Why Anarchists Hate Capitalism -- Q and Anarchy EP. 4



you know what the Internet needs more people talking about capitalism and I'm the guy to do it hello Konrad's and non rads alike welcome back to cue and anarchy the only discussion of politics anyone has ever had I'm your host baloney bill in the last episode we talked about the state and why it's allowed to kill your dog for some reason in this episode we're going to talk about the state's raise indeed er capitalism I've talked about capitalism a lot on this channel behold the viewing globe and we have to face facts capitalism is evil it's killing us it was forced on us and it must be dismantled say we have some rich pervert let's call him Dave the capitalist under capitalism Dave gets to buy the factory assuming he has the capital to do so but let's accept the premise that capitalism lifts people out of poverty for a moment even though it's absurd why is anyone poor in the first place why do they need to be lifted out of poverty we have everything we need to end poverty right now today I want to go a little deeper and explain why capitalism is inherently oppressive and can't be anything else now chances are unless you already agreed with that premise you're already mad at me and I understand that you've received a lifetime of capitalist indoctrination whether you knew it or not I would be ridiculous if I thought I could overcome that level of indoctrination in one 10 minute Internet video and you would be a little ridiculous if you based your entire economic outlook on what some goofus on the internet told you so I'm not really looking to convince you so much as I'm looking to explain to you why I'm against capitalism and in turn why anarchists are against capitalism I think that sometimes we do a very bad job of explaining to people why we're against capitalism maybe you've noticed this maybe you've noticed that sometimes when leftists tell you why they're against capitalism they do so with a little bit of sneering condescension let's face it advocating for capitalism is the default position in our society and you're not really going to convince people to give by being a dick to them so in this video I'm gonna do my best not to be a dick to you but some of my natural dickish earnest might bleed through just a little bit and I apologize for that I really shouldn't be talking about bleeding in the same sentence that I said dick so many times also this is a very big topic that a lot of very smart but more importantly very very wordy people have written a great deal about and I'm not gonna be able to summarize the entirety of the socialist objection to capitalism in one video this is a very bare-bones like if you've never heard of the subject before overview of the issue so please keep that in mind if it seems like I'm being overly simple or reductive so that being said capitalism it's an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production which is the nerd way of saying the stuff that people need to live and the stuff produced by that stuff things like factories or tractors or corn you know stuff you need in capitalism things are produced to become commodities which is to say something created so that you can use it to make a profit not something that people necessarily need which is not to say that people don't need commodities they often do but that's not the purpose of their creation under capitalism the purpose is to generate profit in capitalism production is organized around what is most profitable to the owners is capital not around human need so if you create a system based around the private ownership of things people need to live what are the people who don't own those things do do they just starve no don't be ridiculous only about 11% of them starve the rest work for wages which means that they sell their time and labor to someone else if for for a paycheck and here's the thing they can then take that paycheck and go to the store and exchange it for the things that they made wait wait wait wait hold on you're telling me all's you got to do is labor and some capitalist chump is gonna pay you for it um excuse me I would have had the labor under any economic system and this guy is giving me money for it what are you complaining about socialist sounds like a pretty sweet deal well there's a catch remember production is based around what's profitable for the owners of capital not for the people that produce things wage labor only makes a profit if you produce more than you're paid in return your boss subtracts the surplus value meaning the difference between what you're paid and what your work is actually worth that means you'll never actually be paid what you're worth as long as you work for a wage under capitalism because if you were there'd be no point for the capitalists to employ you markets thrive on competition it's what keeps them young and healthy and gives their coats that glossy Sheen in any given industry there's only so much market share to go around so if you want some of it you have to compete with everyone else in that industry to get it and there are only two ways to do that one create a more desirable product which can be difficult because there's no guarantee that your superior product will sell better than an inferior competitor with a better marketing system or more brand familiarity and some products really can't be improved that much to reduce production costs that means reducing wages that means that anyone who wants to make a profit is incentivized to pay you as little as possible you might notice that productivity has been skyrocketing since before I was born however minimum wage relative to inflation has not how did that happen did a bunch of capitalists get together and create lobby groups and decide to change all the laws without any Democratic oversight yeah they did now here's what it gets a little confusing left those like me refer to the right for people to own the means of production privately as private property and that's what we mean when we say that not your house or your car or your collection of Hatsune Miku vinyl figurines those things are your personal property and we don't want to take those we know what you did with them point of fact we don't really want to take people's private property either we just want to make it available to the whole community not just whatever dork owns it now that dork can still use it if they need it that's fine way hold on a minute hold on a minute slime Oh sounds like you're advocating for stealing are you saying people don't have a right to keep the things that they've built and no of course not I'm not advocating for stealing stealing is when you take something that doesn't belong to you and these things do belong to you and me and your dad and your dentist and everyone else if you take something that rightfully should belong to everyone and hold it privately for your own personal enjoyment that is stealing which brings us to one of the more popular arguments for capitalism the tragedy of the Commons the tragedy of the Commons is a fairy tale designed to scare you out of collective ownership basically the idea is that if everybody can have an infinite amount of every resource and there are a finite amount of that resource then we'll just run out really fast and everyone won't have nothing why would people care about the long-term survival of their resources if they didn't own them personally and make a profit off of them and there are a couple problems with the tragedy of the Commons as an argument for capitalism like firstly it kind of assumes that human demand is infinite if there's a commonly owned apple orchard and I can have as many apples from it as I want how many apples am I gonna take all of them no I'm gonna take like I don't know three I don't want infinite apples I can't eat infinite apples and it can't sell the apples because no one's gonna buy them if they can have as many as they want for free either so it's fine secondly it also kind of assumes that collective ownership is like an untested new idea it's never been tried before but of course it has now history buffs will know this but there's actually a really good example of collective ownership of the means of production being used in the real world and it worked really really well and it was stable and economically viable I'm of course referring to the overwhelming majority of human history before private property became the norm collective ownership of the means of production was just what people did but then gradually thanks to enclosure agreements state cronyism and lots and lots of genocide this public property was parceled out to become the personal fiefdom a few rich ding-a-lings if you trace back any piece of private property to its original source you'll find that it comes from either violence or exploitation almost always both that might sound like a pretty extreme statement but it's actually kind of common sense if you think about it how can we live in a world where we have homeless people and vacant homes at the same time the homeless people just inherently respect people's right to own multiple houses and keep them empty in case they might want to sell them later and they're so committed to this right that they're willing to freeze the death on the street no they don't go in those houses because if they did they might get arrested and beaten up by the police that's the way the law works now ask yourself who wrote those laws was it homeless people or was it people with lots and lots of property to protect come to think of it how did that person end up with lots of property to protect did they build it themselves did people give it to them because they just thought they might need it no they bought it with stacks and stacks of that nasty cash and how do you make that nasty cash it's an enticing question isn't it we all want that sticky icky cash ish how do you get it well if you ask any rich person how they made their fortune they'll give you the same answer they worked hard you just have to work hard and you'll get rich which is pretty convenient actually because you work for them and your work creates profit for them who works harder nurses or Mark Zuckerberg can you honestly tell me that you think Mark Zuckerberg works a thousand times as hard as a nurse that's absurd similarly I do not work a thousand times as hard as whatever child slaves stitched my clothes together I just had the good fortune to be born to a male class family in a rich country our society does not reward you for hard work it demands that you work hard no doubt about that you have to work hard to compete you've got to work hard but others don't they can survive by just skimming the top off of your work and the work of hundreds of other people like you an intern you have to work that much harder to support them and then they take that wealth that you created and they use it to more of the things that you need and charge you more for those things and steal more from you capitalism funnels money away from most people and towards a few people it is definitionally hierarchical and it can't be anything else capitalism is a textbook model of an unjustified hierarchy and it's fundamentally incompatible with anarchism and oh god I'm talking about them again aren't I so-called anarcho-capitalists or an caps or man-baby doofus lords often take issue with my definition of anarchism they say it doesn't got nothing to do with hierarchy you thing dong it's it's just about there being no government they know that because that's what they assumed and they didn't check to see what it historically had always meant and on that basis they often ask hey you dang socialite anarchists how come you won't work with us to get rid of the state that's our common goal right and no it's not because you don't actually want to get rid of the state you can't have capitalism without private property and the only way to defend private property is through the violence of the state in the absence of the state people aren't going to be willing to starve to death because some rich ou won't give them food so he'll then do end caps reconcile this fundamental contradiction well firstly they fail to acknowledge it then if they are forced to they just insist that you can privatize the the functions of the state so instead of having a police force you would have private security and instead of having courts you would have private dispute resolution organizations and instead of having like a president you would have your feudal lord because that's feudalism you're talking about feudalism I'm so tired of these jackasses hijacking my bit I don't think that whether or not people should get to live comfortable healthy lives should be left up to the winds of the market you know the market right it's all around us it observes everything with its all-seeing eye guides us with its invisible hand do you think you're free no my friend only the market is free the market is freedom it's infinite growth in a finite world that which grows must consume and to grow infinitely means one must consume at is that ethical can there be ethical consumption under capitalism don't worry about such things the market is above such petty concerns as good evil joy suffering we can't control it we can't even understand it it is beyond the understanding of God we can't dare to correct it it corrects itself it makes itself perfect and as it consumes us we become perfect and as it consumes everything everything becomes perfect and as the last embers of our dying world fade to ash in the clutch of the beautiful invisible hand of the market it will have made itself free truly free what we're gonna do socialism next episodes about the police Oh patrons baby the following people have big muscles and efficient brains because they donated to my patreon this August we got Ryan William Cox Mike yo calm some random leftist Julian : chor ham sem al Ian Thompson Emily marigold Classen nestor ivanovich reek Artur Lawson Neil's a build guard Lisa Antonelli Kristen roars Nick's firt Michael Hollenbeck chutney ferrets Colin McIntyre dill Vern dill dill Burren Matt freeze live static Jen mm spider facts cat Arthur Julian : Bret Dibble Patrick M Matthew Jacob a Berkowitz Matt Brighton Mia naka no D buns Leo Jane the human alex x discordia Nicole via naka duck step back history thorn Melkor Mike Yocum and Victor fellows but incredible ups to James Taylor Aaron B – of week Jordan Hoxie Queen Maxine called bean money chud's Mackenzie Morgan Clark Siobhan O'Leary Jan Anders Bremer Berisha Charisse and Risha I'm I'm so sorry about how he said your name wobbly Joe Tim Harris illusia s Joe Fredette Melissa Pitts fantastic the magpie Magus and Charlotte Allen yeah that's right I got a patreon it's patreon.com slash thought slime what are you gonna do about it press the like and subscribe buttons my cat wants you to she loves being held and definitely isn't about to scratch me for this




