Here’s a link to a video/channel of a Marxist youtuber to help you polish-up on your Capitalism vs Socialism debate skills.
Funny thing is… you would think that “linguists” would know the difference between the literal meaning of a word vs. the hyperbolic/metaphorical meaning. I’m a prisoner of time in the jail of presence.
“Protege” ?
LMFAO! Hahahah, that is fcken comedic gold!
Edit: I might get round to actually addressing the form and contents of his arugments (fallacies) - when I stop laughing. It might be awhile.
Imagine being confined to a socialist re-education camp and then being forced to watch this. I watched 30 seconds of it on my own accord. Painful.
Did you guys watch Refuting 20 Capitalist Myths (here)? If anyone has the time to dispute each point, I’m sure he would love to be be incorrect in front of his YouTube followers.
EDIT: If you look around the comments on many of his videos, he uses “In colonial Brazil, slaves could actually buy their own freedom and become business owners, self-employed, or even slave owners themselves. Did that justify slavery?” (almost that exact sentence) multiple times to refute his claims. Can you say - only one argument?
I have watched a few of this guys videos. Another gem is MaoistRebelNews2:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MaoistRebelNews2
Man, you think Communists who play the “that’s not real Communism!” card wouldn’t want to dress like Fidel Castro. To be fair, I’m not sure he’s one of those
I just watched a part of that homepage video and it seems like he’s bagging on the Federal Reserve’s interest rates at first, but I stopped watching.
Is he saying that Adam Smith … was a Red?
The same Mises Institute that publishes An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought: Volume I by Murray Rothbard? The book which contains this quote?:
Is he saying that? Yes. Is he correct? No. On the other hand, without Smith and Ricardo, Marxism is unthinkable.
Marx interpreted Smith & Ricardo with his own ideological filters, so no, Marx still created Marxism.
However, from the very same classical economists, you get the proto-Austrian / Walrusian arguments from Schumpeter in "Capitalism Democracy & Socialism"., where even someone who favored capitalism made an argument for it’s eventual demise from analyzing then current trends.
It’s no surprise though that in the age old tradition of “people not all being equally intelligent + consuming economic theory & interpreting it in different ways = some very bad ideas being spawned”, that from Smith came Marxism eventually.
I would say Smith was more of a proto-mixed economist; it’s a shame as one would think that a personal friend & collegue of David Hume would’ve had a bit more sense in him 
The almost surreal worshiping that Smith recieves after his time from both supposed capitalists & Marxists merley shows how much the latter has influenced the earlier over time, and how out of touch the common conception & followers of “capitalism” really are, regarding the basics of capitalism itself (i.e. wherein capitalism as it’s popularly used now no longer really means capitalism).
Just another effect of populism dumbing ideas down over-time, methinks.
“I’ll say it again: the reality for most people in the world is that they HAVE to work for a boss in a hierarchal, authoritarian workplace under capitalism. You HAVE TO or else you starve and go homeless. Even if you can quit your job and become your own boss it still doesn’t justify any oppression on any end of the social ladder. People “look for work” because they have to due to the coercion of living without basic needs.”
How do i argue against that?
It’s nature’s fault for making things so we have to work and eat to survive. Earth, wind, and fire are oppressors!!!
That’s what I told them! Free markets are just too realistic!
A link to his faq on anarchy socialism/syndacalism. He definately dislikes Rothbard (refer section on wages and unemployment).
“coercion of living”
What?
The problem with that analysis, friends, is that the scarcity of land and food in this world is artificial. There is plenty enough land and food to go around. But systems of ownership create the scarcity.
For most everything else, scarcity is a real and concrete phenomenon that cannot be gotten around. But for land and food, it is artificial.
Epicurus,
I agree with you. All the governments of all the worlds should divest themselves of the land they are hoarding and let the people homestead it. The statist system of ownership creates all kinds of mess. Btw, I got first dibs on Lake Tahoe; I just got to homestead it first.
I in no way disagree with that assertion. There are certain lands that were donated to cities/states etc that I wouldn’t mind staying as public parks or wildlife conservation areas, but for the most part, get rid of it all. Power to the people!
Epicurus: “There are certain lands that were donated to cities/states etc that I wouldn’t mind staying as public parks or wildlife conservation areas”
Cool. I’ll help you homestead those lands after I homestead Lake Tahoe.