hey I know you do that jaywalking punk
anarchist do that gene walking poking
our keys hello this is the radical
reviewer taking a look at capitalism and
the non-aggression principle the
non-aggression principle or nap is
defined as an ethical stance asserting
that aggression is inherently wrong in
this context aggression is defined as
initiating or threatening any forcible
interference with an individual or
individuals property capitalism is
defined as an economic system based on
the private ownership of the means of
production in their operation for profit
characteristics central to capitalism
include private property capital
accumulation wage labor voluntary
exchange a price system and competitive
markets okay so let's see if capitalism
violates this non-aggression principle
well capitalism is characterized as
private ownership of property and
property is theft and theft is
aggression case closed [Chung Chung]
ok ok let's look at it a little closer
private ownership of land is theft let's
take a square of land let's say 50 acres
ok that looks pretty good let's say I
want to own this part by the river and
build a factory that uses the water or
maybe I want to privately own this piece
of land and cut down the trees to sell
for lumber now some problems emerge 1
what happens to the land has
far-reaching implications
perhaps my Riverside factory limits
access to water or pollutes the water
perhaps the deforestation leads to
increased landslides and flooding etc
etc these impacts are certainly
aggressive 2 you can only do so much
with a piece of land choosing to do one
thing means you can't do another you
can't have a factory a landfill a quarry
a school a parking lot and a public park
occupying the same plot of land this too
affects other people
again perhaps aggressively affecting
them 3 by privately owning land which
produces profit I can pass that profit
down through the generations so that
each generation increasingly unfairly
benefits from my initial theft of the
land
as the Morgans and Rockefellers in
DuPont's and other family dynasties
certainly demonstrate 4 there's only
so much land and even less of that land
is prime real estate with access to a
river or a forest or a precious metals
for example so why is it that I get the
land and not someone else in fact let's
look at all the land that is currently
in private hands hmm okay so who owned
that land before the current owner okay
what about before then and before them
and before them if you look any land
that claims to be owned by private hands
was at one point unowned and that's the
trick unowned is just a fallacious term
for owned by everyone or owned in common
so any private ownership of land is in
fact stolen land stolen from everyone
else
hence Proudhon's famous anarchist
phrase property is theft let's take this
one step further private ownership of
the means of production is theft okay so
you might grant the property is theft
but what about man-made things like a
factory certainly that can be privately
owned well let's see what Peter
Kropotkin has to say about it there is
not even a thought or an invention which
is not common property born of the past
in the present every new invention is a
synthesis the result of innumerable
inventions which have preceded it in the
vast field of mechanics and industry
hence crop Kropotkin's famous anarchist
phrase all is made by all okay well if
private ownership of land or the means
of production is theft that who protects
or enforces this theft why wouldn't the
victims of this theft resist well
because of the state the state is
required to enforce the theft that is
taking the collectively owned land and
collectively produced means of
production and artificially converting
it into private property "hey wait a
minute,"
I hear you ask, "if capitalism requires
a state then that would mean
anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron"
[judgmental stare]
let's look at an caps for a second
so so-called anarcho-capitalists often
ask, "hey in your anarcho-communist society
couldn't I make a small area that has
capitalism or would you force me to not
be a capitalist?" this loaded question
implies that anarcho-communism is
contradictory because either Ⓐ you let
people become capitalists and so you
fail at communism or B you forcefully
stop them from becoming capitalists and
so you fail at anarchism but this
question is flawed on two grounds 1 as
I already demonstrated it is capitalism
that is enacting force with the theft
and violence of stealing what is
collectively owned and produced in order
to privately profit from it and 2 no
one would work for you when I go to work
at my minimum wage job I do so under