Comments
  1. If you call upon the labor of the less fortunate to manufacture some sort of poster with the full transcript of your cultish "The market is perfect" bit, I will consume it for sure, and I shall do my best to do so in as ethical a fashion as possible.

  2. Is it that preposterous to assume that the system that most closely resembles evolution, the progress from worms to man, will also and has also produced the greatest human progress? Until Marxists can directly address how their ideas contradict the psychological systems that prime us for competition and resource acquirement, that, due to producing the greatest progress, are morally superior to any stagnant system, their ideas will remain silly, unrealistic and deadly. Why is it that a single western country such as England produced more innovation than ALL Marxist countries combined? Marxism and anything it entails is (at best) the "perfect" equilibrium among worms at the bottom of the sea. No competition. No progress. The ultimate evil.

    Communism will always devolve into a totalitarian superstate, here is how and why:

    First, well-intending visionaries will successfully overthrow the existing structure and implement communism. Then, something goes wrong*

    Then, power-hungry, corrupt opportunists will blame something like this:

    "It's not working because we don't have control of XY.", XY being anything from black markets, limited property rights, etc. "It's not working because capitalists can still gain the system." — generally, demanding more state control. Some visionaries will object, to which the opportunists respond: "What? You don't want the system to work? You're probably a capitalist yourself, Trying to abuse us workers? You're hiding something, aren't you?" — then, they'll sneak valuables into that visionary's home and have him hanged by an angry mob. At the end of this filtering, only the most corrupt, psychopathic and power-hungry maniacs will remain.

    *Wrong like one of these here:

    – Fault will always be leveled at the minds behind something, not the simple worker: If a bridge collapses, the architect will be at fault of course, not the single worker and not everyone involved. Therefore, the architect while receiving the same pay has a far more massive downside to his job. So why would anyone want to become an architect in the first place? Either, the top architects will get different incentives, or you end up with monolithic structures. Of course, this extends to other areas as well.

    – If you want to feed a country, it's best when the farmers that are most capable own the most land. So when you collectivize the farm land and share it evenly among farmers, regardless of their skill level, you'll inevitably end up with lots of terribly used land and mass starvation as well as famine. And that's exactly what happened during the Holodomor, and the result was very, very predictable and preventable.

    – Imagine I live in a communist country, and I invent teleportation. I know that if I stay, all the value I'm getting out of this invention is the same as a garbage collector is getting for his work. But I want to provide a better home for my family and my loved ones, so what do I do? I go to a capitalist country. But wait, I can't because the state isn't stupid and forces me to stay by threatening to kill my family if I don't.

    – Just think of something like a marathon where you want everyone to arrive at the same time at the end goal. You'll have to micromanage absolutely everything to achieve it. With an entire economical system it's even worse since cheating is less obvious, so you'll need to become totalitarian. And of course, force your citizens to stay. And try and find a better incentive for being exceptional than money.

    At the end of the day, we're not equal when it comes to the value we provide. We instinctively recognize this when it comes to things such as respect, acknowledgement, fame and so on. It is absolutely arbitrary not to extend that to money. Edison deserves the acknowledgement he gets, so why not money? Acknowledgement is also a form of currency. The only difference to money is that we can measure money better. Think about it: The only thing that gives money any value is us, because of the respect we have towards it. Therefore, acknowledgement has value and is also a currency. So, if you could trade acknowledgement just like you could money, would you take it from Edison and split it evenly among the populace?

    If you read all this, repeat after me: Communism Is a stupid system and Marx was dumb

    The "oppression" narrative of Marxists can be applied to almost anything; the baker oppresses you, because if you don't buy his bread, you die, nature oppresses you because if you don't hunt for food, or create farms for food, you die. There is no reason to view "if you don't work, you die" as any different from the above examples.

  3. 7:16 – 8:13 Here's the problem. The tragedy of the commons isn't that we will run out of stuff because people consume too much, (though that is certainly possible when there are less resources than the demand can hold up.) The problem is that people won't work. Let's take your apple orchard. Imagine two people. You and Joe. Joe was an employee at your apple orchard, but he decides he's fed up with that. La revolution. So he decides he doesn't want to work for apples. Why would he? So he doesn't work. Instead, he walks over to the apple tree orchard and takes apples and eats all day. You look at the person taking all the apples and says "hey you!, if you're going to take my apples you should at least help me plant them, like you were doing." Then the freeloader says, "I will not be oppressed by capitalist exploitation," and keeps eating. Maybe he starts to live in that spare shack you have that you keep equipment in, and he even starts pooping in ditches around your property (it is yours. You started it and ran it after all.)

    This is fine at first, because there are plenty of apples. However, the other employees see him and say, "why should I work if he doesn't. Screw the evil orchard exploitation." So they stop working too. And they break into your house and begin living in your house. Why? Because some of them were ex-construction workers who helped build your house. They got payed of course, but it was still exploitation. So now you have about 50 freeloaders eating your apples and living in your house. Some of them chop down a few of your trees and use them for a bon-fire too.

    Okay, so you walk out and say, "guys, I understand if you don't want to work for me, but then you can't have my apples." They say, "why not. They're ours too since we helped plant them." So you say, "okay, you can have what you want, but at least help me maintain them." They say, "we'd rather not." So now you have 50 people on your land, your refrigerator is empty because they ate all your food, and you actually can't afford them. You are going to starve. You are trying to keep the orchard running, but none of them want to help. So what do you do? You say screw it. I'm not helping these freeloaders. They aren't helping me after all. Then, people start running out of food. And they start whining. They complain, "why isn't there any food?" You say, "if you want food, get it yourself." But they don't want to. All these people were poor and worked for you originally because they were mostly lazy and didn't have the ambition to get a better paying job. A few people decide they want to work with you, but they quickly run into the same problem you had. They are bearing the burden for everyone else, and they just don't have the manpower to provide for everyone else. So inevitably they give up. Now everyone is about to starve because of that lazy selfish worker who originally refused to work.

    Now you and everyone else who is sick of this get together and declare. "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Now you are back to a meritocratic system. But there's a difference. You decide to run the plantation democratically. Now everyone can vote on how it will be run and operated. At first this is great. Everyone is working hard and the plantation is doing well, but something changes. The lazy people are angry that they have to work now. So they get together a massive vote. What do they vote? They vote that you don't have to work if you don't want to. And everything goes back down the shoot. You are sick of this nonsense, so you leave your orchard and start a new one. This time you make sure to buy a gun, just in case someone tries to take apples in the future. Meanwhile the plantation performs very poorly, and when you come back to check on it, it is trashed and people are starving.

    Does this sound like Randian nonsense to you? Surely something like this would never happen. People are naturally hard working and would be responsible. Wrong. We already have proof it wouldn't work. It is called the American government. Do you know what "welfare" is? It is the result of a ton of lazy people in inner cities getting together and voting in politicians to get them free crap. Where does this free crap come from? The people who work hard.

    To be proven: Socialism fails.

    P1: The people who like to work without personal reward are a minority, as demonstrated by the welfare state.
    P2: If people don't work, they starve.
    P3: In socialism, the "people" control the means of production democratically.

    D1: It follows from P1 and P3 that the people who don't want to work unless there is personal reward would control a socialist society, and so they would not work.
    QED: It follows from D1 and P3 that a socialist society would starve.

  4. Say, regarding the tragedy of the commons, I think one would take as many apples as they can, with your example, if they believe that the others will do the same. In that regard, the idea that humans are greedy is a self fulfilling prophecy, where, the more people believe it, the more true it becomes, and the more people believe it. Thus how can we break out of that idea? Because, if we trust our clanmates, we won't trust the other clan! They might be selfish and try to take everything for themselves, so, to stop them, we must take everything first! And the other clan notices and does the exact same thing… I think that's the tragedy they're speaking of… How can we solve that?

  5. Your video title is a broad, and factually incorrect statement… I now understand why you call yourself "Thought Slime".

  6. My dad & I sit down after dinner & watch your videos together. Sometimes the irony can get lost on him, but the conversation thereafter has always been constructive. Tyty from a cold corner of the world

  7. So in you're ideal reality everyone eats has a place to sleep, why should they work then oh the government is going to make them work. how will they do that? Oh yeah with violence…no thanks I'd rather we incentivize people to work for however much money they want then tell them to work for however much money the institution decides to give them, nothing is free and you thinking we can live in a world were everyone is happy and people can eat without working while also not being acted upon violently by an authoritarian government is naive.

  8. The tragedy of the commons is very accurate, but it's an argument against, not for capitalism. Capitalism is one person taking over the commons and overworking it until it has no more value to anyone, then walking away with all of the money and everyone else on the hook for the damaged commons that won't sustain people anymore. A government is needed to make sure that the commons, all of them, stay common. Capitalism pollutes the air, water, and gives control over food and shelter resources to a few. Climate change is the ultimate expression of the tragedy of the commons. Few people, few companies, and no countries are willing to accept the short term personal loss of economic growth for the long term benefit of everyone. The only way that climate change is going to get solved is if someone with a lot of power forces change.

  9. Okay, let's break down the apple orchard argument. There's an orchard, which is finite, but has far more apples than any one person could eat. There are 2 problems here.

    1- If there is nobody enforcing the collective ownership, I can steal all the apples and make people pay me or work for me to get some. I do this by getting a few people who I will share some privilege with to help me protect the apples. Maybe they have weapons, killing a person isn't hard. Yes, we are outnumbered, but most people won't risk getting bashed on the head for some apples. With no government to stop me, I can just recreate capitalism.

    2- There are way too many apples for me, but are there really enough for everybody? What if there are 200 million of us? How do we distribute limited resources fairly?

  10. I shat all over your last video, but your assessments of the problems are solid. Your criticism of capitalism are spot on. It is unsustainable, inherently unjust, and has to be dismantled. I just prefer socialism to anarchy because I think we need an organized government to, basically, prevent the tragedy of the commons.

    People can be very just within small groups of people where everyone knows each other, as we evolved and lived before society. But society comes with many benefits over living in clans in the woods, and we're pretty far down that road now to go back now. If we are going to live in societies where most of its members don't know each other, we need a state with a monopoly on power to prevent people from, in short, creating hierarchies that benefit a few at the expense of a bunch of people those few don't know or care about, which is what people will do if you let them.

    The problem isn't the state, or government, the problem is capitalism. Capitalism leads to governments that work to protect profits, not people. We need a state because there's just no way 300 million people will be able to work efficiently together without constant disagreements on how things should be done (and with the rest of the world).

  11. You don't get how get how getting rich works. You work smart not hard. You just have to do both most of the time.

  12. I will not let you crash my custom 1/1 lamborghini forsennato. It cost me 13.2 million dollars and my entire childhood and I like it.

  13. "Why are people poor in the first place?" Wrong question. The right question is why is anybody rich? Poverty doesn't need an explanation wealth dose. And capitalism is The greatest wealth creator the world has ever seen.

    The overwhelming majority of human history sucks ass. People lived short lives of squalor not knowing if there nabor was going to kill them over a perceived grievance. No I don't want to go back to that, and having lived closer to that then you have I can tell you don't eather.

  14. So if ancaps believe anarcho-capitalism does not mean no hierarchy just no government, then who gets to be at the top of the hierarchy? I bet they believe they themselves would be..

  15. I think the whole "personal property" "private property" thing is a huge distraction, because it's so confusing. The way that they're both called property makes it sound like they're not very different, but the whole point is that they're fundamentally different, in that private property is part of the apparatus for the extraction of surplus value. I don't think personal vs private does a very good job of encapsulating that distinction

  16. Don't got the time or energy to see all your video and reply to everything. I mean if it were good I would reserve the time but…

    You don't really get into the alternative. What does group ownership entail? It's not theft because everyone owns everything jointly. So let's say you grow some fruits and vegetables in a garden space solely maintained by you, you slaughter a pig you've raised for years and have mildly grown attached to. You make a feast for you and your large family. A bunch of other people have been playing around all year and come in and start eating this food "your" food. But it's their food too. So many freeloaders come in to eat and make such a mess of things in the process and do other unpleasant things like dipping dirty hands into the mash potatoes to eat directly out of the bowl and such that your meal is pretty much completely ruined. Or if you're going to equivocate about "means of production" saying it only applies to those yet not well define that… That garden space you've been tending, it's a means of production, right? There was a strip next to a bank in my town that grew food plants that anyone was allowed to harvest from. But most things never had any time to mature because people would pick way prematurely. Tomatoes for example were lucky to get past the size of dark green marbles. Or what if in this joint ownership, they dug up the stuff you were growing in the ground you tiled, weeded, fertilized, to plant what they wanted to grow?

    Don't get me wrong, I am completely against laissez faire capitalism. But regulated capitalism including limits on size of corporation and joint ownership of important things like water can be good. Models where those who work at a business can own a part of it are voluntary approaches to capitalism that can work good too.

  17. Capitalism doesn't care about your feelings, it works better than what you've come up with which is why it is a thing and Anarchy is not a thing.
    Even if it destroys the world and we eventually somehow manage to recover, capitalism will still be a better, more productive and more beneficial system.

  18. I'm using Windows 10 and the Microsoft Edge that came with it for the first time. Now I know why they're horrible. For example, on YouTube why does it take so long between clicking pause and the video actually responding to the command to pause? Why are certain programs like online games so choppy? Time to switch back to Google Chrome and Windows 8.

  19. The only objection I have is the slight implications that all who earn wages have enough to eat/everyone who eats has to earn wages. Can't forget rich perverts. But beyond that I think you did a good job of making an introduction to socialist objection to capital.

  20. I always perceived the tragedy of the commons as a warning against greed and to keep open communication with your community. "If I take too much now, we all suffer later" type thing… I have used the tragedy of the commons as an argument for sharing resources "we can do more if we work together than alone hoarding resources".

  21. Capitalism generates welfare.
    If someone goes to your house, takes the table you bought on internet and mounts it, its still yours.
    All the atrocities you cited were done by GOVERNMENTS, still, your solution is to give more power to the governments just so they can overcome the riches and become the new rich class who doesn't even produces ?

  22. YouTube skeptics that champion capitalism are under the illusion that they themselves will benefit from some earned upward mobility that allow them to join the corporate oligarchies oppressing us all. Some even go so far as to fear monger and scapegoat with buzzwords like “cultural Marxism” when any legitimate dialogue about equitable distributions of wealth and resources come along.

  23. I bought a house. I fixed it up. People asked me if they could live
    there and pay me rent. I drew up a lease which we both agreed upon. I
    get a rent check each month and they get to stay in the house. I fix
    anything that breaks. Is this actually socialism in action or is this
    capitalism? If it is capitalism who is being exploited here?

  24. I am very confused about how a factory that would be built by the money of a person or persons can be claimed to be owned by everyone else.

  25. Monopoly? Lobbying? Genocide? Gee shucks, that doesn't sound like the capitalism I know. Y'know, when Framer Brown has widgets, and Framer Pete has apples, and…hold on, I think my entire understanding of economics is based on a fifth grade social studies class and/or PragerU, and has only a local correlation to the real world.

  26. My mental health has suffered greatly from the repeated arse raping of capitalism. After years of working the shittiest jobs, I have been declared "unfit for work" by my doctor and have developed a severe phobia of leaving the house. I'm so lucky that my boyfriend "chooses" to get his soul ripped out of him everyday for a pathetic wage purely so we don't starve. The fact that I don't work riddles me with guilt. I've tried several times to set up an Etsy store where I can sell my handmaid items. But thanks to CaPiTaLiSm, everyone wants to pay me Walmart prices for my work. Even creating my own job means turning myself into a sweat shop because no one is actually willing to pay me the minimum that my work is worth.

    I don't know how much longer by boyfriend's sanity can hold out under this system. Because when he snaps, we will starve.

  27. Reducing wages is not the only way to reduce production costs. Part of my job is eliminating inefficiency which drives down our cost of production without requiring a reduction in compensation.

    You don't seem to understand the tragedy of the commons. You won't take all the apples because you don't want all the apples. But you are behaving rationally.

    You are not the only agent that has access to those apples. Other agents in that system disagree with your assessment and rather than letting the apple trees grow they take them all out of fear that you or some other agent within the system will take them.

  28. I'm assuming you've made a video outlining your preferred solution in detail. Is there anyone who could share that title/link with me? It's easy to criticize something, but I'm curious to see what you think would be a better system.

  29. 8:20 You might not be able to sell the apples, but you might be able to sell the apple pie you made from them… or you could give them away in a quid-pro-quo kind of way for stuff other people have made.

  30. Anarchism is just unregulated capitalism applied to the entire society instead of the economy. Government has to be done in moderation. There are already way too many radical libertarians in america.

Leave a Reply

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