The author begins the video by saying he won’t address my claim that people can make money off of incoherence because he does not understand, however I meant to say inheritance so my fault on that one. After this, our author uses the example of a petite bourgeois capitalist as a refutation to the notion that “all capitalists exploit labor” however a petite bourgeois capitalist is not the same as the capitalist I was referring to in my original statement. He further uses the example of a street performer however street performers are often times workers themselves. And if they’re not, a capitalist is by definition someone who owns means of production and makes a profit by getting more money than they pay their workers (we call this surplus value). He tries to address this counterclaim by saying workers aren’t exploited if they feel they’re paid fair, but this ignores the definition of exploitation. Exploitation is when workers are paid less than the value they create. For example, a toothbrush maker creates $80 worth of toothbrushes per hour, but is only paid $10 an hour. By definition all capitalists must do this.
The next claim made by our author is that it doesn’t matter if there is extreme wealth inequality, even if it means capitalists will orient society for their own interests because ultimately their interests are to keep people happy. However this ignores monopoly, and historical examples of monopoly. If capitalists exponentially grew their wealth in an ancap society, as you agreed is very possible, what would stop them from simply forming a state to protect their interests? The state exists as a tool of class domination, and eventually if there is not one in a society that allows private ownership of the means of production, one will form. This is why the wealth inequality you say is a good thing, actually can lead to the destruction of your own utopian society. By saying wealth inequality isn’t a problem because you can just “work harder” you are not only ignoring all the evidence that shows that in order to become successful in life, you have to win the birth lottery and be born into a rich and privileged family, but you are also ignoring the serious negative effects of income inequality which include higher rates of unemployment, incarceration, malnutrition, and much more. Next, your assertion that rich people allow for the future consompution of goods by non rich people ignores that this process is only justified by the capitalist mode of production and only happens under it, if we implemented socialism there would be no need for a super rich class to buy products first. You also say that capitalists exponentially growing their wealth is an outlandish claim, yet it’s exactly what we’ve observed to happen. Furthermore, when you state capitalism has lifted so many people out of poverty, you are ignoring what counts as the poverty line for these arguments is 3-5 times lower than what is needed to live in the average country and the only people who have seen significant improvements have been the capitalists and rural workers in China and India who can get jobs for capitalists at the expense of basic human rights and working conditions, meanwhile the poorest of the world have remained poor.
Your next claim doesn’t make much sense because you’re ignoring the implications of HoodieDemon saying that capitalism is not driven by self interest. If you’ll recall at the beginning of the original video he stated that capitalism is great because it utilizes self interest, but later down the line when the person he was responding to pointed out how a society driven by self interest is flawed, HoodieDemon retracted his statement and said that capitalism is not driven by self interest. And I’ve already explain previously in this response how capitalism’s inherent wealth inequality does cause major problems so I won’t explain that further in this paragraph, but you have to understand that self interest although it can benefit other people, if removed could benefit a lot more people. This is outlined much better than I could ever put it in Chapter 2 of this book.
The next claim given by our author in his video I find truly horrendous. The author tries to make the argument that we cannot apply our morals to other countries, and the only reason that people like Chinese children choose to work in sweatshop factories is because it’s the best option for them and there’s no way around this. However this is giving a key insight into the heart of capitalism’s problems. It relies on certain people working in shit conditions, this is why I advocate the abolition of capitalism. Specifically for China, let’s look at some of the wonderful benefits of capitalism they have seen shall we? Due to the market reforms in China, irregular employment now occupies the majority of the job sector. And while it is true that private sector jobs have grown, they are payed less than employees in Mexico. And even according to China’s own statistics about 200 million workers labor under “hazardous” conditions, and Every year there are more than 700,000 serious work-related injuries nation-wide, claiming 130,000 lives among many other problems that did not exist during China’s socialist days. It’s no wonder Maoist movements in china are very popular. Lastly, my solution to these problems is not “redistribute the wealth” like a liberal would say, my solution is to abolish the capitalist mode of production and replace it with a publically owned planned economy. See here for how this would work.
The last argument given by the author is very disappointing. I was actually expecting a decent discussion about this topic, but the author decided to just dismiss most of my claim, misinterpret some of it, and call me economically illiterate. My claim was that it is in the capitalists’ interest to have a state and they therefore would not allow it to be abolished. I think you as an ancap would agree with me that the rich elite get their interests served at the expense of us all when there’s a state, so my point is why would capitalists allow this state to go away since they’re the ones benefiting from it? I don’t mean all capitalists of course, I mean the select few who own the majority of large corporations, they would not allow the dissolution of the state because that would be against their interests. At no point to I assert every single person is a capitalist, I’m not sure where the author got that impression. A capitalist is someone who owns means of production and exploits workers, not anyone who engages in a transaction. Next, while it’s true people would still exchange without a state, exchange /= capitalism as it predates capitalism by thousands of years. But even if it didn’t; this doesn’t address the fact that the ruling elite (top 1% whatever you want to call them) benefit from the state’s existence. You probably call this coprotaism, but we see this as just a consequence of capitalism, and if you were to abolish the state even by force, the rapid way in which capitalists accumulate wealth and can spread propaganda via marketing would quickly lead to capitalists forming another state and convincing the people that it is necessary, as they do to this day.
This will end my response. In conclusion I feel the author misunderstood most of my arguments, and dismissed the ones he couldn’t address as “not a problem” without doing any research on how they could be problems. Thanks for reading.