Charlie Kirk Debates Socialism With College Students at University of Vermont Campus Event
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Charlie Kirk Debates Student on White Male Life Expectancy, Socialism, and Economic Systems at Campus Event
8:54
Charlie Kirk Confronts Democratic Socialism: The 100 Million Dead Bernie Sanders Won't Mention
2:18
Charlie Kirk Dismantles Libertarian Socialist Arguments on Property Rights and Economic Systems at Campus Event
5:38
Charlie Kirk Debates Socialism With College Students at University of Vermont Campus Event
Charlie Kirk engages in spirited debates with self-identified socialist students at the University of Vermont, challenging their views on worker cooperatives, government intervention, and economic systems. The conversation covers everything from the theoretical writings of Marx to practical examples of socialism's failures throughout history. Kirk defends voluntary market capitalism while students attempt to distinguish their vision of socialism from authoritarian regimes. The exchanges reveal fundamental disagreements about human nature, the role of government, and whether socialism has ever truly been tried. Kirk argues that markets create prosperity while socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship, while students push back on definitions and point to libraries and worker cooperatives as socialist successes.
The debate opens with a fundamental question about defining socialism. Charlie Kirk explains that in theory, as written by Marx, socialism means workers owning the means of production. However, he argues that in practice, socialism becomes something far more sinister: a small group of powerful people controlling the population under the guise of helping the many, when it actually helps only the few. According to Kirk, this pattern leads to dictatorship, murder, and slaughter, with the promised revolution never materializing. He points to the historical record of 100 million deaths over the last century attributable to socialist regimes.
When a student brings up American companies that function as worker cooperatives, effectively practicing socialism, Kirk acknowledges that this does reflect some of Marx's tenets. He cites Publix grocery stores in Florida as an example and clarifies his position: he supports worker cooperatives when they're voluntary. The key distinction, Kirk emphasizes, is volunteerism versus force. In a church where people voluntarily share a meal, that's voluntary cooperation. But socialism, he argues, doesn't hinge on volunteerism—it uses the force of the state to compel participation and confiscate property.
The Volunteerism Principle and the Amish Example
Kirk develops his argument by exploring the concept of voluntary versus forced participation in economic systems. He explains that voluntary cooperatives can work, though they can also fail because the incentive structure for innovation isn't always strong or robust. However, in a free market, people are allowed to organize however they choose. He offers the example of the Amish living their traditional lifestyle in Pennsylvania—he has no problem with that voluntary choice. The problem arises when government forces everyone to live a certain way.
When asked if he would support tax cuts and loopholes for people starting worker cooperatives, Kirk responds that he would give tax cuts to all people, and if they want to organize as a worker cooperative voluntarily in a market economy, they're free to do so. The student socialist agrees, noting they're not defending Cuba, China, the USSR, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe. Kirk then challenges the student: as a true socialist, will you actually go live your value system? Will you refuse to own things and form a cooperative with friends to grow your own food?
Personal Property Versus Private Property
The student introduces the socialist distinction between personal property and private property. Personal property includes items like toothbrushes, clothes, and even houses—things for personal use. When Kirk asks if someone can have two houses, the student admits it's complicated and doesn't have a clear answer. Kirk presses the point: if you earned it, you should get it. That's the fundamental difference in worldviews. He emphasizes that conservatives believe in the word "earn"—people should receive what they earn.
The student responds that Marx's critique was actually about the hyperwealthy stealing wages from hardworking people trying to earn. Kirk then offers a nuanced analysis of Marx, acknowledging what Marx got right and where he went wrong. Marx was correct, Kirk says, that market forces can alienate people from their humanity. Walking into the average corporation can feel soulless. However, Marx was wrong about human nature. Conservatives and Christians believe humans are generally not good, while Marx believed humans are naturally good but corrupted by external societal forces like racism, misogyny, and capitalism.
Human Nature and the Foundations of Political Philosophy
Kirk explains that Marx, following Rousseau, believed that stripping away external societal forces would allow humans to live in wonderful harmony. The student partially agrees with this view. Kirk counters that conservatives find this belief insane—the idea that human beings are naturally good. The student argues that the existence of racism, sexism, and other evils is actually proof that humans have a tendency toward bad behavior, not that they're naturally good once these systems are removed.
