53 Comments

I"’ve heard that, under socialism, workers would vote on who they want to be managers."

Having some kind of bottom up feedback can help a business.

Expand full comment

He:s doing it to get people to hire him, so it's relentless success you see. Why would be sign a consent from for something that makes him look bad? Reality shows aren't real.

Expand full comment

What portion of the population "can't handle a $400 medical emergency"? Having heard that one before, I suspect you're misunderstanding the study it's based on.

The US has health insurance tied to your job because that's what the people in the government have written laws and regulations to incentivize. Getting the government to stop making decisions for people rather than allowing them to make decisions for themselves is generally considered the anti-socialist policy position.

Expand full comment

My wife and I started binging this series due to this article. Very interesting, insightful, and honestly addictive.

I notice a lot of socialist apologists have appeared to say "yeah, but..." yet not addressing your specific challenge. As long as the benefits are flowing "their" way, everyone's fine with someone else paying for the benefits.

Expand full comment

amazing comments

Expand full comment

Quitting is very risky when a huge portion of the population can't handle a $400 medical emergency, not to mention that health insurance is often tied to your job in the US. It's a lot easier to quit when health insurance is universal and you have a social safety net to fall back on. Countries with stronger socialist policies have stronger labor unions that protect workers' rights and fight for things like greater pay and better working conditions. They sometimes give workers representation on corporate boards.

Expand full comment

Workers protect themselves, by quitting jobs with too-difficult bosses. And who protects workers under socialism from non-benevolent bureaucrats?

Expand full comment

should be "my point". The downsides of capitalism can be overlooked with a benevolent boss who cares for workers but socialist policies do a good of protecting workers against non-benevolent bosses.

Expand full comment

"the point"? That's not even related to my point in this post, which you are ignoring.

Expand full comment

I guess the point then is you're not always going to have a benevolent boss. For example the billionaire Kimbal Musk treats his restaurant employees awfully and screwed them over during Covid.

Expand full comment

He more often adds jobs than ends them.

Expand full comment

The reform that happens on the show can often lead to workers getting laid off which is a negative externality and bad for society. This often happens when private equity companies take over firms and cut costs by laying off workers. Under socialism, workers are better protected and have a higher quality of life which benefits society.

Expand full comment

It's not the abolition of private property which many forms of socialism (especially market socialism) do not have, but one things that most forms of socialism have in common is social ownership.

A defining character of capitalism is wage labor, but under socialism workers have more power in that relationship.

Expand full comment

Human activities don't have valueIf a socialist is someone who thinks that human activities don't have value, then they are people so divorced from reality that discussion is pointless.

They further values That's a different meaning of "value". That's like responding to someone talking about being a cashier being work and saying "you aren't applying force over a displacement, so you aren't doing work".

Capitalism is a zero sum game.You clearly have no understanding of economics.

Expand full comment

Robin didn't say "profit", he said "value". You're not engaging in good faith.

Expand full comment

You're straw-manning Socialism as an all-or-nothing, totalitarian system like our Capitalism.You see your opponents as straw-manning you, your opponents see you as playing equivocation/motte bailey games. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear, consistent definition of "Socialism" that Socialists propound, so accusations of straw-manning the concept are on poor foundation. You yourself present none, just handwavingly describe China as being socialist but also sort of capitalist. Also, Capitalism is not "totalitarian". You seem to have no idea what that word means.

And a poll of the populace in a country without free speech has little meaning. All it measures is how successful the government propaganda is.

Expand full comment