

  12. Capitalism creates wealth at greater rates than any other economic system.
    The argument should never be between socialism/communism, the answer is still capitalism.
    The solution is creating and implementing sustainable welfare policies that first utilize the taxes as investments to the point where the returns and dividends alone can cover our social programs.

  13. Really ?. Corporations are bad ?. Like the corporations that make your computer, your car, your clothes, your food, provide your internet service. You know Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, and PETA are corporations too. lol

  14. That was a great answer! I have had some trouble explaining my position as a Social Democrat to true Democratic Socialists and this helped!

  15. Ok so the argument that state enforced worker co-ops are authoritarian is weird to me, how is it more authoritarian than the current system? I guess it's because the current system allows for both traditional corporations and worker co-ops but there are many barriers to worker co-ops (mainly initial capital) in a capitalist society aren't traditional corporations kinda authoritarian in themselves? I must assume David wants to combat the authoritarian aspects of traditional corporations with stronger unions but does that mean the unions are state enforced or just highly encouraged/incentivized? Would love to hear davids thoughts on this.

  16. Capitalism has the longest running institute of propaganda of all practices. Unlike science control group testing is non existent. If books were once only for the wealthy, it is likely the poor was neither publisher nor author in the system. Ben Franklin has been credited for intro of Public libraries in america so really we have formed an opinion of Capitalism in less than 250 years of an example or maybe 8 generations. Several generations can pass along as having “been let in to the secrets of the wealthy”.

    The next generations fail to question their fathers and cannonize the teachings as “gospel”. Especially true in an age of agriculture and industrial production. You make it, you sell it, the profit is yours. But eventually, you take on a hand. How do you do this?

    First lesson is pay as little as possible (slavery or contracted apprentice). This isn’t shown as necessary for capitalism to function today, but back then it was in style.

    Once apprentices start realizing they are being held back from just compensation we now have the first generation to question what everybody seems to accept.

  17. Capitalism and socialism both both end up with leaders. Both can be corrupted. Capitalism allows someone who does not like the current leader to grow and challenge them. Socialism suppresses naysayers.

  18. Worker cooperatives with a bunch white/Israeli ethno nationalists running the companies is called "communitarianism"…it already is the agenda …doofus caller.

  19. My interpretation of socialism is probably not original, but I feel like I should tell what my interpretation of it is since it can possibly change many peoples negative perceptions of socialism.

    The concept of socialism is based on the assumption that people would find more individual freedom and well being collaborating with each other rather than engaging in blind self interest. By making things such as worker cooperatives and generally working on putting into being community based institutions that build wealth for workers and not private capitalists, since such forms of cooperation would be more beneficial to people this would eventually remove the power of capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, to perpetuate itself. The establishment of socialist community would gradually lessen the insanely high maximum amount of wealth that just one person or small group of people is able to accumulate as people become more inclined to work for the community rather than private capitalists (cooperative ventures generally pay workers more than capitalist businesses, so there wouldn't be many people willing to work for capitalists unless they offer excellent wages, which means much less profit for them and since the cooperative sector would be competing against the capitalists, it can be seen how their instutitions wouldn't be able to spread) and so there would be a much more even wealth distribution making the large majority of people better off under the community, than under capitalism. So ultimately something like socialism would actually be completely voluntary. There is no need to forbid capitalist acts under socialism.

  20. Democratizing the workplace only if our capitalist overlords believe that's how it would be best run?
    How about this: employers don't get to decide our lives

  21. My question is, why would you want to live in a system that needs to be heavily regulated in order to survive properly?

  22. I used to be a socialist a few years ago but as time has gone on, I think social democracy (at this current point in time) would be best for the USA

  23. I don't buy into the argument that it would be authoritarian to ban employment as we know it today. Was it authoritarian when indentured servitude was outlawed? If you work, then you should be entitled to all or most of your profit. This doesn't happen under the current system and a departure from this capitalist structure should be in favor of the worker.

  24. You don't need to ask what the petit bourgeois are capitalist, it is simple self serving bias.

    David cannot even be kind enough to stop eating animals so for sure that he has no empathy for people working on factories through the night on conveyor belts to mass produce sandwiches!

    David finds sharing unreasonable.

    He's so special. Lol

    This is why liberals are just non-racist exploiters who hide behind their criticism of the far right while CASHING IN BIG TIME!

  25. If you don't incentivize and mandate conversion to worker co-op, let's say when business hits 100 employees number(arbitrary number at this point) no capitalist would empower his workers, the business as usuall and exploitation would remain as it is, the rich would get richer on the backs of the workers.
    Capitalism already brought us Climate Crisis, in the following decades it will transform our society into two camps, poor and super opulent, nothing in between. I'd refer you to book "Capitalism in 21st century".
    Why it has to be an "ism" our economic and monetary systems are backward primitive, why can't we run a rational system?