Kirk clarifies that Rousseau, who provided the foundational baseline for Marx, argued that human beings are naturally good and don't have a proclivity toward evil. Where Kirk agrees with socialists is that widespread alienation of human beings through market forces is a real problem. However, he disagrees with Marx's deterministic view. Some people find tremendous purpose in their work. Some companies create robust environments where people are happy and connected. It's not a fault of the system itself but rather how the system is applied in specific cases.
Historical Examples: Socialism in Practice
Kirk poses the crucial question: can the student point to a single time where socialist theory actually worked? The student cites the Zapatistas in Mexico starting in 1991 when NAFTA went into effect, claiming this autonomous region exists to this day with collectively owned property. The student also mentions Rojava in Syria, an autonomous zone that has survived despite the Syrian civil war, and again points to worker cooperatives in America and other countries as socialism at work, though acknowledging they exist within capitalist markets.
Kirk asks how the student reconciles the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party, and Pol Pot—the clear failures of socialism over the last hundred years. The student responds by disagreeing with those regimes' interpretation of socialism, arguing that authoritarian power shouldn't be used to force people into socialism. Kirk articulates what he believes is the fundamental truth: every time socialism is tried at scale, a very bad person will assume control under the guise of socialism and become a permanent dictator. The student disagrees with the "at scale" qualifier.
The Library Debate: Public Services as Socialism
The student attempts to reframe the argument by pointing to libraries as examples of socialism. You can walk into a library, check out a book for free, and they trust you to bring it back. Kirk immediately challenges this characterization: the library isn't free. Taxpayers paid for the books, the building, the plumbing, electricity, heating, and workers. Furthermore, if there's a disagreement and you steal a book or don't follow proper checkout procedures, you face overdue fines. There's a cost to the system.
Kirk argues that libraries are actually a very capitalist system because of these accountability mechanisms. The student counters that librarians now say overdue fines don't provide good incentive, though Kirk notes they still exist. His key point: even if you consider the library a hallmark of socialism, someone is still in charge—the librarian. There's hierarchy and rules, not pure collective ownership.
Native American Communities and Government Intervention
A University of Vermont student shifts the conversation to Native American communities, treaties, and historical injustices. The student asks whether Kirk acknowledges that this history impacts how Native Americans live today and makes it more difficult for them to succeed in America. Kirk responds by noting the tremendous accommodations that have been made: sovereignty of Native American land and an entire federal department dedicated solely to Native American affairs. He asks if the student recognizes these efforts.
The student acknowledges the efforts but argues they haven't worked. Kirk asks why they haven't worked. The student suggests it's either not enough or the approach is incorrect—that it should be treated more as an equity issue rather than blaming individual work ethic, requiring societal change to help in a way that actually matters. Kirk then points out that universal healthcare exists at Native American reservations. The student acknowledges this but says it's not very good because of access issues. Kirk's response: because it's socialistic. The student counters that universal healthcare works fine in plenty of European countries.
Vermont's Failed Healthcare Experiment
Kirk asks how Vermont's experiment with universal healthcare went. The student, who moved to Vermont only two months earlier, admits not knowing the details. Kirk reveals that Vermont tried single-payer healthcare and had to abolish it—it was a total disaster. He argues that the best way to help Native American communities is through empowerment and education, not heavy-handed government intervention through agencies like the Bureau of Native American Affairs or universal healthcare.
Kirk describes Native American reservations as socialist dystopias—depressing places that are government-addicted in more ways than one, plagued by corruption. He asks if the student has worked on reservations before, noting that he has been to plenty of them. Kirk then asks the student directly: do you self-identify as a socialist? The student confirms yes, but clarifies that socialist and liberal are different words, and conservatives often confuse them.
The Nonexistent Socialist Country
Kirk asks what country the student thinks works well as a socialist country. The student responds that there are currently no socialist countries. Kirk presses: has there ever been a truly socialist country? The student says no. Kirk highlights the absurdity: the student's entire worldview is based on something that has never existed and currently doesn't exist. The student questions whether it's bad to be pro-change.
Kirk clarifies that the type of change being advocated is horrifying. When he lists Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, formerly Vietnam, and the Soviet Union, the student insists those were not and are not socialist countries. The student argues that the disastrous effects in those countries were directly caused by U.S. intervention, including multiple CIA coups. Kirk challenges this with a specific example: how did Fidel Castro taking over Cuba have anything to do with U.S. intervention? The student points to sanctions, economic isolation, and assassination attempts.
