The Socialist Case Against Billionaires

The Gates philosophy is a philosophy of "no more billionaires other than us!" Don't share the wealth anymore party.

If it's legal, who the heck cares?

It’s easy to speak without ever having to run a company, you are just jelous.

As socialism loves to do, tear down and their down. Like a five year old child!

the amount of likes this video has makes me scared

if they increase tax for us billionaire in one country. We just move our corporations headquarters to a tax free country

Fantastic work.

Why do every socialist only talk about rich people but not starving kids in cuba and mao's attempt at communism "great leap forward" which starved and killed 45 m people and they had to convert to capitalism and no socialist talk about the "holodomor"

Good video but there was a bit too much "here's why the progressive argument is totally unconvincing while the leftist argument is much more convincing in this scenario that I just made up". Obviously arguments can be more or less effective depending on the person and their various circumstances, but the idea that a worker who defends billionaires in their spare time would automatically be more convinced by a "leftist" argument against billionaires is pretty silly. It has been progressives (of which you would include Bernie Sanders I assume, based on the video description) who have most swayed public opinion against billionaires. Of those who are still diehard billionaire defenders, and don't have a vested interest in doing so, it's a mistake to assume they can be persuaded by rational argument, given that they didn't come to their beliefs through rationality in the first place. If anything they more than anyone else would be most averse to socialist arguments, even if you try to trick them by pretending it's not socialism (a trick which is less and less effective as socialist ideas become more mainstream).
In my opinion a fusion of progressive and leftist arguments (as stated in your video) is most effective. Pointing out class dynamics and systemic injustice is important, but humans aren't robots and will still respond to the personal intricacies of billionaires. The fact that there could be a theoretical "good billionaire" doesn't matter when they are far outweighed by the bad ones. And you can use the arguments in tandem, for example pointing out how Elon Musk has stamped down on labor organizers.

What about them millioners? dont we have to bring down Sanders as well? that greedy capitalist pig with his 3 Million dollars of net worth? Or is this a selective cull of humans

Glad socialism like this won't ever get implemented in the west
I don't want the govt to provide for me, everything they do is subpar compared to private industry
I wasn't even born into wealth either, I'm going to earn more than my parents did and my kids will do the same
I don't get the instant jump poor people need to make as a justification for taking from the wealthy

What happens if there is no consensus between the workers on where the surplus money/means of production should go? What happens if the majority of the workers are more concerned with pay rises than actual production or reinvestment in the company or business? Who would be liable for any debt the company has?

I am generally conservative, particularly with economic responsibility. I agree that many of the billionaires are indeed a problem. I also think that your ideas of socialism are a pie in the sky idea and displays your lack of understanding of the greater problem. I'm not trying to be insulting. I would like you to think and look at history. More government power never leads to good. Never. There are no people with such virtue as to be trusted with that power. Should there be one such person, it is guaranteed, the next won't be. The only answer is more constitutional regulation. Checks and balances. Most of all, start taking responsibility for your government and stop waiting for them to cater to you. There are many examples of what I speak throughout the world. Think. Pay attention.

It ain’t the workers who findes the costomers or dependeng on the buissniss dosen’t really see there family so the billonars money is their money

Socialism is a cancer

Chris renoylds had 96 quadrillion dollars from a paypal error

ppp

If you want a socialist sociaty then find People who agree and make a buissniss and give your money to the workers and let the capitalists do what they do

What a Gigachad

gulag archipelago

This video is filled with ignorance. Firstly 50, 000 is changing no one’s life. You might buy a decent car with it. You won’t accomplish much more unless you invest it.