  26. Laissez-faire Capitalism is a wild animal
    Social democracy is a domesticated animal
    Central planning is a caged animal

  27. The major problem with modern capitalism is that corporations are no longer paying the tax they ought to be paying .

  28. It's not that capitalism is inherently bad, but that mixing capitalism and government is insanely bad.

    You would let the pope make policy, so why would you let a hedge fund manager?

  29. David Packmans's redistributive ideas are what cause conservatives to be able to win the debate on taxes; cuz everyone knows redistributive means increased taxes on middle class. A systemic solution that changes the game is what is needed.

    The problem is not capitalism v. some flavor of socialism; it is cronyism v. contracts required to have consideration. Consideration is a legal concept that says that contracts must be defined so that only finite resources and times are involved. Lloyd's of London have contracts with consideration. Finite number of signatures for a well-constrained insurance contract for a fixed sum of money. In comparison, owning a company means you get to own the profits of the work of others forever for just the cost of an initial expenditure of capital.

    Non-coop based companies should be made illegal for lack of consideration. When hell freezes over that will happen, and not because it is the wrong thing to do, but because there are too many idiots and vested interests to do the right things. Same as usual. Hope this was interesting to read at least, if pointless beyond that.

  30. The government imposing socialised ownership of a starting business is authoritarian, but the government not allowing sit ins, or any impactful striking method, employing police to keep strikes under control and protecting employers' wealth when they decide to close a business early fire everyone and give them nothing, no that's not authoritarian.

    David don't grow numb to passive violence and passive authority, just because it flies under the radar doesn't mean it's just, fair, or even equal to the alternative, it might in fact be worse, it just needs acknowledgement to start a proper conversation.

  31. Any small business or any form of entrepreneurship or free enterprise is capitalism.
    People who hate broad generalization of socialism do the exact same thing with capitalism

  32. Artists, artisans and all manner of creatives have been proven to operate most effectively with individual liberty and the protection to trade on the fruits of their labor. When a collective declares itself entitled to controlling those fruits for the greater good, creative wells quickly run dry.

    Collectives pushing for central planning have the tendency to try being everything to everyone, but wind up pleasing no one nor being significant to anyone. Too many cooks spoil the broth. However, it's equally foolish to entertain the notion an individual must be permitted to work public mischief for private gains through deceptive, underhanded means.

  33. Capitalism is used way too loosely. I would say people can believe in some use of a market economy without being a 'Capitalist'. Is it really accurate, for instance, to describe someone who wants to provide a full suite of social democratic entitlements, nationalize/municipalize all natural monopolies and convert all companies into co-ops, but still maintain a market economy that said companies would operate in, as a Capitalist?

  34. This idea of capitalism with the bad bits taken out or controlled is laughable. Big capital will always grab the levers of the political process and destroy regulation and worker power. The only way to stop this is to democratise the economy. It's like saying "I want free speech but just for views I agree with." You don't get to have the system and just ask for the bad parts to go away. They're intrinsic consequences of the part of the system you support.

    As to the argument that forcing all businesses that start up to be democratic is authoritarian… Well you're assuming a particular role for the state there. Who says it would be mandated by law? Even if it were, why is coercion by an employer okay but coercion towards shared rule not? Aren't you partaking in the neoliberal myth that we are all free agents in the economy?

  35. More advocacy of the third way. 40 years of unbridled neo-liberalism and pro-market policies and we essentially want to continue down this path? The New New New Deal? Sounds like a map to nowhere, as proved by history.

  36. Workers coops were tried in Yugoslavia in the 1980s, and they could not save its economy. True, it was still during the communist rule, but I wonder if under capitalism, they would fare any better. I haven’t heard of any workers coops being started in the spun-off capitalist republics.

  37. I think Richard Wolff is pretty cool for introducing people to socialism and for criticizing capitalism, but that said, he's pretty utopian. His definition of socialism is very petit bourgeoisie to use a Marxist term. Socialism means public ownership of the means of production, not just workers owning their own workplace and having democracy in their own places. It should be a good balance between centralization and small co-ops, but just co-ops isn't really socialism.

  38. Guys, please don´t try a socialist revolution or some comparable nonsense, capitalism is very fine. If combined with a strong democracy, you can easily use the greedy maximization of wealth to make smart companies behave in a very effective social way, you can also have e.g. souvereign wealth funds or state owned natural monopolies.
    However calling for an end of earnings generating private property in favour of collective ownership ignores most problems and won´t lead to a satisfying solution.

    Focus on the stuff that makes sense please^^

  39. Socialism is immoral and people are miserable. Look not at the inept and corrupt government ask what can you do (to fix your miserable life)

  40. I don't have any money left since the capitalist stole it all in the last crash. So no I am not a capitalist I can't afford to be.

