The Truth About Capitalism: Non Compete Debunked on Why Capitalism Sucks Part 1


Another YouTuber I was recommended to check
out is Non Compete and he did a video titled ‘Why Capitalism Sucks’. “Capitalism, it’s
a great thing, right? Capitalism leads to technological advancement, economic development
and human freedom. Well, that is until it doesn’t. There’s no question that the development
of capitalism was a great thing for human society, unfortunately, over time capitalism
has spun wildly out of control, transforming rapidly from a force for positive social change
into a brutal system of oppression that’s holding humanity back and destroying billions
of lives.” Now, you’re going to come across this argument a hell of a lot where capitalism
gets the blame for everything; they either try to say that capitalism is the early stages
of corporatism or they say that capitalism is corporatism. It’s basically their way of
trying to, you know, pin the blame off onto capitalism for what we live under today. The
fact of the matter is and I covered in a video before on corporatism and more recently, you’ll
find that corporatism is anti capitalist, it’s against the free market. Now, one would
have to understand recorded history to understand why we’re in this position today so that we
know what the solution to the problem is in order to prevent such things like the monopoly
creation, etc. They will make baseless claims and they will state it as if it’s based on
fact. He makes arguments in this video as if to claim that, you know, the rich got richer
and poor got poorer, he doesn’t back up anything he says, he just states it (which is my point
about his arrogance,) and if it’s not that, he’s then saying that the rich got richer
and the poor got poorer, again, the arrogance to do so without any information to back up
his baseless silly claims. Let’s just have a listen to what he goes on to say with regards
to feudalism and it’s rather quite convenient this, just listen to this: “To understand
why, let’s first take a look at the system which preceded capitalism; feudalism. Back
in the days of feudalism society was agrarian. The most important product was food, so the
most important means of production were farmlands. At the top of feudal society were the feudal
lords who owned the land, at the bottom were the peasants who worked the land. There were
other classes too like the church and merchants and trades people, like stones masons and
cobblers and coopers. There was friction and conflict between these classes from time to
time but for the most part under feudalism, society was pretty much static for hundreds
of years, especially for the peasant class. Under feudal society, if you were born a peasant,
you were probably going to die as a peasant. You were essentially the property of your
feudal lords so there wasn’t much opportunity for advancement or changing careers. It sucked.”
It’s rather quite convenient that he would mention that given the fact that throughout
recorded history wherever you’ve found collectivism, that’s precisely what you’ve seen. Now, capitalism
and socialism didn’t just come around in the 18th and 19th century respectively, it’s been
around since the days of the Ancient Greeks or that of the days of the Ancient Roman Empire,
you saw the same arguments between Plato and even Aristotle, etc on the arguments of individualism
and collectivism. Capitalism goes back to the days of the first days of barter, trade,
that is so to speak and it used to be known as Meritocracy, in other words, rewarding
on merit and that’s what capitalism really is. The development of capitalism over the
years became what is the free market system and that is what capitalism is; it’s the separation
of the economy from government. As I said, he tries to argue that capitalism developed
into what would become this corporatist system today but you would have to understand history
to know why we’re in this system today, why we’re in this mess today and it most certainly
is not because of economic freedom of individuals pursuing their own economic goals and paths.
In other words, it wasn’t because of a free market why we’re in this place today. “As
capitalism began to emerge hand in hand with industrialism, things began to change. Early
capitalists gave opportunities they never had before. Now, instead of toiling your life
away on a peasant farm for a feudal lord, you could go to work for a capitalist in exchange
for wages and try to advance your rotten life. As capitalism progressed, the old social order
of feudalism rapidly fell to pieces. “Run away! Run away! Run away! Run away!” “Feudal
lords were usurped by wealthy capitalists who owned land and factories, the ancient
craft guilds found that they couldn’t compete with modern industrial production and the
newly formed working class developed a degree of social mobility as they can move from job
to job trying to seek higher wages. This all sounds pretty great, right? It was for a while,
unfortunately, the good times did not last. Over time, capitalist processes lead to increasing
economic instability, inequality and societal destruction.” So, like I said, he states things
arrogantly as if it’s based on fact with baseless silly claims, such as the claim about income
inequality, economic instability and then makes the baseless claim about societal destruction.
The whole argument about the income inequality, now, what’s the problem with that argument?
Equality did not stand for equal outcomes and that’s the problem with their entire argument.
Of course there’s going to be inequality in the outcomes of what people’s income earnings
are, there’s going to be because the purpose of equality is not to do with, you know, everybody
finishing in the same position, that’s not what equality stood for. Equality stood for
equal opportunity, in other words, everybody having an opportunity in life to make something
of themselves. The whole purpose of meritocracy, in other words, capitalism, is to reward people
based on merit and there is nothing moral, in fact, it’s immoral to try and force someone
who works with less effort the exact same as someone who works with more effort. There’s
nothing moral about that at all. But he speaks about economic instability. This is something
that I want to talk about because if you were to speak about a scale, a question of scale,
we acknowledge the fact that there’s never been 100 percent capitalism because 100 percent
capitalism is based on anarcho capitalism, that means; no government and it’s a completely
free market. We acknowledge the fact that to some degree or another throughout recorded
history there has been government intervention and, of course, manipulation over certain
things. The difference between myself and this individual is; I can give you information
to back that up, for example; look at the foundation of the first national bank which
was against the idea of this capitalist system. The foundation of the first national bank
in the United States in 1792, they began fixing the ratio of money. Now, that is anti capitalist,
