*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 10:14am PST - promote requested by enoch.

There is not such thing as a "social contract." There are personal agreements between individuals and groups, but no social contract.

Capitalism has always, and and will always be and oh, Marx was one of the most egregious of capitalists and a complete piece of shit in pulling that off, to the disgust of his friends, family, and allies. Watched till 9:14, couldn't stand another second of this sad-sack's cretinous musings.

The basic form of a social contract is the foundation for every state in the world. Every individual within the territory forfeits a set of rights and is imposed with a set of duties instead. That's a social contract as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du contrat social".

Doesn't help much with regards to Anglo-Saxon capitalism, does it? Beyond its most basic definition, social contract means, in theory, a recalibration of metrics beyond mere profit, within a society. Whatever metrics one might think would reasonably map progress towards the ultimate goal: the pursuit of happiness.

A concrete example would be the political-economic system of Germany, 1948 onwards, the so-called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft", wherein capitalism is (or was) constrained by agreements to the benefit of the whole of society. Not any individual, not any group, all members of society. Manifestations of it would be the safety net in all its forms and shapes, the health system, the pension system, the rejection of military interventionalism, the preservation of nature, no tolerance for fascism, etc. All specific policies that have their origins in an understanding of what society agreed upon would be best for everyone. The extent is subject to constant political debate, but the underlying concept remains untouched.

So the claim that there is no such thing as a social contract strikes me as a continuation of Thatcher's insistence that there is, in fact, no society. I don't subscribe to that notion, and as far as I can tell, neither does continental Europe as a whole.

If people prefer a system without a "society" beyond the very basic neccessities of a functioning state, go ahead. Do your thing. Competition of ideas and whatnot.

But I'm going to stay a member of this society, thank you very much. And as such, I take the liberty of leaving this "discussion" again. Cheerio.

I watched the whole thing a few days ago before it was sifted here (but after the short segment that made me decide to seek it out).

Although I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said 100% (a lot I did though), my favorite bit is the very last question from the female audience member -- starts at 1:13:42 or so. Such a fantastic question, and his answer meanders a bit but is also very interesting.

I tried reading this comment and I couldn't get through it.

"Capitalism has always, and and will always be and oh..."

Is this fucking English? What did you mean to say?

I'd like to point out that the American system of Capitalism doesn't follow it's own doctrine because we bail out the corporations and fund their projects. The rich control the society and make sure that they don't have to keep to the Capitalist system, but that the poor do.

Capitalism is just the worst, except for every other system.