  41. I don't know what Mr Pakman studied at university but while his political and economic expertise is probably far above the average for the USA, it is still dismally poor by any reasonable standard for someone who is such an active commentator and presumably studies the current affairs and the history relevant to his areas of interest. I would rather live in a Social Democracy than go through the painful and dangerous (and quite possible fatal for people like me) process of a revolutionary transition to overthrow capitalism. But Social Democracy is completely unsustainable in the long term for a few very simple reasons.

    Social Democracy is not Socialism, it is rather a class-collaborationist exercise in which the capitalist class (which still exists and largely owns and controls the 'means of production, distribution and exchange') agrees to a bargain with the people and the state under which they continue to accrue large benefits but they also agree to pay taxes to fund a welfare state and an effective government-run infrastructure of public services, to negotiate pay with unionised workers, to pay deferred salaries into pension schemes for their employees, and to operate under a regime of regulations that modify their behaviour in a variety of ways. But Social Democracy cannot survive in the long term in a world in which capital is free to move around the globe and to site its facilities in countries where it can exploit what is effectively slave labour (poverty stricken people with no independent trade unions or collective bargaining rights and where the regulations allow companies to avoid paying the great bulk of their external costs). The class collaboration breaks down when multinational employers and companies are not prepared to pay taxes, are not prepared to put money into staff training, or pension funds, or building up a welfare state, and where they are determined to replace workers with robots and AI as fast as possible to maximise profits which can be repatriated through offshore holding companies with no taxes paid.

    Companies that do stick to the old 'Social Contract' are undercut and driven to bankruptcy by the newer kids on the block who don't accept any of the old accords. When Bernie Sanders was asked to define 'Socialism' in 2016, all he could do was cite Swedish Social Democracy as an example of what he aspired to. But while Sweden is still one of the most civilised countries in Europe (probably the globe) and is an example of what Social Democracy can do, it is currently under enormous pressure from the same forces that are rolling back the advances made by working people across the developed world. My own country, the UK, is much further along in this disastrous 'race to the bottom' (largely as a result of the Thatcher-Blair consensus which saw the worst aspects of US style 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalist economics imported here) but the same process will overwhelm Sweden and Norway and Denmark and the Netherlands in due course, unless we throw out the system altogether.

    Social Democracy is a medium-term stopgap which has run its course and is no longer viable because the capitalists are not prepared to stick to their side of the bargain any more. We either throw out the capitalist system (and the underlying notion that permanent debts serviced by never-ending economic growth is possible or desirable – which it is not) or it will drag us all down into pauperism and barbarism. Capitalism itself works largely by pushing off the externalities for someone else to pay for, and by using its enormous political leverage to demand that profits are always privatised while losses are socialised (ie. if the fat-cats fuck-up then they don't pay the price… we do – remember who bailed out the banks and the motor manufacturers in 2008).

    If Mr Pakman had a better understanding of politics and basic economics and knew a bit more about world history then he might grasp these arguments… because they're not really that hard.

  42. Why do you hear "let's increase democracy and participation" and rush to "I don't want the govt DICTATING that I be democratic"? The idea that socialism can only be implemented via coercion is a dangerous trope.

    So asked differently, if socialism truly represents the expansion of meaningful participation INCLUDING in the workplace without abrogating personal liberties, do you support it? Do you see it as fundamentally the same goal as your vision of social democracy?

  43. If capitalism is the best system…why are their so many poor and hungry? Half this country makes $30k or less a year and can’t afford a $500 emergency without going into MORE debt…but sure capitalism is the greatest 😂 so by they asinine logic half the country is just lazy and doesn’t want a better life?? Really??

  44. I myself am wondering this question… Why so many of American (not only, but especially them it seems) leftists are not socialist and/or anarchist. There's no good reason not to support these the ideas… Not to mention that siding on rational views about isolated topics is hardly "leftist" per se, it's just rational. Yet, especially in US, "leftist idea" seems to mean that – picking the rational position on separate topics, while still supporting capitalism… Strange.

  45. Wouldn't co-cops still have to compete in the market like everyone else? Wouldn't there still be comepetitive forces that capitalists deal with today? I mean, co-ops would still be competing against each other for market share…and some of the same issues capitalists deal with today, like labor cost, would still be on the table, right? Maybe firing more employees or cutting salaries would be necessary in order to be more competitive. How about lobbying politicians for a tax break if they move their factory to that district? So, you see what I'm getting at here…it seems to me over time co-ops would simply morph into what we see from capitalists today and the idea of worker democracy would slowly fade back into today's capitalist structure.

  46. Did someone already told to David that socialism doesn't have to have a centralised, authoritarian government/Stare apparatus?

  47. Raleigh NC needs a turn around desperately. Gerry mandering has not been disputed on the ground from our citizens. Its ridiculous!

  48. Workers have no rights in Raleigh NC. I live here and starting a business is the only hope for generations coming after us.

  49. So the followin: the founder of the socialdemocratic party in germany (spd, Wilhelm Liebknecht) said that socialism and democracy are not the same, but they can't exist without eachother. (I left out some stuff) and that they are democratic socialist – and as such calling themselves socialdemicrats. So socialdemocracy = democratic socialism (? )

  50. Capitalism doesn't always equal unchecked greed. Just like socialism doesn't always equal the situation in Venezuela. With that said, I'm pro-capitalism because I'm pro-freedom 🙂

  51. I don't know why people are trying to make "capitalism" a bad word. We should have Medicare For All. We should have UBI. Certain things need to be away from the capitalist model, that is true. That does not mean that capitalism as a whole is bad, it clearly isn't; What we have in the United States today is Corporatism. Well regulated capitalism is what we need.

  52. I think the hang-up here is the difference between having a choice or being commanded by the government to do something. When it comes to government fiat, things tend to go downhill quickly. Good regulation coupled with incentivizing cooperatives and disincentivizing greed would be great and still allow for ACTUAL capitalism to flourish. The other disconnect here is the constant conflation of capitalism with corporatism. One is a basic system framework and the other is the same system but with a lot of laws favoring the wealthy and punishing everyone else.

  53. Some wise guy once said "The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself."

    "The fact that capitalism produces for profit – that workers produce more value in a day than they are paid back in the form of wage – means that the wages of workers can never exceed the value produced in society. As a result, workers will never be able to buy back the full value of what they collectively produce."

    Tl;dr: without some forced wealth distribution, capitalism is an unsustainable pyramid scheme where labor is increasingly devalued and capital is sequestered to smaller pockets at the top of said pyramid over time.

  54. What socialists don’t understand (and I’m not throwing shade – I love that socialists are finally getting a voice in modern American politics) is that a heavily regulated capitalism (David’s ideal social democratic state) wouldn’t necessarily require the reformatting of modern business structure that socialists propose. If the disgusting amount of wealth being created can be recycled to the workers (via progressive taxation and intelligent social welfare) then the current evil of profit maximization would lend itself to maximization of social welfare.

    All of this being said, the next step after regulated capitalism would be more traditional socialism (but short of Marxian revolution in numerous countries I don’t see how we can jump economic models without a social democrat style transition).

  55. Most people who call themselves “anti-capitalists” are morons who think they oppose capitalism because they want a higher minimum wage.

  56. David Pakman is a smart guy, and I really enjoy the respect and thoughtfulness he brings to the table. It's frustrating, though, to see some of the weaker arguments come from him given how sincere he is about thinking things through.

    Being against employers taking on employees isn't particularly authoritarian. You could use the same argument Pakman used here, for example, to say that a government that prevents masters from taking on slaves is authoritarian. Making certain kinds of structures in society illegal is just what states do; even democratic ones. A democratically elected socialist state might actually ban employers taking on employees as a result of a democratic vote made by democratically elected representatives. Switching companies over to cooperatives in the market might actually lead to that, as private interests in the public sector start to push policies towards practices that benefit those kinds of organizations. Nothing about that is intrinsically authoritarian.

  57. Digging into these messages one can see a lot of mentally disturbed people. How twisted of a person to demand stealing money from a wealthy person and given to a welfare class person. Why on earth would we give poor people cash when they clearly are mentally unfit when it comes to money management.

    Also why this win (welfare class) and a loss (for hard working Americans). How can people be jealous that?

    Yes we need to uplift these people but not by stealing

  58. Small private business could still be allowed to exist. I don't think that's a real threat to democracy and standards of living. Middle and big business should be socialized.

  59. Capitalism is the only way to promote social mobility with socialism this is more difficult. With communism and dictatorships this is ompossible

  60. David is a capitalist shill because he's a grifter. he doesn't care about politics, he cares that the left care about politics and are willing to pay for content that caters to them as they deal with the stress of a fascist president.

  61. I prefer co-ownership where they acknowledge several stakeholders and not just the stockholders. Germany with a mixed-board (Union and Capital) system is an example. What I don't agree is the two extremes, 1) stock value is the only thing to value neglecting workers and R&D or 2) line workers dictating in all manners what to do with investors money. As with anything, extremes are dangerous and the best/optimum solution is rarely on these ends. Libertarian cut-throat capitalist and had core socialist both have too much hubris for me. The wisest people know that they are not 100% and that life is a series of pragmatic experiments.

  62. The fact is that socialism in the absence of American imperialism and sanctions has never been tried.

  63. This is like one of the only callers who was able to articulate their question without rambling and it was actually thoughtful and insightful instead of just some random nonsense

  64. As problematic as capitalism is, it’s the most effective means as to innovate and socially mobilize. Socialism has not been an arbiter of either historically.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *