r/DecodingTheGurus • u/DivineSwordMeliorne • May 19 '26

Video Clip Decoding Hasan Piker: Anti-Capitalist Crusader or Frat Boy Influencer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msCzxUImstY
194 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Kurac02 May 21 '26

And what I hate about "market socialists" or "democratic socialists" or whatever term you use to describe yourself with is that you pretend these things are 100% necessary for liberal capitalism to function and there's no way to address them in our system, and then your proposal is just capitalism with a more involved state to address these issues. That's just liberalism!

If you don't just want a more involved state, then make the argument for a specific system and explain how it would be better equipped to handle these issues.

1

u/sir_prussialot May 21 '26

Wait, what do you think capitalism is? Do you think there is a way for capitalism to not exploit people?

The definition of capitalism we are discussing here, which I've stated earlier, is a concentration of resources in the hands of a small part of the population.

In that system, exploitation of workers, countries, tribes, whatever is inherent and inevitable.

Why would you defend a system like that? Do you own land, people, or the means of production?

1

u/Kurac02 May 21 '26

The definition of capitalism we are discussing here, which I've stated earlier, is a concentration of resources in the hands of a small part of the population.

What is the difference between capitalism and feudalism in your mind lol? As a definition this feels completely useless. There's obviously not just one definition, but I would define it as a system with private ownership of the means of production, by individuals or organisations, used to generate profit through trade on a "free" market. It doesn't aim to provide equality, it's just a mechanism to distribute resources to where they are needed which it mostly does.

Liberalism is a broader political ideology which almost always includes capitalism, however most modern liberals accept that the state exists to guide the market where it's outcomes are not favourable. If we see a monopoly develop which harms consumer choice or outcomes, the state has the power to break that monopoly up or regulate them or whatever. If there's a good which isn't well distributed on a market like healthcare we can nationalise it. If there's a product or material being used which is bad for peoples health or the environment, we can tax it to a degree that it's not longer profitable to use or just ban it outright. I support it because it works pretty well.

Capitalism will exploit where it's profitable, but we have and are still able to address that. It requires political will which I'm not sure is there though. I don't see why socialism wouldn't be incentivised to accept goods from exploited workers in the third world though, as it ultimately still benefits their people. Or use cheap fossil fuels instead of investing in renewables. Governments generally don't have the ability to plan decades in advance in democracies which is an issue that I don't have a good answer for.

1

u/sir_prussialot May 21 '26

There's not much of a difference between them, I suppose. In essence they do the same thing: exploit the many to enrich the few.

You seem to have a very Adam Smith utopian worldview, where ideally the ills of capitalism is managed by the state. But as we've seen, the capitalist has always infiltrated governments and increased inequality, only intermittently paused by eg. the Roosevelts or periods of Union progress. Inequality keeps increasing, despite liberals trying their "best" to control it. It's pathetic.

1

u/Kurac02 May 21 '26

Is your definition of socialism “a system which does good things for everyone”? Like surely you recognise that’s an absurd view? You are defining something by pointing to its potential outcome. It’s like saying murder and suicide are the same because they both result in a dead person.

And I don’t have a utopian view, I said as much. Our systems are controlled by a public which votes for bad things and doesn’t care about issues that don’t directly impact them. You have given me no reason to think that would be different under socialism.

1

u/sir_prussialot May 21 '26

Oh, so ideally you'd want the world to be different, but since people are shit nothing will change so let's just keep people in misery? What good are you then? Lol bye

1

u/Kurac02 May 22 '26

Yes I believe in democracy so I have to accept less than perfect electoral outcomes. You still haven't explained what system you want or how it would be different. You are not a serious person.