The Utopian Standard: Judging Systems Fairly
Kirk methodically lists leaders and regimes the student might consider: Zimbabwe's Mugabe, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot. The student responds that plenty of terrible people have called themselves plenty of different names. Kirk identifies the pattern: the student believes in something that doesn't exist, has never existed, and whenever people who call themselves socialists create regimes, the student says they weren't really socialist. This is the crucial insight: socialism is always judged against an impossible utopia, while markets are judged against reality.
Kirk emphasizes the truth: markets, which the student enjoys comfortably in Western society, represent the most proven wealth-creating machine in human history. He challenges the student to stop believing in a utopian nightmare and start looking at things that are good, true, beautiful, and consistent with natural law. The student will be much happier, Kirk suggests, if they embrace this perspective.
Defining American Economics and Socialism
Another student asks what Kirk considers pro-American if socialism is non-American. Kirk defines socialism as government confiscation of private property and rule by the few (despite claiming to be rule by the many). In contrast, the American economic tradition includes private property rights, markets with proper restraint, entrepreneurship, the ability to flourish, trade, and creating new products. Socialism disincentivizes almost all these things. Kirk argues that socialism is built largely on envy and greed, and ironically, the rank-and-file people pushing for socialism don't realize it actually creates an oligarchy rather than a strong middle class.
The student asks if Kirk believes in taxes. Kirk responds that ideally, he supports 10% across the board. The student then points out that taxes are a form of confiscating people's private property. Kirk acknowledges that at some point, depending on whether it's private property or income, moderate taxation is necessary to fund government services. He fully acknowledges accepting a moderate form of something he hates in order to fund police, firefighters, and EMTs.
The Confiscation Debate: Where Does Socialism Begin?
The student presses the apparent contradiction: Kirk said socialism is government confiscating property, yet he pays taxes, which is confiscation. Kirk refines his definition: the unreasonable confiscation of private property and the elimination of private property altogether. He argues that wanting a police force, border patrol, and clean streets doesn't make a society socialist. This is sloppy intellectual thinking, he contends.
The student suggests that every form of government is socialist. Kirk disagrees. The student asks where socialism begins and ends. Kirk offers a provocative answer: socialism begins when you leave the free state of Florida and enter the unfree state of New York. The student points out that Florida still has taxes through the federal government, so by Kirk's logic, Florida is socialist. Kirk agrees that America is currently moving more in a socialist direction. The federal project is more socialist than free market.
The Taxation Spectrum
Kirk clarifies his position: the closer you get to the government owning a majority of your labor and goods, the closer you get to socialism. California exemplifies this. He would prefer the federal government eliminate FICA tax and excess income tax. His position remains consistent: 10% across the board is acceptable to fund the military, police force, border patrol, and basic social services that function as a safety net, not a hammock. However, he opposes over-the-top taxation.
Kirk introduces another form of taxation everyone pays: inflation. When asked about universal healthcare, he opposes it, citing the many trials of universal healthcare in America that have resulted in waiting lines, waiting lists, lower accessibility, increased costs, and reduced quality. He notes that America is already close to a universal healthcare system—anyone can walk into an emergency room and receive care (though not good care). Medicaid already functions as a form of universal healthcare for the poor.
Healthcare: Quality Versus Accessibility
A student asks about people without much money who break their arm or need hospital care, noting that ambulance costs and even one night in a hospital bed are insanely expensive. What happens to underrepresented people who work hard every day but have to give up their houses and take out loans just to get basic necessities? Isn't universal healthcare aimed at mitigating this problem?
Kirk agrees that universal healthcare is aimed at solving this problem but argues it doesn't actually mitigate it. He finds common ground with universal healthcare advocates on one point: if you go to a hospital, they never give you a menu of prices. There's no transparency. You have no idea what anything costs. At Chipotle, they'll tell you exactly how many calories are in your burrito and what everything costs, but healthcare operates in secrecy. These private-public partnerships raise prices endlessly and have destroyed lives. Medical debt is a huge problem in America. However, the solution isn't compelling people to take on health insurance through universal healthcare—it's much deeper and more sophisticated.
The student suggests that bad public healthcare exists because private healthcare has such a stronghold on American society. Kirk responds that American healthcare is partly awful and partly great. The problem is most people can't access the great parts. What's great about American healthcare? America has the most innovations and the most sophisticated life-saving surgery. If you have a heart attack and go to the local cath lab, they'll probably save your life—the standard of care is exceptional. That's not the case in Southeast Asian countries where survival is uncertain. The problem is cost and accessibility. The fundamental question: do you want to sacrifice the quality of care for accessibility? If the answer is yes, be ready to wait.