wage slavery but not under chattel
slavery if the store I worked for
offered chattel slavery or sweatshop
conditions as the conditions of work
they'd get laughed out of town not
because I think I'm better than the
people who suffered under those working
conditions but because there has been
decades of working-class people fighting
against capitalism and they have secured
better working conditions in this same
way no one living in an anarchic
communist Society would need to force
you not to start a capitalist workplace
because just like how I refuse to work
under chattel slavery no one would work
for you no one would leave their
equitable Democratic inclusive
collaborative lives in order to work in
an alienating antisocial class warfare
propagating capitalist workplace for the
wonderful benefit of letting you steal
their labor in summation capitalism is
characterized by private ownership of
property and property is theft and theft
is aggressive
capitalism violates the non-aggression
principle so yeah and caps libertarians
classical liberals etc stop supporting
the aggressive theft of our collective
labor and our common property and join
us to fight to protect it while we're on
this subject let's look at a few other
things capitalism totally fails at
[Epic Boom]
capitalism doesn't reward hard work it's
a common myth that if you work hard your
hard work will be rewarded but market
economies often reward things that have
nothing to do with hard work simply
owning productive land or a productive
factory does not require hard work
owning shares and a successful
corporation does not require hard work
inheriting a successful copyright does
not require hard work etc etc but even
more than this in the most basic sense
hard work is not rewarded let's look at
an example you just got out of high
school you are going straight to the
coal mine okay right into the coal mine
and you're gonna earn let's say I don't
know sixty thousand euros okay in the
coal mine you're going to college and
then you go into medical school and then
you're going to be an intern and then
you're going to be a surgeon and
Thatcher tells us that to follow that
disastrously debilitating in an hurtful
path right we have to pay you six
hundred thousand euros right so to get
you to go to college instead of the coal
mine and medical school instead of the
coal mine and to be an intern instead
of the coal mine we have to then give
you six hundred thousand euros a year
for the rest of your life as a surgeon
that's what they are telling us right so
with all students I just always do a
little test I'm gonna start lowering
your salary okay
you tell me when you're gonna forego
college and everything else and go into
the coal mine because I'm paying you too
little six that six hundred five hundred
four hundred three hundred two hundred
one hundred eighty sixty fifty you're
not sure you're quicker than that you're
a little quicker than the u.s. the u.s.
invariably and it's incredible because
two minutes before everybody in the room
is absolutely certain that I'm crazy and
then two minutes after the person is
asking
how low can I live on thus revealing the
accurate truth that they don't want to
be in that coal mine quite smartly you
may have heard the common saying "if
wealth was an inevitable result of hard
work every woman in Africa would be a
millionaire" phrases like this points of
the ridiculousness of the notion that
capitalism is a meritocracy
[Epic Boom Again]
Capitalism doesn't promote well-being capitalism
promotes a race to the bottom any
benefit you can get as a worker is a
cost to business I've said this before
and I'll say it again your boss wants
you to work as hard as possible for as
little pay as possible and you want the
exact opposite mandating employees get
benefits that cost the business money
and makes them unable to compete with
companies who don't give their employees
benefits your state votes to provide
adequate unemployment insurance that
would cause workers to be less fearful
of being fired and less susceptible to
company demands which makes the company
less competitive you became a nurse
because you enjoy helping people the
goal of a privately owned hospital is to
make as much money as possible and that
means cutting the number of staff to the
bare minimum
good luck enjoying helping people as one
of only three nurses on your floor I
could keep going but I think you get the
point basically if it's good for
business it's bad for people and this
affects all aspects of the economy and
what kinds of social services are
available to the most basic worker
manager and owner interactions all
companies are in this race to the bottom
"so why don't you get a different job?"
because all jobs are in this race to the
bottom the difference between jobs is
negligible especially in our current
economy "so why don't you start your own
business?" well for one you would still
face this antisocial competitive race to
the bottom when it comes to the
treatment of your employees but also
[Yet Another Epic Boom]
you can't start a business this concept
that if you don't like your job you can
find a new one and if there's no good
jobs you can start your own business
this is total BS and anyone who spent
any significant time in the workforce
knows this one starting a business is
prohibitively expensive and don't go on
saying that, "But it's all the taxes that
make it expensive it's the state's fault
not capitalism" yes certainly taxes
permits etc are strenuous and costly but
as anyone can tell you whether it's
maintaining a storefront or a very
low-cost online service of some kind
businesses have tremendous startup costs
far beyond simply taxes and permits and
this brings us to 2 in our current state
of global monopoly capitalism your
little startup company's ability to compete
with giant multinational corporations is
very slim as seen by a friend of mine
who lost their coffee shop to a brand
new Starbucks or another friend of mine
who lost their convenience store to a
neighboring target and any other small
business that has been out competed by a
giant corporation
[Getting Carried Away With the Epic Boom]
What voluntary exchanges? aka you can't eat debt this
probably sounds familiar if you've seen
compatriot slimes wonderful video on the
subject but let's look at this idea
again here anyway
we come to the market with very
different needs this concept that it's
just a voluntary fair and equal exchange
is ridiculous yeah you come into the
market looking for work and and Walmart
comes to the market looking for workers
no one is forcing anyone it's a totally
voluntary fair exchange
well except you're coming in the market
as a flesh and blood living thing that
needs food clothes and shelter every day
and Walmart is a business that does need
employees but they don't need any
specific employees and they've secured
enough wealth to go months with
inadequate levels of employees so as so
many people unemployed competing with
you for a job and with the lack of a
social safety net as mentioned in the
"capitalism doesn't promote well-being"
section and the restrictions on starting
your own business covered in the "you
can't start a business" section your
immediate demand for food clothes and
shelter and Walmart's demand that
some point in the coming months or even
years a few new employees can join their
ranks to work as hard as possible for
his little pay as possible
well this exchange starts looking a
whole hell of a lot less voluntary this
is fun let's keep this going
[Boom I Did it Again]
capitalism doesn't promote innovation
this one's easy
capitalism is all about cutting costs
and the bottom line they're not going to
waste money on attempting the very
costly adventure of inventing something
new which is why they predominantly
don't typically its research and
development grants contracts for
military scientists grants for college
scientists etc etc sometimes it's some
guy in a garage with a small loan
creating something new and selling it to
a large company capitalism won't pay for
it which is why new inventions come from
taxpayer money at public expense
[...you guess it, Epic Boom]
capitalism doesn't price things properly
we saw this in regards to labor with the
doctor and coal miner example but
actually capitalism missed prices all
products because it doesn't account for
the true costs of things if a product
was made unethically something like 60%
of the chocolate on the market is a
product of slavery or whether it has a
major environmental impact like fracking
making water unsafe to drink these
things are kept out of the price of the
product as externalities and there are
plenty of other price affecting
implications that occur such as if an
item is restricted by a monopoly
ownership or artificially inflated
because it's an essential medical need
or inflated due to a ridiculous
copyright law etc exedra
[pst...Epic Boom]
capitalism doesn't make what we want or
need this one is too easy what do we
want affordable medicine housing food
etc do we get that no what do we get
over 200 types of toothbrushes gold
topped pizza and other nonsense products
that we don't want or need and often
when we do get products that we want
they're ruined by cash grab corporate
desires for mass appeal and profits and
don't even get me started on
advertisements okay so I think that
about covers it
most of my critique here can be found in
David Harvey's 17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism and
Michael Albert's Parecon: Life After
Capitalism as well as
Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread my critiques
also come from my personal experience at
various jobs over the last 15 plus years
working customer service and maintenance
and freight and sales etc etc at various
fast food vendors homeless shelters
thrift stores grocery stores and various
small businesses working-class folks who
support anarcho-capitalism or
neoliberalism or some other hyper
capitalism people who support a
capitalist economy though they totally
lack or have any chance of actually
owning any capital they seem like some
bizarre exaggeration of the old
Steinbeck quote "the poor see themselves
not as an exploded exploded yes you
don't know why that's funny I don't know
why you're laughing
the poor see themselves not as an
exploited [baby noise]
The poor see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat
but as temporarily embarrassed
millionaires."
Pst...Dapperton, My2Cents, Esoteric Entity
and all you other
cartoon avatar an-caps you do realize
that to be a capitalist would require
owning some capital right? the
capitalists out there who actually own
the means of production the factories
the resources the corporations the multi
millionaire and billionaire
entrepreneurs they find your obsequious
adherence to capitalism amusing but they
definitely don't see you as like-minded
peers in fact they've used their
security guards and company goons
against you the minute you ask for a
fair shake so instead I ask please
abandon your delusions about capitalism
and join us though I suspect you would
rather join fascism [recommended viewing]
Anyway, If you're interested in radical theory looking for
a book recommendation or whatever you
get your radical reviews here with the
radical review thanks for watching
turn their homes into collective housing,
and their fears into reality
yeah they won't share what they've got
so you take what you need
yeah, they wont share what they got.
so you take what you need
[Mischievous Thunder-Clap]