that’s nothing to do with capitalism, capitalism is about leaving it down to the free market,
to leave the free market be. What happened as a result of fixing the ratio, well, what
happened was is it wiped Gold out of the market and made Silver the dominant standard. Had
that been left down to the free market that problem would never have occurred, it would
never have caused that instability. This is exactly what I mean and it’s no different
to the 19th century. The cause of the booms and busts throughout the 19th century was
caused by the trying and testing of paper currency, not because of Gold and Silver.
He doesn’t understand history, he just hopes that you buy into something and that’s it
and, of course, later they would try to fix the interest rates. When you fix interest
rates, yes, it is socialism. Socialism has to have some presence in the economy given
the fact there’s never been a 100 percent capitalist system. When you have, you know,
those who try to fix prices or fix interest rates or fix the ratio, yes, that is socialism
and it just so happens to be that is what precisely led to the economic instability
and what is capitalism regarding money? Well, capitalism is all about a free market and
what is free market money? Free market money is money that’s determined by the people freely
in society, that was Gold and Silver. So, how then without the people’s demand imposing
paper currency upon people, how can you blame the capitalist system for the fault of that
and what caused the booms and busts and it’s no different to that of the 20th century where
you saw the rise of the Federal Reserve using Open Market Operations in 1922 that enabled
them to strip the Gold standard temporarily from the currency up to about 1929; they were
manipulating the interest rates and changing the reserve ratios (again, using socialism
to do so, which is against everything to do with the capitalist system,) and then causing
such instability that the led to the Great Depression. So, there’s an example of socialism
through interference in the market creating a problem and then pushing the blame off onto
capitalism and saying: “that was the fault of the free market.” How the hell is it the
freedom of the marketplace that is at fault when the fault is the Open Market Operations
in 1922 through the interference? So, you see what I’m saying here, we know the cause
of such problems and we know what the solution is, what’s the solution? Do not touch interest
rates; the solution is do not touch the ratio; the solution is leave the free market be because
it wasn’t the free market that was the cause of the problem and then he says “societal
destruction,” basically socialism that caused the problem and then he tries to push the
blame off onto capitalism and here we are, sitting with a mixed economy thanks to all
the socialist government interventionism and apparently that’s the fault of capitalism.
“To understand why, let’s take a look at how capitalism functions. Under capitalism all
of the old classes of lords and peasants and craftsmen and merchants have been swept away.
Now there are basically just 2 major classes; the capitalists who own the means of production
(the factories and farms and other businesses of the world) and the workers who perform
the labour that keeps the wheels of the economy turning.” You could regard business owners,
etc, those who are the capital owners as being that of the capitalists in a capitalist system,
he doesn’t acknowledge, however, that workers (that is to say employees) can actually be
classified as capitalists if they are contributing to the production cycle. “Capitalists not
only own the means of production, but they also get to keep a significant cut of whatever
the worker earns or produces in the form of profit. Basically, capitalist bosses steal
labour value from workers and transfer that wealth for themselves. In order for capitalist
institutions to survive they have to turn a profit for the capitalists who own them,
otherwise, they would be forced out of business by more ruthless competitors. Capitalist institutions
literally can’t concern themselves with anything but profits or basically they’ll die.” So,
again, it’s just like you’ve seen with arguments I’ve made before in the past, more recently
as well on the argument on profits. This individual, again, really doesn’t understand the role
of prices, he doesn’t understand what profits are and a capitalist system isn’t just about
profits, it’s about profits and losses and you require the information of profits and
losses in order to know; what you’re producing, in order to know the information of what to
stop producing, or what resources to use and what is to stop using; where to allocate scarce
resources and where to stop allocating and what to invest more in and stop investing
in; it also tells you how much to produce and how you’re going to transport such resources,
etc. All of that information comes from profits and losses, it’s not as simple as saying that,
you know, businesses just want to fill their own pockets, etc. You see, that’s exactly
what I mean. How can you take people like this seriously if they have never touched
an economics textbook in their life and they don’t even know what prices are. It is just
embarrassing. Not only does he not give you any information on history to back up his
baseless assertions, he just really doesn’t understand anything at all to do with profits.
“Nearly all of the efforts of human civilisation are now yokes to the will of capitalists who
own the factories, the financial institutions, the mass media, the social networks, the tech
companies, the medical and pharmaceutical companies, they own everything. So, they get
to set the agenda for our society.” That is actually the fault of governments interference,
etc; that’s the fault of basically the absence of the free market, such as, for example,
the argument he made on the pharmaceutical companies. Now, what he’s speaking about is
the pharmaceutical companies (which are private,) had basically shafted the consumer and drove
up the costs. Now, how did they manage to do that? They managed to do that through governments
intervention through a Third Party-Payer system, in other words, to blame on socialism, the
socialist government interventionism that resulted in that very problem. It wasn’t the
fault of the free market. It’s all well believing in this deluded fantasy world where he thinks
that capitalists just produce whatever the hell they like, the consumer hasn’t got any
power whatsoever and just has to do what they’re told and they’ve got a wee button on the back
of them to press and they’ll just buy it. That just isn’t the real world. In order for
you to make profits in a capitalist system, you need to actually produce something that
the consumer is in demand of and if you really do not pay attention to your consumers, you’re
going to end up making losses. His fallacious argument goes onto this of the corporatist
system, that is NOT capitalism.