You clearly have no idea how corporations work or what private property even is. Jeff Bezos doesn’t own Amazon. He owns 10% of it. The shareholders own the rest. So it’s the shareholders that own the means of production. The thing you said only exists under socialism. The way you use the term ‘property’ is strange as well. Something like construction equipment is usually rented by construction companies, not bought. But regarding the issue, Bezos is rich because of the 10% stock he owns in Amazon. He doesn’t have nearly that much in cash. In order to generate cash he needs to sell his stock, which would involve him paying hefty taxes and his equity in Amazon also drops. This same concept applies to Zuckerberg, Gates and most other billionaires too. But I find this socialist belief amusing, because virtually all socialist regimes end up with one man at the top and the workers owning shit, where as capitalism does allow the workers to own stuff. Most of them will be shareholders and there are employee owned companies too.

This exploitation of labour thing is pure bullshit too. Sure there’s some cases under capitalism where it can happen, but it is definitely not something inherent with it. Workers choose to have job’s and there’s laws stating that employees need to be paid minimum wage, not to mention the fact that Amazon pays much more than that. The employer sets up the business, spends a lot more hours working than the employee a lot of the time and gives them the job. They’re entitled to more pay.

The progressive argument against billionaires is at least somewhat reasonable, but flawed too.

I see massive accumulation of wealth as ridiculously immoral for the same reason as noticing a fire that has yet to spread, and not even calling an emergency number. You could aid and prevent ills, but choose to be passive, and in turn become complicit in the ills themselves. If you ARE doing something about it, are you doing enough? If you do enough, you'll almost assuredly not have that much wealth by that point.

That said, I'm always curious about wealth produced from the selling of electronic goods. Say an indie artist makes a game or album, and it just sells and sells like crazy, is this the only way to make very large sums of money without any explicit exploitation? (Aside from voluntary donations, such as with Patreon and the like.)
Am I missing something?

Yes but first take that money putting in infrastructure then build the society

if there is no Bill Gates, who starts Microsoft? Labour unions?

It's not hard to make a billion if you have a million 😁👍

Lol Microsoft workers on substance wages 😁👍

Very nice analysis ,thanks

Amazing and concise video once again. I love these!

Why in the hell would you want to spread socialism. Wtf is wrong with you

The initial billionaires brought us things that made our lives better. They would not have done it if there was nothing in it for themselves. They had incentive. We would be living in a disintegrating world where everyone is waiting for someone else to do the work. However, those who inherit the wealth did not create it and do not have the skill or motives to further create it, so they use the wealth to do stupid things that make lives worse. This goes for technology as well. Look at the degenerates who happened to live on land that had oil and inherited technology developed by capiatlist countries.

You highlight one of the more important points of this issue. Specifically, the socialist perspective holds that people who do work should get the rewards of their efforts.

How ? Confiscate it from then? Warren Buffet has given it all away. How did steve jobs get Billions ?

I did not know at Microsoft and Google them paying subsistence wages they all drive company Tesla's and eat and drink for free at the employee cafe, whilst getting paid millions in shares etc..

Halim so your whole theory is based on the Labour theory of value which every economist has said is flawed and incorrect. We seen where this goes Venezuela

socialism literally failed in all countries around the world. ussr collapsed, venuzvela is in crisis, and cuba is still poor.

A billionaire is not inherently bad. Owners of businesses create the idea for the business, manage the business (usually working many more hours than the typical employee), and they take on the risk for the business. If the company loses money, it's the owner who loses not the employees. It's the right of the owner to take on the reward when the company makes a profit. With risk comes reward.

Rewarding people for innovation and creating value for society creates great incentives within the economy. The fundamental nature of capitalism is voluntary cooperation - a trade is not made unless both the buyer and seller gain more value by making the transaction than by not making the transaction.

Whereas the fundamental element of socialism is force. The government controls the means of production (land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship), so you are forced to work the job the government tells you to work. You are forced to produce what the government tells you to produce. You have no choice. Socialism is inherently unethical by its nature.

There are some valid critiques of billionaires in this video. These valid critiques are driven primarily by big government. E.g. tax loopholes are only possible by big government. If the government just had tax rates without deductions and credits then everyone pays their fair share. Also, billionaires who take monopolistic actions are bad, and they are mostly possible through big government. Big government can create regulations that favors one business over another and creates a monopoly (happens a lot). E.g. during 2020, the government forcibly shut down all the small businesses in my area but allowed trans-national corporations like Walmart and Target to be open. Everyone was only able to buy food at these large corporations and it created a massive wealth transfer from small businesses to large corporations. That's blatant corporatism. That's not capitalism. We need a smaller government to enable capitalism instead of the currently prevailing corporatism.

Socialism, besides being inherently immoral, is all a terrible economic system. It's flawed in theory (doesn't account for tragedy of the commons, is terrible at allocating resources efficiently due to lack of consumer feedback, etc.), and more importantly the outcomes of socialist states are consistently terrible:
1. Germany was split into east and west after WW2. The capitalist west was economically successful while the socialist east was a disaster economically, politically, and for human rights.
2. Korea was split into north and south. The capitalist south was economically successful while the socialist north was as a disaster economically, politically, and for human rights.
3. China under Mao was a disaster (45 million killed during the famine of the great leap forward, 2 million murdered during the cultural revolution). They only started to see economic success when Deng Xiaoping opened their economically with individual property rights and the ability to make a profit.
4. All of eastern europe was a mess economically under socialism.
5. The USSR created the holodomor famine that killed 11 million people.
6. The killing fields of Cambodia.
7. Sweden went socialist after WW2 and did terribly economically, but they realized early enough and changed to capitalism where they've been very successful economically ever since. Note that high welfare is not socialism. Capitalism with welfare is still capitalism.
8. Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc.
Every time the government controls the means of production in the economy there are terrible outcomes. Whereas the more free market economies show continued economic growth. For someone to look at the 100+ years of data we have on socialist states all over the world versus capitalist states all over the world. it's abundantly clear the capitalist states have far better outcomes, reduce poverty far more effectively, and increase real wages and standard of living for the working class much more than socialist states.

Yes !
Lets discourage intelligent willfull people to invent and create employement , so we all end up poor and hungry , great idea ! 😂😂😂
What do you say ?
Oh NOOOOOO !
We are all butt jealous and full of envy ! 😂😂😂

My greatest problem with marx and socialism is truly do not know if a democracy of the proletariat could manage the economy properly. It just seems like a system that needs people to do the right thing to keep alive and that is something i struggle to believe in. Seems like the logical progression from capitalism but are we ready yet?

I am a (national) socialist

I still think we should grind up the Rich people into nice hamburger patties and feed them to the poor.

Same old, tired, debunked Marxist talking points. No one is stopping workers from organizing, pooling their resources and starting their own company. Why dont they do it? Because they are workers, not entrepreneurs! If you want to see how much freedom socialism brought to society, take a look at 1970s Eastern bloc (where I’m from). Now that was slavery mixed in with dehumanizing destitution.

I miss this channel.

I've been learning why capitalism sucks for almost a year now, and so many videos in my algorithm are about how "capitalism will end us all", which I agree with, but few actually talk about socialist or communist alternatives. I have been using all the progressive talking points, thank you for explaining why those don't work and why even working class people are turned off to them. Your explanation that the problem isn't wealth itself, but that billionaires obtain wealth by exploiting workers was really helpful. Phenomenal video!

At first I felt angry when you brought up the idea of “People who work more should get paid more”. But then I realized that I was pissed about the myth of meritocracy, the bootstrap lie that we’re told, and not the actual idea of getting paid for the amount of work you put in. I actually like that idea a lot, and I further like the idea of everyone’s basic needs being met, and of not being exploited, but I hate that we’re being lied to. Helpful that you explained Pro-Billionaire Workers too, cuz I’ve been that naive progressive and I would make a stupid argument that attacks their dream of freedom. But now I know to explain that billionaires are rich from exploiting workers.

Socialism is just a fancy word for slavery man.

We need to levae people to do whatever they want with their money, simple as that.