Comments
  1. You should see NonCompetes video on anarchism. He talks about having a representative democracy and everyone living in communes. He’s literally an anarcho statist.

  2. The whole part about the first national bank is very confusing. What do you mean by ratio of money? At the time the time, 1 ounce of gold was set to be equal about $20, it does not mean inherently that you have one money the dollar and gold next to it and there's a ratio, it was about saying 1 dollar is 1/20 ounce of gold because gold was money.

    What the first national bank did was introduce paper currency, and then fiduciary media, i.e. paper currency not backed by gold in vaults, which was used in the loan market and started a boom bust cycle, it was also used by the US state to do debt spending.

    A ratio that was fixed and which was catastrophic was fixing the ratio of gold vs silver, saying that one ounce of gold is equal to 16 ounce of silver or something like that, when the free market ratio changed it made one metal overvalued over the other, that certainly did not help.

  3. Scotty M, didn’t you say before it only matters what is put into practice? And corporatism is what was always in practice? Can’t someone just accuse you of just using pure theory?

  4. Yeah, NonCompete is known for stating baseless claims as if they were just facts. I also recommend you check out his debate with Destiny

  5. About inequality, funny thing to mention, US has similar inequality rates with Venezuela and North Korea, both are socialist countries. And get this, CEO pay is INCREASING during a time where the US is becoming MORE SOCIALIST! Capitalism can actually reduce consumption inequality, and wealth inequality because predator multinationals get too top heavy and are no longer able to screw over their workers in a free market, Triangle Shirtwaist might as well declare bankruptcy after that fire

  6. And can you address historical and dialectical materialism? It’s essentially the belief that all capitalist economies will progress to socialism after they’ve run their course and from their, communism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *