Today's video is sponsored by Atlas VPN! If you want to take advantage of the ongoing deal, use the affiliate link below! atlasv.pn/AdamSomething Thanks for checking them out, ads like this help support my channel!
The problem with running away from your problems is that: A. There's a finite amount of "elsewheres" on the planet that you can run away to. B. If your problems revolve around an economic system built on the idea of infinite expansion, you can bet your ass that it will do its damndest to expand to all those "elsewheres" as well.
@Omar Khurshid This is a concern for those who believe that running away is a solution in the first place. As it isn't a solution, you're kind of working with a red herring here. Retreat and evacuation can only ever be a temporary solution.
A.) a finite amount of places to run would imply that LITERALLY every other available place is abhorrent to you. ALSO, even though it is finite, it's still more than any of us would be able to use... the vast majority of just the earth is untouched B.) infinite expansion would require infinite time. We have time to go to infinite amount of places given time. we won't be on earth (hopefully) for allof human existence. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when peolple NEED to go to outerspace we WILL invent some way to do it. It's the reason why all doomsday thoughts in the past has failed, bc when it became a problem (given the freedom to innovate) humans innovated out of the issue completely
"Read economics 101" Economics 101: "People are perfectly informed perfectly rational actors and everything is explained by 2 lines on a graph" Literally any advanced business or economic book: "People are absolutely fucking stupid and here is how we make money off it"
Yeah, hope France is going to change that soon. Depending on the university you go to in Europe, you can still get a real education instead of indoctrination though
Econ 102 shows that market failure occurs all the time and that regulation is needed because homo economicus (a perfectly rational being) does not exist
Whenever people say that, "Communism will never work because it relies on people being selfless," I'm like, "That's fair, but capitalism claims to be based on people being rational."
supply and demand does not govern prices these days, as the subjective theory of value does that. The subject value theory argues that most goods are hetrogenous. A toyota car is different to a ferrari.
It's not so much that they think they'll eventually be coconut man, they cling to the hope that they MIGHT one day be coconut man, and IF that day comes then all the unnecessary hardship and suffering they went through to get there will be worth it. If not, then at least they had the _chance_ of one day becoming coconut man.
This is the same reason they'll oppose things like estate taxes. Even if it only affects people people worth, say, more than $10 million, they have this belief that hey, when I'm worth over $10 million this will affect me!
Literally not a single person who suggests that people who can't find work should "just move" has ever had to move to find work. Moving costs money, something most unemployed people can't afford to do. It isn't a solution, it's just something that people who have enough say to people who don't have enough to blame them for their situation.
What a weak argument. "Ugh you never had to move to find work". Most people move to metropolitan centers every day for work (even under the guise of "oh I love the culture in generic city B"). What do you think happened in the rust belt? Moving costs, are not that high, especially considering you might have a better standard of living in a different city, and also the fact that most people can borrow the money at an affordable rate. Every dying village in Europe is that way because no one wants to stay there, there's nothing to do, and no one to provide jobs. Mining towns (in the past), centers of trade, tourist destinations, port cities, capitals etc. were always drawing people to them for jobs.
@@vod96 Do you think that there are enough jobs available for everyone who is looking for work? That the solution really is as simple as just moving to where the work is and everything is fine? What is your point exactly?
@@itcouldbelupus2842 my point is that, moving to a different city is infact a viable option for anyone on the income spectrum. And it is a valid argument, unless you are over 55 - by which point, i would partially concede its difficult to move. There are in fact jobs for every one, if you look at the raw numbers - mostly stable economies have a 3%-4% job vacancy rate (this is based on european stats, with the richest countries, NL, Belgium, Germany, having the highest job vacancy rates in the EU) and i assume most of those vacancies are located where most of the people are, in the cities. Most cities have your basic service/retail/office jobs and also professional services and more esoteric goods (think specialty coffee, model train shops, maker spaces, clubbing, specialty food) and you just get way more opportunities in the city.
@@vod96 never said it's not a viable option for some people, only that it isn't a solution to everyone depending on their circumstances. Free market capitalism requires poverty to function, it requires scarcity of jobs and a large pool if desperate unemployed people. That's why it's a flawed system, it only works for those who have never experienced poverty. It's bad system for everyone who has. Because it wouldn't matter if everyone in the world moved somewhere else, there will always be more unemployed people looking for work than there are available jobs. Someone always needs to be on the bottom under capitalism.
I had a cousin who constantly came up with schemes to get rich without working. All of them were just "What if I got somebody to do work for me and then didn't pay them fairly".
Meanwhile, the guy with all the coconuts tells you, "If you just get up early enough in the morning you could be the one with the coconuts demanding the sucking. Not from me of course, from the next guy we manage to lure to the island."
That is basically how interest works if there wasn't inflation. You borrow money and you have to return more than you borrowed. Either you work harder or smarter but at some point there is a limit to how much work you can do. You'll need more customers to buy your products and more workers to make products for you. If your economy ran out of population growth then the maximum sustainable interest rate could be 0 or even negative.
Schools don't even mention Anarcho capitalism (and other socio-economic theories for that matter). I had to go out of my way junior year to learn about this. Internet > Public School
Another analogy is that not only has the coconut man taken all the coconuts, but he's also chopped down all the trees, somehow poisoned the ground so that no more will ever grow, and then built a boat to try to leave you on the island to starve.
the stick man hits the coconut man the coconut man falls off the pile of coconuts the stickman declares himself the coconut man and tells the other to suck his dick every fucking time
@@MrWhangdoodles Agree. But it is also obvious that the Coconut Man needs a government to protect him, and why not buy the politicians too, for other purposes?
That’s really interesting, because I feel like a lot of conservatives (especially if they’re homophobic lol) would naturally want to or at least clearly understand using violence to get out of this situation. Not realizing that they have assumed the position of the violent working class rioter.
The other issue with free market capitalism is externalities. Dumping toxic waste in water, releasing smog into the atmosphere, etc, are only prevented when legislation is passed that internalizes those externalities and forces companies to deal with them. Climate change is happening because we don't have strong enough laws to force companies to prevent emissions.
Step 1: Find large rock Step 2: Wait until dark Step 3: Bash in coconut man’s skull while he sleeps Step 4: Eat fill of manflesh and coconuts Step 5: Drag remains of coconut man into shallows, Step 6: Weight down corpse with rocks Step 7: Catch and eat fish that come to scavenge coconut man’s waterlogged corpse. Step 8: Mock N.A.P.
@@RavensRift Hang on to what you cherish in life, but maybe you can find a compromise that serves both? A small place someplace else for the weekends/holidays maybe? (Assuming that's even remotely financially in the books.)
"Young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25 who are hyperonline and don't leave the house that often and have very few to no real-life friends." That hit..
It wasn't even ironic, it was simply pathetically childish and childishly pathetic. That was not even a framed argument. Classic left, nag it until you gag it, the channel is not even a scam, not even a joke, it's plain cringe.
He deserves to be mocked for all eternity for using one of the worst analogies ever. This analogy doesn't even refute capitalism whatsoever and is much more a refutation of authoritarian socialism where the state monopolizes all production.
Whenever you have someone saying they believe in Anarcho-Capitalism, ask them if they always return the shopping trolley to the corral, regardless of the weather or distance.
@@nasfoda_gamerbrbigproducti5375 More than anything else, returning the trolley is an indicator of whether or not a society is capable of self-governance. If they don't, then they're not.
nobody will answer questions like this honestly. ask anyone if they indicate every time even if they can't see someone and they'll tell you, "yes of course safety first," look around the street though and nobody is using their god damn signals god damn it
@@moosesandmeese969 You're not allowed to do a lot of things, but that doesn't stop people. When people are desperate, they do all kinds of interesting things.
@@Tuppoo94 In the world we live in we aren't capable of robbing the rich like that* (without what basically amounts to a revolution, or already having a lot of funds for a large scale criminal operation). The meaniingful difference being that there is a whole law enforcement system that will fuck you up if you try (and sometimes if you don't but that's another problem).
@@Laezar1 You're right, but there are plenty of examples from around the world of law enforcement systems turning against their masters. Perhaps most famously in Russia in 1917, when the defeated, exhausted, and disillusioned army joined the the communists in the revolution against the tsar.
Schrodingers anarcho capitalist: Wants rules and rights by the government to protect his property but also dislikes regulations that enforces these rights
Nope, anarcho-capitalists (I am not one, btw) don't want a government at all. Any government, including one that enforces property rights. I'd advise reading up about the philosophy you're critiquing.
@@ian_b Yeah, ancaps believe that property rights could simply be enforced by private -mercenaries- police officers, who will definetly allow competition to exist and also respect people's property rights instead of just working for the highes bidder. What could possibly go wrong?
I last heard the "if you don't like your job, just leave" argument from an acquaintance who hadn't worked in years. She and her kids live on her husband's income. Right now, she's in her 40s and doesn't have any particularly marketable skills, though she went to good enough schools that she could have acquired some. If, heaven forbid, something were to happen to her husband, she certainly wouldn't find the job market a friendly place. But that would probably only lead her to "I have to work a crappy retail job to support my kids, so why shouldn't anyone else have it easy?" In my view, that's how a lot of Americans justify our system. They have this idea that life is SUPPOSED to be a tough struggle, because "something something rugged American frontiersman something something builds character", and that it would be even tougher if we didn't have these wise, admirable "job creators" providing salaries. Such people (as with my acquaintance) also seem terrified that any attempt to make the system more equitable will just lead straight to Soviet-style communism, therefore our only choices in life are a) be happy with our lot or b) pull our individual selves up to better stations. Often, they subscribe to the view that there's too much regulation, but they don't see all in the ways in which the level of deregulation they profess to want would actually be detrimental to themselves or other people in their lives.
@@GoldenRedder Life *contains* struggle, sure. Most everyone accepts that as an inescapable and probably necessary reality. To say that life *is* a struggle, well, that's debatable. I don't think there are too many people, including you, who consider it a good or desirable thing to be struggling *all the time* . And anyone who accepts or enables such a reality for *others* while avoiding it themselves is being a selfish prick. Of course, some degree of selfishness is only human, but there's some point at which it becomes hard to excuse.
p.s.: sorry if this coment is too long but long story short youve got a fucked up definition of communism which is antithetical to its true definition soviet style what? you mean the means of production (and most of everything else tbh) being controlled by the state, meaning that the political class IS the capitalist class? thats state capitalism, not communism (statelessness + classlessness + moneyless economy). because of the lack of workplace democracy it wasnt even socialist. the only reason ppl think thats communism is because of propaganda both from the ussr govt (presumably) trying to give their people the impression that everything is going fine (or as well as possible) and also propaganda from the capitalist-f(o)unded cia which was formed specifically to fight for the capitalist status quo, including (and theyve admitted to this in documents of theirs which are now declassified) overthrowing democratically chosen socialist regimes which benefitted south and central american countries like chile, turning them into fascist usa puppet dictatorship, as well as spreading anti-leftist propaganda by creating radio stations and radio stations etc. not even ideologically was the ussr socialist, unless maybe at the beginning during the reign of lenin (?). everything after and including stalin was just state capitalism which slowly became modern russia through policy reform afaik. same kinda bullshit applies to china and my country, romania, which was forced starting in 1947 to adopt the ussr regime through military power and shit like that. they even had advisers from the ussr to make sure we adopted their model properly. guess what kind of system we ended up with? statecap.
@@UseArchive Do you care which way the door on your kitchen swings? The US Government does. Hefty fine for violating it too. Want to put up a sign on your restraunt? Gotta have a permit for that. Lead? Stick a filter on it. Also the limit is 15µg/l in America. In the EU it is 50µg/l The limit is lower in America.
I think the Mexican drug cartels are probably similar to what we'd see under anarcho-capitalism. ...Anarcho-capitalism would very quickly become neo-feudalism anyway. The big corporations would hire mercenaries and start taking territory.
The city of Cheran in Mexico is basically an anarchist territory. They kicked out the cartels and live peacefully. They have no police. The drug cartels act as competitors to the “official” government in other territories but the The Mexican Feds have a hands off approach to indigenous controlled Cheran.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."- John Rogers
Atlas Shrugged turned me into a leftist lol. I got to the end and was just like, "Wait, that's it?" If you read into it with any degree of skepticism it just falls apart. Like, okay Ayn Rand, you want me to believe that a group of billionaires want to just leave society to do all of the work on their own without any workers and/or slaves? Okay, doubtful, but okay. And you think that would result in a post-scarcity utopia? Oh, and normal society falls apart because there's no smart rich people to tell the dumb poor people what to do? Come on dude. People say utopian communists are delusional but objectivists make them look grounded and barely even optimistic.
Okay but have you ever considered that the coconut man bases his entire advantage in this situation on the understanding that you won't just bash his skull in and take a coconut for yourself? He's been running around a sizeable area picking, gathering and carrying coconuts to get them all in this one pile, how much strength could he possibly have left?
It could easily go the other way, too. If Coconut Man knew that the other guy was still alive (but unconscious) and intended to hoard the coconuts anyway, his best bet is to simply kill his companion as soon as possible, removing a potential threat. However, if Coconut Man decided that he needed the other guy alive for whatever reason, his next best option is to hide most of the coconuts, so the other guy doesn't even realize that he's been screwed. At some point, the other guy will be malnourished enough that Coconut Man will then be able to dominate him.
@@ryanmcmahon7421 You thought about this way to hard and now I am somewhat scared of why you did that xD The problem with your thought experiment, in my opinion, is that you need to keep the other person malnourished or he will still off you, once he inevitably finds out he is being played with. But how much use is a malnourished and quite discontented guy to you, considering how much effort you need to put into thinking of all the ways he could take what you have and how to stop that?
I didn't think very hard, actually. I'm just applying a little basic game theory. I'm sure you've heard the term before, but if you're not familiar with what it means, it's worth reading up on. Reminder: the "two men on a coconut island" is a metaphor for how economic/political systems work, not a scenario we're here to take too literally. The Coconut Man who gives his neighbor just enough coconuts to keep him from starving, but too weak to overthow Coconut Man, well, that could be North Korea. The regime actually did use starvation as a tool of control. And, I hate to say it, but the "do sexual favors for me if you want to eat" thing isn't ENTIRELY a metaphor. Not in that country. The US has a far less brutal system, but we still have the reality in which Coconut Man says "one coconut for you, a hundred for me" and people grumble, but mostly acquiesce. I'm sure Jeff Bezos faces threats to his person and has bodyguards, but his wealth itself is so well-protected that no one can plausibly attack him and get their hands on it. Sure, Americans could vote to tax the uber-wealthy harder, but there'd have to be the political will for that, and the uber-wealthy do quite a lot, in terms of their influence on government and media, to prevent that will from focusing. A reality which, if you follow this channel and others like it, you'll find plenty of detailed examination of.
@@ryanmcmahon7421 I totally agree with everything you just wrote, which makes me realize, that I did not communicate my intentions very well. I am familiar with game theory, recognized the metaphor as such and simply wanted to play with it for a bit, hence my ("you thought about this to hard") attempt at humor. The "Coconut Man" metaphor is, as you correctly pointed out, vastly simplified to two actors, excluding those who profit second hand from inequality (your bodyguards as an example) and those indifferent enough to it ("grumble, but mostly acquiesce"), never mind a comlex web of economic and political systems. What I was trying to get across is that I see no benefit (or at least not enough to justify the effort) for Coconut Man in this metaphor, if it were to be taken literally and let to play out, though I have no idea to what extent that opinion is colored by my own bias.
“The only group of people who would not be affected by the negative consequences of moving that much would be young adults between the ages of 18-25 who are hyper online, don’t leave the house that much, with very few to no real friends. Let us now talk about anarcho capitalism and it’s proponents.” I SPIT OUT MY WATER, LEGENDARY BURN
People really do their best to not equate money with power. Lots of "free market" stuff would crumble pretty quickly if you just replace "money" with "power" or "influence". The Free Power Market, where everyone can fight for control over everything and anyone else! That sounds really sweet, doesn't it?
A thing I find funny about Rand is that in Atlas Shrugged there’s a plot point where the corporations suppress an infinite energy supply, and this is treated like a criticism of socialism.
@@tonyhakston536 you see, in socialism, free energy would take away the jobs of people in the energy sector, similarly to how automation is a bad thing... Wait shit fuck it's almost like socialism actually takes away that problem inherent to capitalism that turns what currently is an inevitable horror into a source for joy
Fucking what? I would try to get a hold of it and spread the word that I have a sorce of infinent energy for everyone to use! That is basic innovation right there!
However, coconut man just needs to give enough people some regular coconuts for protecting his ass that you and your friends can't cause him any harm. That happens in our current system. And it would happen under a free market capitalism. And it would happen under ancap. The only difference being if one of our "protecting coconuts ass"-people fucks up _too much_ they get removed. No such thing would happen in the other two systems.
I'm sure they aren't based in the U.S. or Europe, so they don't have to keep logs. Not having your information means the U.S. intelligence agencies can't make them their bitch. It's in their best interest to not even have your information to sell it in the first place.
Who's the sort of people using VPNs? Probably not the kind that it could be worth keeping logs of... Btw, when did we start calling them VPNs instead of proxies?
@@encrypt3d587 Some use company VPNs for sensitive stuff and working from home. The advertised VPNs just seem to me like the thing you could get for free 15 years ago by googling it. A proxy with a fancy acronym, so it must be better. :P
@@AyCe Yeah, that's basically it. You can still find free proxies online, but there's no real promise of security/privacy there, only anonymity. In all fairness, that also applies to most VPN services.
I think what's missing at 13:09 (why we don't see more worker co-ops) is that while a worker co-op could be better in many ways, the people in charge aren't willing to give up control. Sure, the co-op would very likely be better for everyone employed there, but the directors and c-suite are reaping the benefits right now; things _could_ get better for them, but they could also get worse. For example, they could be fired by their employees for being sociopathic jerks. Another factor is that when someone builds a successful company, they often attribute that success to their own brilliance. They don't recognize that a huge part of their success comes from the success of the people who worked there. This is well-studied human psychology. So from their point of view, if their shining brilliance as a benevolent dictator has brought them this far, why risk it by changing things up? However this isn't something we can really push off for much longer. Large corporations have been more powerful than democratically elected governments for a long time now, and it's extremely dangerous to have non-democratic entities with so much power over billions of people.
There is nothing to stop the formation of new workers' co-ops right now. Of course the owners of existing corporations would not want to forfeit their capital. If workers' co-ops were genuinely better for all stakeholders they would easily supplant other forms of economic organization.
@@laudermarauder "Nobody's stopping you from collecting your own cocunuts" said the man who had collected all the coconuts before you woke up. The issue here is that workers don't have any capital because the capitalists have already milked the working class dry. But we don't even need to take it this far. The fact of the matter is that a company can only grow because of the surplus value generated by the workers and so by default any assets bought with money in excess of the original investment in reality already belongs to the workers. Since no company on the planet can survive without growing, that means most companies are already made up largely out of assets bought from surplus value stolen from workers.
Worker co-ops are (usually) a step forward compared to existing neoliberalism. BUT: Between government intervention and corporate control, these businesses are forced to compete on the market - a bind which often causes capitalist methods to be either maintained or reasserted. For example, government backed co-op workplaces in Cuba - which exist in an economy which has been largely excluded from world trade - cannot run in the tourism sector except in a niche, partly because the foreign owned nature means they would not have access to the same goods to supply customers under embargo, and partly because the finances would put any such companies under loan conditions creating real subservience to both banks and customers. By contrast, the acknowledgement that businesses have not earned their money through the owner's work alone - and the uncompensated seizure of property earned by common work, as common property - has historically occurred in periods of radicalisation. The most famous of these were the Paris Commune 1871, Russia 1905 and 1917, Spain 1934, France 1968, Chile 1973, Iran 1978, Argentina 2001.... Anyway those are less like co-ops in political function than they are potential organising points for asserting democratic priorities, partly because of the transformative nature of the recognition and subsequent recapture of common property.
@@TheMrMacintosh Oh dear. "Surplus value stolen from workers". The labour theory of value is completely false. And people who are not Jeff Bezos start up companies all the time.
The problem is libertarians don’t actually believe in equal opportunity and voluntary transactions, they just want you to pretend like those already exist under capitalism!
@@Uwrath It's funny, when I was a kid I thought libertarianism was cool, but figured it needed to have social safety nets and other limitations on how far people could fall, otherwise it wouldn't work. That is, I saw those necessary assumptions about privileges and opportunities, figured that they'd need to be enforced as policy instead of assumed, and years later learned that my childhood thinking was closer to market socialism than anything else. It's funny how making the assumptions an explicit part of the politics changes it so radically.
Ah yes, Vaush, the person who thinks that Marx and Lenin would have voted Biden, that the US should have stayed in Afghanistan, and suggests that the age of consent should be lowered.
As I read some time ago: Unions and negotiation tables were the compromise we reached so worked didn't show up and beat the shit out of the owner. If they don't want unions I guess they want to go back to the old times.
Just make stocks get inherited by the workers and force all companies to use stocks then limit the amount of stocks one can hold at a time and wait for past scarcity society
Unions can be, however, just as big a racket as any corporation, monopoly or despotic state. They are hardly a solution. They can and have certainly been easily corrupted to disadvantage workers and consumer markets, sow instability, instigate civil unrest, and trigger economic crises, sometimes specifically for the purpose of doing so. There is a reason why organized crime and communists like to target, form, and subvert unions so aggressively. Unions also produce nothing, they just take through force.
And that's why education is power. A shift in mindset from force to respect is also good insurance. True anarchy will emerge organically as people continue becoming more self-sufficient, open hearted and community minded
"Everyone in a wealthy position has earned their place there" That is probably the biggest flaw in AnCap thinking. While some people maybe have gotten places in life through hard work and good morals, it is only a maybe. If the coconut man in the video was a good person he would have done whatever he could to make sure a fellow human being didn't starve.
That sentence can only be uttered by someone who skipped history class. 99.999% of wealthy and powerful people are born wealthy and powerful. The remaining 0.001% got wealthy and powerful by seizing wealth and power of others by force.
@@KohuGaly Lol pure delusional. There have been studies that have revealed that IQ plays a far greater role in wealth accumulation than inheritance. Just take a look at the low IQ idiots that win the lottery, do you think that wealth gets passed on for generations? No.
@@0witw047 No it’s not, as I stated there are studies that indicate that IQ has about a 3x higher correlation with wealth than inheritance. An extreme example of this phenomenon is how most people who’ve won the lottery never retain their wealth for more than a couple generations.
i wonder how anybody could think AnCap could bring them anything else than being constantly and increasingly assfucked by corporations. Unless they own one, and a very big one, at that.
@@shadowspade7589 You only have to be smart enough not to blow everything away, as long as you get that juicy inheritance. And are you implying that high IQ justifies the huge accumulation of wealth we see from said wealthy people?
Well maybe actually analyze something before you adapt a stupid comment made by a stupid character in a TV show and it won't. For instance how about you support the idea that protection agencies would become feudal lords, for a start by proving that they wouldn't go broke if they tried. Hint: Feudal lords were always broke.
@@benji_222 About 300 years ago, in response to the rise of merchant class and the increasing literacy of commoner, nobles crafted a new system to kept their status, this system is now called the modern parliament, the only standard for democracy freedom liberty. The goal is to expand scope of their game, turn more land into fertile grounds for what the nobles can exert their power. Thus the base for Western imperialisms. They wedge wars against all efforts of unification. All for the nobles to stay on top. The root of our problem is this, the dirty secret of West, a secret well kept because no one want to see it.
@@newperve Yes, many billionaire are broke, yet how many of them are thrown on to street? What lords where to lost their hold on resource because they are 'broke'? Who get to define what is broke?
Refreshing video, my dad has a PhD in banking and management specifically wrote it on cooperative banking and management. He has been talking about how every workplace should be exactly the way you describe it right now, I never really grasped what he was on about when I was a teen. Interesting to really learn more about this in my mid 20's. I'll have to sit down and have a beer with my dad to talk about this sometime soon. Thank Adam!
Why do people act like this idea is somehow revolutionary? Instead of a business with a small number of owners you have a business with a larger number of owners. It's not the panacea people might think. What happens if the majority vote for a colossally bad idea? Do you sell your stake in the coop and go join a different coop? What if there's no buyer for your stake? Now you're in the same boat as the employee with no labor mobility. Problem not solved.
@@nclxmefozd6264 Yeah, but I never understood why is Wolf giving coops as some kind of solution to capitalism. I mean, yeah, coops can be cool but coops can work in current capitalism as well.
@@Uwrath You know that slogan STILL makes capitalism better than ever statist or socialist regime ever right? Because freedom to choose your slave master is literally better than the lack of freedom to choose what democracy you're in. A "slave master" who knows that his slaves can leave at any time has less power than a "democracy" where you have to participate.
@@newperve ahm, how did YOU choose in what democracy you are in exactly? I won't even start on the "choice" you have compared to the one we did in the Eastern block. Your lack of understanding of Stalinist and socialist is just too big of a hurdle to handle in UA-cam comments.
Excellent video. I grew up in a family with parents working for government so I had zero understanding how companies operate. After graduation and a few years of working in private sector, one day I suddenly realized "Isn't this a small autocratic 'regime' I'm in?" That could be the first time my understanding of democracy was challenged. Since then, I always thought we human may have not evolved much intellectually from our tribal ancestors.
Both are bad. We live in a "Culture of Narcissism" and an "Addicted Society". Organizations being microcosms of society inherit the addiction to power and control over people. What follows is manipulation, gaslighting, and sustaining of dystopian conditions..
Many pre-colonial tribes all over the world were based on democratic councils, some were matricentric or at least included members of different genders. Pyramidal and/or patriarchal systems are not default organisation structures. Many of our ancestors were smarter than modern people.
Ya know. These old conservatives who keep telling the children they have to "just move" are going to have a very cruel and ironic fate when they realize they are going to die alone in a nursing home with their children living hundreds of miles away
@@canesugar911 i actually do agree that family unit is falling apart in alot of ways but its not because of porn or gay people or the women's right to choose. It's because of the prison industrial complex along with younger people being unable afford to support a family. As scummy as it might be i know way to many men who have left women with a child simply cause they knew staying was debt trap
The UK already has a large co-operative literally called the co-operative group. In fact it already has 4,000 grocery stores. Co-op funeral care is also the largest funeral director in the UK with over 1,000 funeral homes, there is co-op insurance services, co-op legal services, co-op property, co-op power and they also fund a non-profit multi-academy trust in England called the Co-operative Academies Trust. Co-operatives are a more than viable solution and have already been adopted and already have been proven to work.
We have billion dollar coops here in India too, one of which actually owns multiple estates in the UK as well. But coops eventually suffer the same problem as a corporate, instead of a person, the board gets the absolute power.
@@captainmcduckyYT yeah, cooperatives are way more democratic and give more freedoom and happiness to people, but the problem with capitalism is deeper, making coops popular or even prohibiting corporates is just a harm reduction
@@captainmcduckyYT That's the problem. It's very hard to just hand over complex executive decisions to "the people", especially with a large corp. They will naturally delegate that responsibility to some board or management group at which point: is it democratic anymore? Unless workers are diligent in researching company affairs, they can be easily swayed into voting whichever way the board decides.
@@Aaron-os8qi the thing is, your daily wage workers are in no way positioned to make decisions that a senior management level guy would make - the levels of responsibility differs for all. Eventually either the coop will collapse or it will have to hand over the power to a few people at the end of the day.
@@captainmcduckyYT To be fair, clearly Co-ops can work quite well in some cases. My point is that 1) leadership emerges naturally 2) most workers don't want the responsibilities and financial risks involved.
In case of amazon, people have a choice between "cheap convenient products from slaver's market" or "more expensive long-delay products from non-slaver market". And most people have made their choice
Because your individual action doesn't affect Amazon's monopoly, so a rational actor buys the product. A rational person also votes for a political party that would break up the monopoly in a *functional* democracy.
@@georgelane6350 the problem is that EVERYONE thinks that their action won’t affect their monopoly. if all of those people actually stopped using it, it probably would affect them.
@@popopop984 and I carved a spear all by myself and not only that I snuck up on him while he was sleeping and stabbed him with it all on my own. Hard work.
People with jobs are homeless, at least in California. Everyone I know under the age of 35 lives with their parents still, which is not too far from homeless. I want to move out of my country, but it turns out that immigration laws have become so strict that I cannot. Moving to another state may end up costing more because I have a mentally disabled child and support services vary by state. But it is hard to know for sure because the healthcare laws are so complicated. Navigating the healthcare services necessary was awful, and the prospect of doing it again is daunting. They assume you are a criminal trying to defraud the state and must jump through all the hoops to prove you are innocent and just in need. The hoops don't deter the dishonest, though. Placing the burden on the worker to just move is the most asinine argument. We must revolt to re-establish the balance. Or rights have been usurped; our institutions corrupted; our watchdogs placated. The checks and balances have been monopolized. We have two parties that represent everything, and therefore no one. We the people have lost.
Re: _"Navigating the healthcare services necessary was awful, and the prospect of doing it again is daunting. They assume you are a criminal trying to defraud the state and must jump through all the hoops to prove you are innocent and just in need."_ Yep. I'm a disabled adult with no children and same applies to us. Much talked about in disability spaces online. I'm American yet am aware of UK in the 2010-2014 timeframe, and on past to current, literally causing thousands of dead disabled people with that approach. Here, from a UK Parliament document: "Hansard Commons: 24 February 2020 Commons Chamber Social Security Benefits: Claimant Deaths Social Security Benefits: Claimant Deaths Volume 672: debated on Monday 24 February 2020 Feb 24 2020 Download text Back to top Previous debate Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-(Michael Tomlinson.) 10.59pm Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) Share this specific contribution Share a link to this specific contribution: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting an Adjournment debate on such an important issue. The first duty of any Government is to keep its citizens safe, particularly the most vulnerable among us. This evening, I want to discuss the deaths of vulnerable social security claimants since 2014. That those deaths have been linked to the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions is a matter of grave concern. It shows abject failure on the part of not only the Department, but the Government. Ministers set policy and the Department implements it, so both are culpable. However, this is not just about what policies are implemented but about how they are delivered, and that relates to the culture in the Department. [Interruption.]"
@@emiliogarza6446 well California is interesting in that regard because most everyone knows that our government is so corrupt that mostly every bill that's voted on is written by a lobbyist of one sort
I don't know if this still applies to you but looking into moving to a third world country could be worth it. I live in Brazil and while we have plenty of problems, any money you have from the US is worth much more here due to the exchange rate and lower cost of living. While it's very flawed, we have free healthcare for everyone, which could help your son. Unions are actually pretty strong here and the gig economy hasn't gone nearly as far. We're just as corrupt government and businesses wise, the job market is far from booming, but it's worth looking into
"Young people between the age of 18-25 who are hyper online, don't leave the house too often and have very few to no real friends. And so now let's talk about anarcho-capitalism..." This may be the smoothest transition I've ever seen in a youtube video.
Classical economics actually discusses this quite a bit, particularly David Ricardo. As I understand it market forces will always keep 'the labouring poor' just above starvation. (Except in the cases of 19thc India, China, Ireland . . .)
Housing prices have to slow their rise one way or another. We wouldn't need a 15$ minimum wage in the US if housing prices didn't continue to skyrocket. The median home price has doubled in about 7 years
@@noahdiluca9857 fair enough. if my hourly wage was 4 buck in whatever imaginary currency, and the price of a small house was 1 mil bucks, and the cost of food, then the wage would be considered outrageously small, but if my hourly wage was a buck and the price of a house was 10 bucks, then the wage would be considered extremely high
9:31 "Young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25, who are hyper-online, don't leave the house that often, and have very few to no real life friends. And so let us now talk about anarcho-capitalism" SAVAGE
Just an observation: for many decades the term "Laissez-faire" capitalism was commonly used, but then wealthy people and large corporations realized that the term, while accurate, had negative connotations (actually well deserved negative connotations) and so a new term was needed to put a positive spin on the situation. Thus the term "Free Market Capitalism" was born. It means the same thing as the traditional term Laissez-faire capitalism, but it sounds like it comes with a lot of freedom, so it feels like it's a wonderful idea. This clever PR trick has been quite successful: previously, if one said he was against Laissez-faire Capitalism, people would think, well that's understandable. But today if one expresses the same idea, you're accused of being against the FREE MARKET, and everyone dismisses your view as stupid and evil. So perhaps you should reconsider using the F-M term so much in your videos.
i mean conversely people will not make the connection between laissez-faire and FMC so then they won't hold what he's saying to the modern life they actually live in.
The trick is to remove the distinction between FMC and laissez faire capitalism, by treating them as the same. Changing the words he uses just protects FMC from the negative connotations it deserves.
Those few years that there was a famine in India and instead of making sure the Indians don't starve they instead tripled the price of grain and rice, effectively starving literally millions of people, just so their bottom dollar wouldn't be effected.
I think they’re an example of Free-market capitalism because, they were allowed to set up a factory initially because the then-ruler (IIRC, it was the Mughal emperor - Jahangir) had allowed them to… however, when the decline of Mughal empire began (since Aurangzeb), the East-India company gradually became more influential (because of free-market capitalism and no regulations from both the British and India (the former in which they were guaranteed no competition, the latter because Aurangzeb was a terrible ruler and the ones after him were just weak).
@@hisownfool1 Yeah I subbed a few weeks ago when he it was around 30k and it's grown over 10x times in just a few weeks. Looking on socialblade the growth is just so much.
Current capitalism at its core values short term profit and unsustainable growth over the wellbeing of people, usually to attract investors. Sure you can make a shit ton of money off profiting the vulnerable (American healthcare) , but everyone agrees that's fucked up.
The funniest thing to me was the Simple life is simple trope, that they can just make a self-sufficient enclave without any prior-know how in agriculture ... while even a small garden requires extended knowledge, and my elderly father still does a lot of research for every new cultivar he introduces to his garden.
@@halinaqi2194 yeah, we need to turn companies into democracies that have to share the profit directly with the workers who then can choose to return it, to grow the company. That way the values would shift to the workers and long-term investments since otherwise, the company will die.
@@MrEo89 I think you missed the fact that a perpetual motion motor is literally INFINITE energy and they used it to transport oil, a finite source of energy, for money.
@@DarylStreete Nobody has ever accused Ayn Rand of . . . understanding a single fucking thing. I can't say as I've ever read a single book of hers, just that when I did encounter them in my parents' collection I tried reading 'em for a bit, got terribly bored, and picked up some Asimov instead. I'm glad I made the right choice.
In Ireland when someone in my business class started talking about all the benefits of free market capitalism the teacher cut him off and reminded him about the famine. He shut up pretty quickly.
@@anonygent once the blight arrived Britain believed the market would fix itsf and refused to send aid while continuing to export food from Ireland. This caused the population to have
@@oobrien9105 have -> half ->halve Yes I am correcting this, it isn't "it's" vs "its", this actually does hinder the ability to read that. Edit: Halve not half
@@oobrien9105 In other words, _government_ was the problem, not the free market. Not sure why people don't get that. 99% of the problems people blame on the free market are in fact caused by government intervention, not by capitalism. As for the blight, you can hardly blame the free market for that, either.
"The subordinates can only hold the owner accountable thru a government" *laughs in government bailouts* *laughs in big corps lobbying politicians so they can have and keep a monopoly*
@@calibula95 *laughs in government shutting down businesses (because covid) except big corporations resulting in the worst transition of wealth we have witnessed in a long time*
Thats not even free market capitalism its just corporatism, a true balancement will be found if unions were able to negotiate with lobbies that way you will be able to maximize the social output of the market, but you dont have that in America
Well, that is what you get when you write in your constitution the right for companies to butter up politicians legally by lobbying, the worst of all worlds.
I laugh back at you in unemployment benefits, WIC, EBT, workfare, homelessness, social degradation and chemical dependency. Got any other jokes about people losing their jobs because their government didn’t cut their employer some slack?
Nah. No violence needed. He has to sleep and poop sometime. And if he is guarding his stockpile 24/7 he isn’t gathering fresh coconuts that drop elsewhere. Better yet, plop down in front of him and cook a nice fish dinner while he’s eating endless diarrhea inducing coconuts. Barter will naturally spring up
Yeah, that's a very solid argument. But then you see some of same people coming with ideologized defenses for Cuba and you can see that a lot of the most vocal questioning capitalism really have no idea about a good alternative way, Not that there's anything wrong with health care for all but a lot of these guys come across as or more disconnected from reality as those who believe in trickle down economics.
@@hags7961 that's why socialist tradition needs to be coupled with dialectical materialism. People have these weird visions of flying cars and transhumanist technology, but we can only achieve that which is possible in the tangent aspects of our productive possibilities. It doesn't mean people can't dream: the USSR launched humanity into orbit and space, but there is a way to do things properly. Socialism is the ownership of the means of productions by the workers, what will come afterwards is as good as the workers can build and plan. I guess, in a strict sense, today socialists (and I mean true leftist leaning people, anti capitalists, none of that liberal BS) are closer to classical liberalism (i.e. Adam Smith, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire) than the self proclaimed conservatives, which nowadays have the weirdest crush over autocratic institutions and some other weirdos have become straight up fascists.
@@DolfoLicks As long as it's real dialetics, a lot of the time it's only taught to reach to the same conclusions that Marx did, 2 centuries ago. I for one don't agree with class consciousness, for example, at least as it relates to social standing converging your interests with a whole diverse group of people and there are wrong or partially incomplete supositions as in added value coming exclusively from manual labor in that analysis as well. Anyway, it could very well be that the means of production come to be in the hands of the workers but given how much human psyche tends to the tragedy of commons it would have a lot of trouble staying that way
@@hags7961 I agree in part. Socialism is in fact a bit out of date, and there are many many reasons for that, but the most important by a long shot is: it has been brutally criminalized and demonized. Socialism proposes a base upon which a new society can be built. And there is only one sensible direction to go under socialism: more democracy. The more horizontal the decisions the more democratic, the more democratic it gets more people enter the system and it is more plural. This vision of a marxist state that atomizes to a core of aristocrats who handle the decisions over society has long been surpassed. I even go further and use afghanistan as an example: now the taliban has the upper hand over that country, and precisely because the us army has taken off, now afghan people can be freed. Not because of the taliban, obviously. Because now THEY have to organize and decide how THE PEOPLE of afghanistan will handle this situation. Only the afghanis can truly liberate their country from tirany, and rest assured that they will do so. Not without difficulty, but most certainly they will succeed.
@@DolfoLicks I don't know that it has been completely surpassed, I wish that was the case, but as I said, you have many left wing types defending Cuba for example or identitying themselves as leninists. Democratic socialist movements (a social-democrats dare I say?) are a part but not all of the left nowadays, sometimes even reviled as reformists and even reactionaries. Democracy is good, democracy creates concensus, allows you to move forward without social instability, I consider myself a democrat, but it's not inherent to socialism or capitalism, it's also not the best solution to every facet of society, I think. In your Afghanistan example I would wager those counter-Taliban people would have to have a pretty autocratic military structure to be effective, but I do agree that the more people rallying behind them the better
I've founded a worker cooperative. We are actually doing quite well, better than some of our non-coop competition. But it was not easy to do so, specially because of credit. A capitalist can show up in the bank (or the government, really) and just get a loan to start a business, a group of workers can't. And that's the main reason you don't see more workers cooperatives.
Because said capitalist is likely to make better financial decisions and pay back the loan. That's the problem with you socialists - you think there's some global capitalist conspiracy to put down workers. Banks just make decisions that are more likely to result in profit.
@@brotpros2306 there is actual evidence that you are wrong. And - in this specific case - as I've mentioned we are doing better than our competition. But also, why would a capitalist be more likely to make better decisions? Are they intrinsically better at business than workers? Considering how many capitalists have inherited money from their parents, why can a 20 year old trust fund baby just walk up to the bank and get a loan while people who have been working on the filed for their whole lives can't?
@@johnbaker7102 No, I assumed it because the need to call people whose opinions you disagree with stupid (esp people who support their opinions with facts and logic) usually comes from insecurities. And calling me a donut cause I made fun of your little coping mechanism proved my point. Don't bother replying, you're not interesting
One of the funniest counters to AnCap I have heard was from a work colleague, What about streetlights? Streetlights existing and being used generate zero profit for the operator. Zero. So under an AnCap system there would be zero streetlights in operation.
The problem isn't that the coconut billionaire has gathered the coconuts on his own, or that he did all the work while you were out, no. He exploited the birds on the island to carry the coconuts to them, now I hear he is buying all the houses on the islands too. The only option now is to punch the billionaire off his mountain of coconuts that he didn't build fairly (in this analogy, that would be making unions).
Funny thing about Atlas, there's still government in Galt's secret settlement. They just admit they haven't used it yet because the members of their secret society are so civil to each other.
@@KorhalKk Technically, that was The Fountainhead. Dominique Francon is a fascinating, if wacky character. Manic-depressive and self-destructive because she's an intelligent person in a world she thinks is doomed to mediocrity. That chapter takes place from her perspective and the way she deliberately teases and challenges Howard Roark suggests that she was doing everything in her power to provoke him into forcefully taking her. The morning after, she's VERY happy it happened. She doesn't go to the police or anything. Is Dominique a role model? Lol, nope. But she is interesting. "Betcha not going to do it!" -Dom "Bet." -Howard
It really is that simple. Any corporation builds power. With that power, they'll drive out competitors and crush or buy newcomers. And you now have... well, a state. There's a reason states pop off all over the place. All merchant cities eventually became states or got conquered by one.
There's already a good example of anarcho capitalism: The game ARK: Survival Evolved. The biggest servers are run by big guilds that completely dominate the servers and if you don't want to join, well, you can always start on a smaller server with (hopefully) better people on it.
You do realize how pathetic your ideology and ideas are when you have to hide them behind such phrases in the hopes people don't realize it's fucking socialism right?
The coconut metaphor is wrong to begin with. It will make more sense if he used a pile of fish not coconuts. Because everyday people with new ideas and practices (i.e. fishing techniques!) are piling their own. Which mean it's not a depleted source. But the people who don't have the technique, the skills or just too lazy to do it are pissed because they don't want to "suck it" and get their needs from the guy with the pile. Instead they say it's not a pile of fish that came from an ocean full of fish, but it's a pile of coconuts because this is what help my ideology. Also, why assume that the second guy was knocked out longer and the first one was first to wake up? There are people who too young and piled their own while people twice their age would come to suck them off for some fish! And don't come to me with the inheritance argument. We all know that most people with the biggest piles are self-made pilings. Specially the face used in the story whom I hate so much for being an evil man. But that doesn't mean to be dishonest. Socialism is about destorying the stronger and smarter, capitalism is about crushing the weaker and dumber. Both are evil if they have power. The problem is not systems or ideologies. The problem is human nature. We think of rules and ideologies as if we are machines but we're not! Humans don't follow the rules because they have feelings like envy, greed, hate and love. Capitalism fuels greed and kill compassion. Socialism fuels envy and kills motivation. Capitalism eventually create many mini Gods. Socialism always ends with one God.
@@mothgoth0 Well, do you need someone to tell you what to think? Someone used a metaphor and someone else played the same story. If someone disagrees they should address the idea. Satire or not, if you see something wrong in it you should address it.
@@M17-f4c you didn't address the metaphor, you created a new one and strawmanned yourself out of the argument. Satire or not, this is absolutely hilarious
I always thought this was pretty stupid. Because anybody in a survival situation like that would just wait until that guy falls asleep incapacitate him and then take his coconuts.
@@darkstar844able except the coconut guy has to food so is more likely to stay awake longer…but either way the analogy works if you’re arguing in good faith
The unregulated free market is literally the law of the jungle. Everybody thinks they're the top dog. In reality 90% would quickly find out they're the cod fish in the piranha pond. Which is the very reason we always have had some sort of government/state to prevent this from happening.
Except for leaving the house part (hike and cycle on weekends to escape from the grind of a weekday tech job) this fits me, and I guess majority of the viewers, pretty accurately.
The irony of capitalism is that it needs government intervention in some sectors and some specific occurrences to remain the free market. Just like being tolerant means you eventually have to be intolerant to remain tolerant. People making the case for anarchist societies are either playing funny mind games or are very funny in their minds. Both capitalists and socialists in that case. Any anarchist society is doomed to fail
@@abuthahirumarhathab4201 only that socialism will and has ALWAYS lead to catastrophes. No, the ideal state must remain capitalist, liberal and individualist
@@abuthahirumarhathab4201 nah not really. While capitalism has its problems when not regulated it seems to be the freest system aswell as the most productive one. You know because you actually get to keep the fruits of your labor
@@sweetnerevar7030 Not really. My father worked as a butcher for 10 years and as a teacher for 20 years. He is still not able to own a house. My mother gets a measly 10000 rupees as salary per month, with which u literally can't do anything. So....no.
With your points about moving, that hits on one of my biggest issues with capitalism and that it relies on people with the fewest resources to make the most changes.
Just for the reference, losing stock options (which was casually mentioned for people who are joining the union) can be losing about half of your total salary. So, yes, if I say if you are joining the Union it means I will take away your bonus which is doubling your salary I don't think it is any fair.
@@dizzymetrics Ever notice its only weeaboo societal leeches that are pro communism and anti capitalism. Like, the ones who only worked maybe 13 hours a week?
@@indoom666 BOOTLICKER ALERT, 📢 📢 THIS DUDE PROBABLY WORKS 60 HOURS A WEEK FOR UNDER $15 AND PROBABLY THINKS THATS SOME KIND OF ACHIEVEMENT, YEAH GREAT JOB CHAD
Today's video is sponsored by Atlas VPN! If you want to take advantage of the ongoing deal, use the affiliate link below!
atlasv.pn/AdamSomething
Thanks for checking them out, ads like this help support my channel!
No.
Yes?
@@plantherum2365 No.
Maybe
Yes
The problem with running away from your problems is that:
A. There's a finite amount of "elsewheres" on the planet that you can run away to.
B. If your problems revolve around an economic system built on the idea of infinite expansion, you can bet your ass that it will do its damndest to expand to all those "elsewheres" as well.
Very true
@@wizard_of_poz4413 nope 😂
@@dornus336 what
@Omar Khurshid
This is a concern for those who believe that running away is a solution in the first place.
As it isn't a solution, you're kind of working with a red herring here.
Retreat and evacuation can only ever be a temporary solution.
A.) a finite amount of places to run would imply that LITERALLY every other available place is abhorrent to you. ALSO, even though it is finite, it's still more than any of us would be able to use... the vast majority of just the earth is untouched
B.) infinite expansion would require infinite time. We have time to go to infinite amount of places given time. we won't be on earth (hopefully) for allof human existence. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when peolple NEED to go to outerspace we WILL invent some way to do it. It's the reason why all doomsday thoughts in the past has failed, bc when it became a problem (given the freedom to innovate) humans innovated out of the issue completely
"Read economics 101"
Economics 101: "People are perfectly informed perfectly rational actors and everything is explained by 2 lines on a graph"
Literally any advanced business or economic book: "People are absolutely fucking stupid and here is how we make money off it"
Yeah, hope France is going to change that soon. Depending on the university you go to in Europe, you can still get a real education instead of indoctrination though
Econ 102 shows that market failure occurs all the time and that regulation is needed because homo economicus (a perfectly rational being) does not exist
Whenever people say that, "Communism will never work because it relies on people being selfless," I'm like, "That's fair, but capitalism claims to be based on people being rational."
Yeh. Physics 101 is like "assume a spherical frictionless cow", yet people think econ 101 is enough to understand the world...
supply and demand does not govern prices these days, as the subjective theory of value does that. The subject value theory argues that most goods are hetrogenous. A toyota car is different to a ferrari.
The problem is that every American thinks they'll eventually be the Coconut Man.
Exactly!
It's not so much that they think they'll eventually be coconut man, they cling to the hope that they MIGHT one day be coconut man, and IF that day comes then all the unnecessary hardship and suffering they went through to get there will be worth it. If not, then at least they had the _chance_ of one day becoming coconut man.
@@Fraggr92 That and the fact once they become the coconut man they would not share with anybody, after all that's what the whole struggle was for.
This is the same reason they'll oppose things like estate taxes. Even if it only affects people people worth, say, more than $10 million, they have this belief that hey, when I'm worth over $10 million this will affect me!
cucking for rich people is the american dream
Literally not a single person who suggests that people who can't find work should "just move" has ever had to move to find work.
Moving costs money, something most unemployed people can't afford to do.
It isn't a solution, it's just something that people who have enough say to people who don't have enough to blame them for their situation.
You just described the entire "blame the poor" argument.
What a weak argument. "Ugh you never had to move to find work". Most people move to metropolitan centers every day for work (even under the guise of "oh I love the culture in generic city B").
What do you think happened in the rust belt? Moving costs, are not that high, especially considering you might have a better standard of living in a different city, and also the fact that most people can borrow the money at an affordable rate.
Every dying village in Europe is that way because no one wants to stay there, there's nothing to do, and no one to provide jobs. Mining towns (in the past), centers of trade, tourist destinations, port cities, capitals etc. were always drawing people to them for jobs.
@@vod96 Do you think that there are enough jobs available for everyone who is looking for work?
That the solution really is as simple as just moving to where the work is and everything is fine?
What is your point exactly?
@@itcouldbelupus2842 my point is that, moving to a different city is infact a viable option for anyone on the income spectrum. And it is a valid argument, unless you are over 55 - by which point, i would partially concede its difficult to move.
There are in fact jobs for every one, if you look at the raw numbers - mostly stable economies have a 3%-4% job vacancy rate (this is based on european stats, with the richest countries, NL, Belgium, Germany, having the highest job vacancy rates in the EU) and i assume most of those vacancies are located where most of the people are, in the cities. Most cities have your basic service/retail/office jobs and also professional services and more esoteric goods (think specialty coffee, model train shops, maker spaces, clubbing, specialty food) and you just get way more opportunities in the city.
@@vod96 never said it's not a viable option for some people, only that it isn't a solution to everyone depending on their circumstances.
Free market capitalism requires poverty to function, it requires scarcity of jobs and a large pool if desperate unemployed people.
That's why it's a flawed system, it only works for those who have never experienced poverty.
It's bad system for everyone who has.
Because it wouldn't matter if everyone in the world moved somewhere else, there will always be more unemployed people looking for work than there are available jobs.
Someone always needs to be on the bottom under capitalism.
I had a cousin who constantly came up with schemes to get rich without working. All of them were just "What if I got somebody to do work for me and then didn't pay them fairly".
i.e. Capitalism
He sounds like management material!
He's got the basic formula down
I mean…he was on to something
does he now have lots of money?
Meanwhile, the guy with all the coconuts tells you, "If you just get up early enough in the morning you could be the one with the coconuts demanding the sucking. Not from me of course, from the next guy we manage to lure to the island."
and here you have a pozi scheme lol
I think the key is the ability to find people who love coconuts.
@@t.c.s.7724 And were knocked on their heads hard enough
He says as he zips his fly back up and you wipe the coconut white off your cheek 😂
That is basically how interest works if there wasn't inflation. You borrow money and you have to return more than you borrowed. Either you work harder or smarter but at some point there is a limit to how much work you can do. You'll need more customers to buy your products and more workers to make products for you. If your economy ran out of population growth then the maximum sustainable interest rate could be 0 or even negative.
The problem with being an anarcho-capitalist is that you eventually grow past the age of 14.
And they say the same for communists
@@wtice4632 Both honestly
Schools don't even mention Anarcho capitalism (and other socio-economic theories for that matter). I had to go out of my way junior year to learn about this. Internet > Public School
As a 14-year-old ancap I find your comment rather offensive
Only a year left, Ricky, don't you worry.
Another analogy is that not only has the coconut man taken all the coconuts, but he's also chopped down all the trees, somehow poisoned the ground so that no more will ever grow, and then built a boat to try to leave you on the island to starve.
That sounds like capitalism from the beginning of the 20th century up to now. They're just starting on the boat now.
Coconut Man: "So, what will it be?"
Me: "While you collected coconuts I studied the stick."
Indeed. Prostitution? NAY! Revolution!
the stick man hits the coconut man
the coconut man falls off the pile of coconuts
the stickman declares himself the coconut man
and tells the other to suck his dick
every fucking time
@@vaylard9474 That is such a good analogy to violent revolutions
@@MrWhangdoodles Agree. But it is also obvious that the Coconut Man needs a government to protect him, and why not buy the politicians too, for other purposes?
That’s really interesting, because I feel like a lot of conservatives (especially if they’re homophobic lol) would naturally want to or at least clearly understand using violence to get out of this situation. Not realizing that they have assumed the position of the violent working class rioter.
"Growth without limit is the logic of a cancer cell."
Shut up! Ignore te man behind the curtain and just KEEP BUYING THINGS. Its te only way to happiness.
@@whoshotashleybabbitt4924 What if Im not materialistic 😅
@@nomnomstirn1532 become one
Problem solved
Oh i like this one.. no way to argue against it since it's not even an argument
@@tomh4658 and yet hes right
“Hyper online young adults who have no friends… LETS TALK ABOUT ANCAPS”
best segue I’ve ever seen
*Chefs kiss*
Wow I didn't notice that 😆
I felt personally attacked.
Not an ancap though, i just think Mad Max looks fun on my TV
It is kinda sad because I moved and fit perfectly in that definition xD
he just roasted my entire life
The other issue with free market capitalism is externalities. Dumping toxic waste in water, releasing smog into the atmosphere, etc, are only prevented when legislation is passed that internalizes those externalities and forces companies to deal with them. Climate change is happening because we don't have strong enough laws to force companies to prevent emissions.
Consumers also have a say
@@WTFinancepodcast barely
@@WTFinancepodcast how much say do you have once your only supplier for thing you need x is without any competition?
@@WTFinancepodcast no they don’t. Companies will always safe costs where they can. And consumers will do the same according to their needs
@@WTFinancepodcast Says who?
Thumbnail: "everybody gangsta untill the Amazon deathsquads show up"
UA-cam: *Gives me an Amazon ad*
SAME
SAAAME
I WTFED SO HARD
AI doesn’t understand irony lol
RUN
*"Siri play Darth Vaders theme."*
Laughs in ad block
Ah yes, Alden's Coconut Theory
Ive read that theory yes
Alden Something
People say they read all theory but have they read Alden's Theory??? Smh this is joe biden's america 1984 confirmed
An irrefutable theory
So let's say, hypothetically, that a plane crash lands on an island...
my opinion of elon musk has changed a lot since coming across this channel
Thunderfoot channel is good too and more in depth about analysis
@@Magmanic “I have an opinion about Elon Musk”
“I disagree with you so your opinion has no value”
BOOM another liberal destroyed
@@akorn9943 what? He said if your opinion is swayed so easily how much does it matter
@@ferblancart8669 True, but he recapitulates in excess during his videos
@@ferblancart8669 Idk how much I trust thunderfoot on that considering what he was saying when we found some evidence of life on venus
Step 1: Find large rock
Step 2: Wait until dark
Step 3: Bash in coconut man’s skull while he sleeps
Step 4: Eat fill of manflesh and coconuts
Step 5: Drag remains of coconut man into shallows, Step 6: Weight down corpse with rocks
Step 7: Catch and eat fish that come to scavenge coconut man’s waterlogged corpse.
Step 8: Mock N.A.P.
"18-24 year olds who are always online and have no real life friends"
Next sentence
"Let's talk about anarcho-capitalism"
I see what you did there.
This video complaining about capitalism contains an ad for a VPN. Much laissez-faire. So profit. Very market.
Man... I have all that but my problem fundamentally is that I love my job too much to leave it to move. Working for small business sucks
@@RavensRift
Hang on to what you cherish in life, but maybe you can find a compromise that serves both? A small place someplace else for the weekends/holidays maybe? (Assuming that's even remotely financially in the books.)
@@3112-x9r Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
@@3112-x9r "you claim to be anti capitalism yet you exist in capitalism, checkmate" - you
"Young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25 who are hyperonline and don't leave the house that often and have very few to no real-life friends."
That hit..
Loser lol
@@chiefsosa8450 bruh
@ChiefSosa I believe real losers cowardly insult people they don‘t even know on the internet hiding behind a scree- wait..
@@chiefsosa8450 Are you the shuck of hypocrisy, my good sir? Cuz, you reek of hypocrisy. Lmao.
Edit: Skunk* My bad. Spelling mistake.
@@chiefsosa8450 Dont worry, you are not above anyone,, you definitely fit for the shithead category buddy
You deserve a prize for unironically using the coconut island analogy.
Know 'Some More News'?
They cover Capitalism well.
About the Coconut man, we should listen to our Comrade Lenin "He who does not work shall not eat"
It wasn't even ironic, it was simply pathetically childish and childishly pathetic. That was not even a framed argument. Classic left, nag it until you gag it, the channel is not even a scam, not even a joke, it's plain cringe.
He deserves the crown of twat town, he’s such a wet wipe
He deserves to be mocked for all eternity for using one of the worst analogies ever. This analogy doesn't even refute capitalism whatsoever and is much more a refutation of authoritarian socialism where the state monopolizes all production.
Whenever you have someone saying they believe in Anarcho-Capitalism, ask them if they always return the shopping trolley to the corral, regardless of the weather or distance.
...I find myself stunned that there are people who wouldn't do that. I consider this act to be one of the most basic human decencies.
@@aminadabbrulle8252 the parking lot litmus test.
Yes, I'm ancap and always do this.
@@nasfoda_gamerbrbigproducti5375 More than anything else, returning the trolley is an indicator of whether or not a society is capable of self-governance. If they don't, then they're not.
nobody will answer questions like this honestly. ask anyone if they indicate every time even if they can't see someone and they'll tell you, "yes of course safety first," look around the street though and nobody is using their god damn signals god damn it
Coconut Man's problem is that eventually the prospect of starving to death becomes more frightening to the other guy than taking coconuts by force.
Which is why coconut man, if he is smart, will be giving out enough freebies to keep you calm and dissuade you from fighting him.
In the world we live in you're not allowed to just rob the rich like that
@@moosesandmeese969 You're not allowed to do a lot of things, but that doesn't stop people. When people are desperate, they do all kinds of interesting things.
@@Tuppoo94 In the world we live in we aren't capable of robbing the rich like that* (without what basically amounts to a revolution, or already having a lot of funds for a large scale criminal operation). The meaniingful difference being that there is a whole law enforcement system that will fuck you up if you try (and sometimes if you don't but that's another problem).
@@Laezar1 You're right, but there are plenty of examples from around the world of law enforcement systems turning against their masters. Perhaps most famously in Russia in 1917, when the defeated, exhausted, and disillusioned army joined the the communists in the revolution against the tsar.
Schrodingers anarcho capitalist:
Wants rules and rights by the government to protect his property but also dislikes regulations that enforces these rights
Nope, anarcho-capitalists (I am not one, btw) don't want a government at all. Any government, including one that enforces property rights. I'd advise reading up about the philosophy you're critiquing.
@@ian_b most dont
@@ian_b Nice, but that doesn't refute the OP. Ancaps are mostly devoid of logic, otherwise they would not be ancaps in the first place.
@@ian_b Yeah, ancaps believe that property rights could simply be enforced by private -mercenaries- police officers, who will definetly allow competition to exist and also respect people's property rights instead of just working for the highes bidder.
What could possibly go wrong?
reminds me of when an ancap got mad when sam seder pointed that out
First.
Rodrick Alden would be proud of me right now.
lol second
second 😎
Bruh
beat me to it
This dude is a different breed 😂....
I last heard the "if you don't like your job, just leave" argument from an acquaintance who hadn't worked in years. She and her kids live on her husband's income. Right now, she's in her 40s and doesn't have any particularly marketable skills, though she went to good enough schools that she could have acquired some. If, heaven forbid, something were to happen to her husband, she certainly wouldn't find the job market a friendly place. But that would probably only lead her to "I have to work a crappy retail job to support my kids, so why shouldn't anyone else have it easy?"
In my view, that's how a lot of Americans justify our system. They have this idea that life is SUPPOSED to be a tough struggle, because "something something rugged American frontiersman something something builds character", and that it would be even tougher if we didn't have these wise, admirable "job creators" providing salaries. Such people (as with my acquaintance) also seem terrified that any attempt to make the system more equitable will just lead straight to Soviet-style communism, therefore our only choices in life are a) be happy with our lot or b) pull our individual selves up to better stations. Often, they subscribe to the view that there's too much regulation, but they don't see all in the ways in which the level of deregulation they profess to want would actually be detrimental to themselves or other people in their lives.
life IS a struggle. Just because you wish it not to be so will not make it so.
Yes there is to much regulation.
@@GoldenRedder Life *contains* struggle, sure. Most everyone accepts that as an inescapable and probably necessary reality.
To say that life *is* a struggle, well, that's debatable. I don't think there are too many people, including you, who consider it a good or desirable thing to be struggling *all the time* . And anyone who accepts or enables such a reality for *others* while avoiding it themselves is being a selfish prick. Of course, some degree of selfishness is only human, but there's some point at which it becomes hard to excuse.
p.s.: sorry if this coment is too long but long story short youve got a fucked up definition of communism which is antithetical to its true definition
soviet style what? you mean the means of production (and most of everything else tbh) being controlled by the state, meaning that the political class IS the capitalist class? thats state capitalism, not communism (statelessness + classlessness + moneyless economy). because of the lack of workplace democracy it wasnt even socialist. the only reason ppl think thats communism is because of propaganda both from the ussr govt (presumably) trying to give their people the impression that everything is going fine (or as well as possible) and also propaganda from the capitalist-f(o)unded cia which was formed specifically to fight for the capitalist status quo, including (and theyve admitted to this in documents of theirs which are now declassified) overthrowing democratically chosen socialist regimes which benefitted south and central american countries like chile, turning them into fascist usa puppet dictatorship, as well as spreading anti-leftist propaganda by creating radio stations and radio stations etc. not even ideologically was the ussr socialist, unless maybe at the beginning during the reign of lenin (?). everything after and including stalin was just state capitalism which slowly became modern russia through policy reform afaik. same kinda bullshit applies to china and my country, romania, which was forced starting in 1947 to adopt the ussr regime through military power and shit like that. they even had advisers from the ussr to make sure we adopted their model properly. guess what kind of system we ended up with? statecap.
@@GoldenRedder Like lead levels in drinking water? Oh sry I'm in Soviet EU when the water dosen't have lead.
@@UseArchive Do you care which way the door on your kitchen swings? The US Government does. Hefty fine for violating it too.
Want to put up a sign on your restraunt? Gotta have a permit for that.
Lead? Stick a filter on it.
Also the limit is 15µg/l in America. In the EU it is 50µg/l
The limit is lower in America.
I think the Mexican drug cartels are probably similar to what we'd see under anarcho-capitalism.
...Anarcho-capitalism would very quickly become neo-feudalism anyway. The big corporations would hire mercenaries and start taking territory.
Mexico is more of an oligarchy
Yep. Controlling territory and murdering dissidents. This is very quickly what Amazon would become
The city of Cheran in Mexico is basically an anarchist territory. They kicked out the cartels and live peacefully. They have no police. The drug cartels act as competitors to the “official” government in other territories but the The Mexican Feds have a hands off approach to indigenous controlled Cheran.
Mexican cartels only have power because of drug prohibition. Again government is the problem.
@@wtice4632 Mexican cartels ARE the government smoothbrain.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."- John Rogers
The Rich are Nazguls!
@@danubeisreallypeculiarrive7944 and Mordor is based on the industrial wasteland of Britain in his time... caused by fucking robber barons lul
excellent quote
Market is Sauron or Morgoth!
Atlas Shrugged turned me into a leftist lol. I got to the end and was just like, "Wait, that's it?" If you read into it with any degree of skepticism it just falls apart. Like, okay Ayn Rand, you want me to believe that a group of billionaires want to just leave society to do all of the work on their own without any workers and/or slaves? Okay, doubtful, but okay. And you think that would result in a post-scarcity utopia? Oh, and normal society falls apart because there's no smart rich people to tell the dumb poor people what to do? Come on dude.
People say utopian communists are delusional but objectivists make them look grounded and barely even optimistic.
At last. The academic recognition Dr. Alden deserves.
Who is Dr. Alden? Qualifier: I have ADHD and haven't watched the whole video yet.
he is referring to UA-camr "vaush", who coined the coconut man analogy.
Alden's number should never be forgotten
@@t.a6159 ahh okay, thank you
@@t.a6159 yeah that's vaush's real name: ian alden
Okay but have you ever considered that the coconut man bases his entire advantage in this situation on the understanding that you won't just bash his skull in and take a coconut for yourself? He's been running around a sizeable area picking, gathering and carrying coconuts to get them all in this one pile, how much strength could he possibly have left?
It could easily go the other way, too. If Coconut Man knew that the other guy was still alive (but unconscious) and intended to hoard the coconuts anyway, his best bet is to simply kill his companion as soon as possible, removing a potential threat.
However, if Coconut Man decided that he needed the other guy alive for whatever reason, his next best option is to hide most of the coconuts, so the other guy doesn't even realize that he's been screwed. At some point, the other guy will be malnourished enough that Coconut Man will then be able to dominate him.
@@ryanmcmahon7421 You thought about this way to hard and now I am somewhat scared of why you did that xD
The problem with your thought experiment, in my opinion, is that you need to keep the other person malnourished or he will still off you, once he inevitably finds out he is being played with. But how much use is a malnourished and quite discontented guy to you, considering how much effort you need to put into thinking of all the ways he could take what you have and how to stop that?
I didn't think very hard, actually. I'm just applying a little basic game theory. I'm sure you've heard the term before, but if you're not familiar with what it means, it's worth reading up on.
Reminder: the "two men on a coconut island" is a metaphor for how economic/political systems work, not a scenario we're here to take too literally. The Coconut Man who gives his neighbor just enough coconuts to keep him from starving, but too weak to overthow Coconut Man, well, that could be North Korea. The regime actually did use starvation as a tool of control. And, I hate to say it, but the "do sexual favors for me if you want to eat" thing isn't ENTIRELY a metaphor. Not in that country.
The US has a far less brutal system, but we still have the reality in which Coconut Man says "one coconut for you, a hundred for me" and people grumble, but mostly acquiesce. I'm sure Jeff Bezos faces threats to his person and has bodyguards, but his wealth itself is so well-protected that no one can plausibly attack him and get their hands on it. Sure, Americans could vote to tax the uber-wealthy harder, but there'd have to be the political will for that, and the uber-wealthy do quite a lot, in terms of their influence on government and media, to prevent that will from focusing. A reality which, if you follow this channel and others like it, you'll find plenty of detailed examination of.
@@ryanmcmahon7421 I totally agree with everything you just wrote, which makes me realize, that I did not communicate my intentions very well.
I am familiar with game theory, recognized the metaphor as such and simply wanted to play with it for a bit, hence my ("you thought about this to hard") attempt at humor.
The "Coconut Man" metaphor is, as you correctly pointed out, vastly simplified to two actors, excluding those who profit second hand from inequality (your bodyguards as an example) and those indifferent enough to it ("grumble, but mostly acquiesce"), never mind a comlex web of economic and political systems.
What I was trying to get across is that I see no benefit (or at least not enough to justify the effort) for Coconut Man in this metaphor, if it were to be taken literally and let to play out, though I have no idea to what extent that opinion is colored by my own bias.
@@ryanmcmahon7421 ''for whatever reason'' i think that reason was pretty well explained in the video
The intro should have ended like this: you can't have these coconuts but you can get deez nutz
proteine is proteine
"Ha got him."
Liberal destroyed praise Alden
“The only group of people who would not be affected by the negative consequences of moving that much would be young adults between the ages of 18-25 who are hyper online, don’t leave the house that much, with very few to no real friends. Let us now talk about anarcho capitalism and it’s proponents.” I SPIT OUT MY WATER, LEGENDARY BURN
I'm a young adult and i feel offended .
@@deepv3.12 cope harder
@@ssik9460 very cope
@@deepv3.12 I’m a young adult and I don’t.
@@deepv3.12 It's not offensive if it's true. What you feel is the result of self-imposed judgement.
5 seconds in and I knew we were gonna be talking about Alden’s Coconut Theory of Value.
Praise aldens coconuts
what is this new scientific theory that i keep hearing about
Alden looks a lot like Jeff Bezos
Its Cal Chuchesta!
Aldinism!
People really do their best to not equate money with power.
Lots of "free market" stuff would crumble pretty quickly if you just replace "money" with "power" or "influence". The Free Power Market, where everyone can fight for control over everything and anyone else! That sounds really sweet, doesn't it?
Oh my god, the coconut analogy.
Alden says: Based.
The analogy caught me off guard and i loved it
Who is Alden?
@@ajarofmayonnaise3250 alden deez nuts
@@ajarofmayonnaise3250 Alden this nuts
@@dostoievskyiii6251 sorry I can’t, sadly I have Bofta syndrome 😔
A thing I find funny about Rand is that in Atlas Shrugged there’s a plot point where the corporations suppress an infinite energy supply, and this is treated like a criticism of socialism.
Like seriously someone explain the logic to that
@@tonyhakston536 you see, in socialism, free energy would take away the jobs of people in the energy sector, similarly to how automation is a bad thing...
Wait shit fuck it's almost like socialism actually takes away that problem inherent to capitalism that turns what currently is an inevitable horror into a source for joy
Only ancaps and Randians would reject UNLIMITED POWER.
Fucking what? I would try to get a hold of it and spread the word that I have a sorce of infinent energy for everyone to use! That is basic innovation right there!
@@Moved506 I'd monopolize it and make it so that people have to come to me for unlimited energy.
Coconut man is going to mysteriously die in his sleep on my Island....
...and get used for fish bait.
Exactly! Coconut man has to sleep sometime. And when he does his head would "accidentally" get bashed in by a coconut.
The term is revolution. And you became the coconut man, hopefully you are a light sleeper at night.
Your profile picture fits so nicely with your comment.
However, coconut man just needs to give enough people some regular coconuts for protecting his ass that you and your friends can't cause him any harm.
That happens in our current system.
And it would happen under a free market capitalism.
And it would happen under ancap.
The only difference being if one of our "protecting coconuts ass"-people fucks up _too much_ they get removed.
No such thing would happen in the other two systems.
It's a good thing Atlas VPN isn't a company, or they might just sell all your super secret VPN data to a third party! But that'd never happen...
I'm sure they aren't based in the U.S. or Europe, so they don't have to keep logs. Not having your information means the U.S. intelligence agencies can't make them their bitch. It's in their best interest to not even have your information to sell it in the first place.
Who's the sort of people using VPNs? Probably not the kind that it could be worth keeping logs of...
Btw, when did we start calling them VPNs instead of proxies?
@@AyCe they're fundamentally different technologies. in all fairness, the way most people use VPNs is no different from proxies.
@@encrypt3d587 Some use company VPNs for sensitive stuff and working from home. The advertised VPNs just seem to me like the thing you could get for free 15 years ago by googling it. A proxy with a fancy acronym, so it must be better. :P
@@AyCe Yeah, that's basically it. You can still find free proxies online, but there's no real promise of security/privacy there, only anonymity. In all fairness, that also applies to most VPN services.
I think what's missing at 13:09 (why we don't see more worker co-ops) is that while a worker co-op could be better in many ways, the people in charge aren't willing to give up control. Sure, the co-op would very likely be better for everyone employed there, but the directors and c-suite are reaping the benefits right now; things _could_ get better for them, but they could also get worse. For example, they could be fired by their employees for being sociopathic jerks.
Another factor is that when someone builds a successful company, they often attribute that success to their own brilliance. They don't recognize that a huge part of their success comes from the success of the people who worked there. This is well-studied human psychology. So from their point of view, if their shining brilliance as a benevolent dictator has brought them this far, why risk it by changing things up?
However this isn't something we can really push off for much longer. Large corporations have been more powerful than democratically elected governments for a long time now, and it's extremely dangerous to have non-democratic entities with so much power over billions of people.
There is nothing to stop the formation of new workers' co-ops right now. Of course the owners of existing corporations would not want to forfeit their capital. If workers' co-ops were genuinely better for all stakeholders they would easily supplant other forms of economic organization.
@@laudermarauder "Nobody's stopping you from collecting your own cocunuts" said the man who had collected all the coconuts before you woke up.
The issue here is that workers don't have any capital because the capitalists have already milked the working class dry. But we don't even need to take it this far. The fact of the matter is that a company can only grow because of the surplus value generated by the workers and so by default any assets bought with money in excess of the original investment in reality already belongs to the workers. Since no company on the planet can survive without growing, that means most companies are already made up largely out of assets bought from surplus value stolen from workers.
Worker co-ops are (usually) a step forward compared to existing neoliberalism.
BUT:
Between government intervention and corporate control, these businesses are forced to compete on the market - a bind which often causes capitalist methods to be either maintained or reasserted. For example, government backed co-op workplaces in Cuba - which exist in an economy which has been largely excluded from world trade - cannot run in the tourism sector except in a niche, partly because the foreign owned nature means they would not have access to the same goods to supply customers under embargo, and partly because the finances would put any such companies under loan conditions creating real subservience to both banks and customers.
By contrast, the acknowledgement that businesses have not earned their money through the owner's work alone - and the uncompensated seizure of property earned by common work, as common property - has historically occurred in periods of radicalisation. The most famous of these were the Paris Commune 1871, Russia 1905 and 1917, Spain 1934, France 1968, Chile 1973, Iran 1978, Argentina 2001....
Anyway those are less like co-ops in political function than they are potential organising points for asserting democratic priorities, partly because of the transformative nature of the recognition and subsequent recapture of common property.
@@TheMrMacintosh Oh dear. "Surplus value stolen from workers". The labour theory of value is completely false. And people who are not Jeff Bezos start up companies all the time.
@@laudermarauder lol, it's not.
The man with the coconuts is the capitalist class, not a single capitalist.
Vaush’s favorite rhetorical: coconut island.
The problem is libertarians don’t actually believe in equal opportunity and voluntary transactions, they just want you to pretend like those already exist under capitalism!
Libertarians falsely assume that everyone has the same privileges and opportunities as them. Most of their ideas are a projection of privilege.
Its pretty flawed.
@@Uwrath It's funny, when I was a kid I thought libertarianism was cool, but figured it needed to have social safety nets and other limitations on how far people could fall, otherwise it wouldn't work. That is, I saw those necessary assumptions about privileges and opportunities, figured that they'd need to be enforced as policy instead of assumed, and years later learned that my childhood thinking was closer to market socialism than anything else. It's funny how making the assumptions an explicit part of the politics changes it so radically.
Ah yes, Vaush, the person who thinks that Marx and Lenin would have voted Biden, that the US should have stayed in Afghanistan, and suggests that the age of consent should be lowered.
As I read some time ago:
Unions and negotiation tables were the compromise we reached so worked didn't show up and beat the shit out of the owner. If they don't want unions I guess they want to go back to the old times.
It's all fun and games until Blackwater and the McMilitia show up though.
@@christianwhittall5889 only to be met by the Teamsters Hitsquad
Just make stocks get inherited by the workers and force all companies to use stocks then limit the amount of stocks one can hold at a time and wait for past scarcity society
@@christianwhittall5889 Until the Pinkertons show up.
Unions can be, however, just as big a racket as any corporation, monopoly or despotic state. They are hardly a solution. They can and have certainly been easily corrupted to disadvantage workers and consumer markets, sow instability, instigate civil unrest, and trigger economic crises, sometimes specifically for the purpose of doing so. There is a reason why organized crime and communists like to target, form, and subvert unions so aggressively. Unions also produce nothing, they just take through force.
The problem with anarchy is that by removing the existence of a govermant you've set up the conditions for a new one to pop into exzistance.
And that's why education is power. A shift in mindset from force to respect is also good insurance.
True anarchy will emerge organically as people continue becoming more self-sufficient, open hearted and community minded
You and the rest of the slaves when gov disappears: ' Without rulers whos gonna rule us...??'
"Everyone in a wealthy position has earned their place there"
That is probably the biggest flaw in AnCap thinking. While some people maybe have gotten places in life through hard work and good morals, it is only a maybe. If the coconut man in the video was a good person he would have done whatever he could to make sure a fellow human being didn't starve.
That sentence can only be uttered by someone who skipped history class. 99.999% of wealthy and powerful people are born wealthy and powerful. The remaining 0.001% got wealthy and powerful by seizing wealth and power of others by force.
@@KohuGaly Lol pure delusional. There have been studies that have revealed that IQ plays a far greater role in wealth accumulation than inheritance. Just take a look at the low IQ idiots that win the lottery, do you think that wealth gets passed on for generations? No.
@@0witw047 No it’s not, as I stated there are studies that indicate that IQ has about a 3x higher correlation with wealth than inheritance. An extreme example of this phenomenon is how most people who’ve won the lottery never retain their wealth for more than a couple generations.
i wonder how anybody could think AnCap could bring them anything else than being constantly and increasingly assfucked by corporations. Unless they own one, and a very big one, at that.
@@shadowspade7589 You only have to be smart enough not to blow everything away, as long as you get that juicy inheritance. And are you implying that high IQ justifies the huge accumulation of wealth we see from said wealthy people?
Anarcho-capitalism sounds like feudalism with extra steps.
Feudalism never ended in West, only concealed under parliament
Well maybe actually analyze something before you adapt a stupid comment made by a stupid character in a TV show and it won't.
For instance how about you support the idea that protection agencies would become feudal lords, for a start by proving that they wouldn't go broke if they tried. Hint: Feudal lords were always broke.
@@MNanme1z4xs based
@@benji_222 About 300 years ago, in response to the rise of merchant class and the increasing literacy of commoner, nobles crafted a new system to kept their status, this system is now called the modern parliament, the only standard for democracy freedom liberty. The goal is to expand scope of their game, turn more land into fertile grounds for what the nobles can exert their power. Thus the base for Western imperialisms. They wedge wars against all efforts of unification. All for the nobles to stay on top. The root of our problem is this, the dirty secret of West, a secret well kept because no one want to see it.
@@newperve Yes, many billionaire are broke, yet how many of them are thrown on to street? What lords where to lost their hold on resource because they are 'broke'? Who get to define what is broke?
Refreshing video, my dad has a PhD in banking and management specifically wrote it on cooperative banking and management. He has been talking about how every workplace should be exactly the way you describe it right now, I never really grasped what he was on about when I was a teen. Interesting to really learn more about this in my mid 20's.
I'll have to sit down and have a beer with my dad to talk about this sometime soon. Thank Adam!
Whoa, that's fascinating! Mind reporting back what he says after you have a chat with him?
This is what Richard Wolf has been talking about for the last number of years isn’t it (for anyone who needs a surrogate smart dad)?
Why do people act like this idea is somehow revolutionary? Instead of a business with a small number of owners you have a business with a larger number of owners. It's not the panacea people might think. What happens if the majority vote for a colossally bad idea? Do you sell your stake in the coop and go join a different coop? What if there's no buyer for your stake? Now you're in the same boat as the employee with no labor mobility. Problem not solved.
@@nclxmefozd6264 Yeah, but I never understood why is Wolf giving coops as some kind of solution to capitalism. I mean, yeah, coops can be cool but coops can work in current capitalism as well.
If you want a case study look at the Co-operative group in the UK.
It's almost like a person's inner thought process, problem solving, and beliefs are more complex than "Right or left"
wdym?
Yeah but are you right wing or left wing though?
@@gothicfan52 what does right or left wing mean anymore? It's all a mess of slop nowadays
Given the US political system is dominated by 2 parties.
@@remenir97 yea but we've gone essentially to a one story state
As old Patty Harper once said "Freedom to starve ain't freedom sir."
Freedom to chose your slave master.
@@Uwrath You know that slogan STILL makes capitalism better than ever statist or socialist regime ever right? Because freedom to choose your slave master is literally better than the lack of freedom to choose what democracy you're in. A "slave master" who knows that his slaves can leave at any time has less power than a "democracy" where you have to participate.
@@newperve Nah.
@@Uwrath Yep, that's the level of logic I expect from socialists and statists.
@@newperve ahm, how did YOU choose in what democracy you are in exactly? I won't even start on the "choice" you have compared to the one we did in the Eastern block. Your lack of understanding of Stalinist and socialist is just too big of a hurdle to handle in UA-cam comments.
I greatly appreciate the usage of Hide the Pain Harold in this video.
🥴
Čau 😃
András Arató is Hungarian after all
Excellent video.
I grew up in a family with parents working for government so I had zero understanding how companies operate. After graduation and a few years of working in private sector, one day I suddenly realized "Isn't this a small autocratic 'regime' I'm in?"
That could be the first time my understanding of democracy was challenged. Since then, I always thought we human may have not evolved much intellectually from our tribal ancestors.
How were you under the impression that the internal structure of companies are democratic?
@@ElliotKeaton more like I didn't give it any thought.
It's worse in the government than in private companies. I did not believe that until I moved to the government.
Both are bad.
We live in a "Culture of Narcissism" and an "Addicted Society". Organizations being microcosms of society inherit the addiction to power and control over people.
What follows is manipulation, gaslighting, and sustaining of dystopian conditions..
Many pre-colonial tribes all over the world were based on democratic councils, some were matricentric or at least included members of different genders. Pyramidal and/or patriarchal systems are not default organisation structures. Many of our ancestors were smarter than modern people.
Ya know. These old conservatives who keep telling the children they have to "just move" are going to have a very cruel and ironic fate when they realize they are going to die alone in a nursing home with their children living hundreds of miles away
Ikr. They also keep complaining about the disruption of the family unit. Hmm i wonder why?
@@canesugar911 i actually do agree that family unit is falling apart in alot of ways but its not because of porn or gay people or the women's right to choose. It's because of the prison industrial complex along with younger people being unable afford to support a family. As scummy as it might be i know way to many men who have left women with a child simply cause they knew staying was debt trap
They'll just get bitter and blame their children for never visiting,
@@CollinBuckman doesn't really matter who they choose to blame the end result is the same and its depressing theve been sold those lies
@@dallasbailes7347 Family unit as we know it falling apart is a good thing. It's a patriarchal structure evolved from the Industrial Revolution
All according to Alden’s theory of value.
Awesome video.
i see you're a man of culture as well. ;)
Virgins assemble
Alden's theory of value ain't true though is it...
I think you're confusing the theory of value with Alden's number
@@SHVRWK yea, isn't it Ricardo's theory of value?
The UK already has a large co-operative literally called the co-operative group. In fact it already has 4,000 grocery stores. Co-op funeral care is also the largest funeral director in the UK with over 1,000 funeral homes, there is co-op insurance services, co-op legal services, co-op property, co-op power and they also fund a non-profit multi-academy trust in England called the Co-operative Academies Trust. Co-operatives are a more than viable solution and have already been adopted and already have been proven to work.
We have billion dollar coops here in India too, one of which actually owns multiple estates in the UK as well.
But coops eventually suffer the same problem as a corporate, instead of a person, the board gets the absolute power.
@@captainmcduckyYT yeah, cooperatives are way more democratic and give more freedoom and happiness to people, but the problem with capitalism is deeper, making coops popular or even prohibiting corporates is just a harm reduction
@@captainmcduckyYT That's the problem. It's very hard to just hand over complex executive decisions to "the people", especially with a large corp. They will naturally delegate that responsibility to some board or management group at which point: is it democratic anymore? Unless workers are diligent in researching company affairs, they can be easily swayed into voting whichever way the board decides.
@@Aaron-os8qi the thing is, your daily wage workers are in no way positioned to make decisions that a senior management level guy would make - the levels of responsibility differs for all.
Eventually either the coop will collapse or it will have to hand over the power to a few people at the end of the day.
@@captainmcduckyYT To be fair, clearly Co-ops can work quite well in some cases. My point is that 1) leadership emerges naturally 2) most workers don't want the responsibilities and financial risks involved.
In case of amazon, people have a choice between "cheap convenient products from slaver's market" or "more expensive long-delay products from non-slaver market". And most people have made their choice
Because your individual action doesn't affect Amazon's monopoly, so a rational actor buys the product. A rational person also votes for a political party that would break up the monopoly in a *functional* democracy.
@@georgelane6350 the problem is that EVERYONE thinks that their action won’t affect their monopoly. if all of those people actually stopped using it, it probably would affect them.
They r all slaver markers get real
Honestly more like which slaver market do you buy from, the physical one or the online one
but if your are poor, do you really have an choice?
You ignored the other perfectly reasonable option to coconut man.
It's called a spear in the gut.
Noooo but they earned all the coconuts themselves by picking them off trees. You can’t just do that.
@@popopop984 and I carved a spear all by myself and not only that I snuck up on him while he was sleeping and stabbed him with it all on my own.
Hard work.
😆👍
@@myriri3687 Suddenly the "non-aggression principle" makes sense. It's there to protect coconut man from you when he tries to extort you.
@@Fraggr92 This guy gets it.
This is why violence must always be on the table. Death is the great leveller.
Guess I'm a young adult, 18-25, hyper-online and few to no friends.
same
I hear myself in that statement and i don't like it xD
I feel attacked..
Adam know his audience
@aadhi gei why are you there in the first place
Less than a minute in the video and "Coconut milk" had updated it's definition in my head. Nice work
ohhh nooo and now mine is updated too, complete with bezos' face.
@@minerdalta 😖
Fajar Anugraha Hahahaha, I just realized coconut man is Bezos.
People with jobs are homeless, at least in California. Everyone I know under the age of 35 lives with their parents still, which is not too far from homeless.
I want to move out of my country, but it turns out that immigration laws have become so strict that I cannot. Moving to another state may end up costing more because I have a mentally disabled child and support services vary by state. But it is hard to know for sure because the healthcare laws are so complicated. Navigating the healthcare services necessary was awful, and the prospect of doing it again is daunting. They assume you are a criminal trying to defraud the state and must jump through all the hoops to prove you are innocent and just in need. The hoops don't deter the dishonest, though.
Placing the burden on the worker to just move is the most asinine argument. We must revolt to re-establish the balance. Or rights have been usurped; our institutions corrupted; our watchdogs placated. The checks and balances have been monopolized. We have two parties that represent everything, and therefore no one. We the people have lost.
California is as far away from free market capitalism as they can, they have large amounts of regulations...
So? I'm talking about how moving away is not a solution.
Re: _"Navigating the healthcare services necessary was awful, and the prospect of doing it again is daunting. They assume you are a criminal trying to defraud the state and must jump through all the hoops to prove you are innocent and just in need."_ Yep. I'm a disabled adult with no children and same applies to us. Much talked about in disability spaces online. I'm American yet am aware of UK in the 2010-2014 timeframe, and on past to current, literally causing thousands of dead disabled people with that approach.
Here, from a UK Parliament document:
"Hansard
Commons: 24 February 2020
Commons Chamber
Social Security Benefits: Claimant Deaths
Social Security Benefits: Claimant Deaths
Volume 672: debated on Monday 24 February 2020
Feb
24
2020
Download text
Back to top Previous debate
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-(Michael Tomlinson.)
10.59pm
Debbie Abrahams
(Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Share this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting an Adjournment debate on such an important issue.
The first duty of any Government is to keep its citizens safe, particularly the most vulnerable among us. This evening, I want to discuss the deaths of vulnerable social security claimants since 2014. That those deaths have been linked to the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions is a matter of grave concern. It shows abject failure on the part of not only the Department, but the Government. Ministers set policy and the Department implements it, so both are culpable. However, this is not just about what policies are implemented but about how they are delivered, and that relates to the culture in the Department. [Interruption.]"
@@emiliogarza6446 well California is interesting in that regard because most everyone knows that our government is so corrupt that mostly every bill that's voted on is written by a lobbyist of one sort
I don't know if this still applies to you but looking into moving to a third world country could be worth it. I live in Brazil and while we have plenty of problems, any money you have from the US is worth much more here due to the exchange rate and lower cost of living. While it's very flawed, we have free healthcare for everyone, which could help your son. Unions are actually pretty strong here and the gig economy hasn't gone nearly as far.
We're just as corrupt government and businesses wise, the job market is far from booming, but it's worth looking into
"Young people between the age of 18-25 who are hyper online, don't leave the house too often and have very few to no real friends.
And so now let's talk about anarcho-capitalism..."
This may be the smoothest transition I've ever seen in a youtube video.
crappy low wages wouldn't be such a problem if cost of living/housing weren't so outrageously high.
Free market creating two problems at once
this is a bit of a truism because the only thing that makes wages seem low IS the high cost of living
Classical economics actually discusses this quite a bit, particularly David Ricardo. As I understand it market forces will always keep 'the labouring poor' just above starvation. (Except in the cases of 19thc India, China, Ireland . . .)
Housing prices have to slow their rise one way or another. We wouldn't need a 15$ minimum wage in the US if housing prices didn't continue to skyrocket. The median home price has doubled in about 7 years
@@noahdiluca9857 fair enough. if my hourly wage was 4 buck in whatever imaginary currency, and the price of a small house was 1 mil bucks, and the cost of food, then the wage would be considered outrageously small, but if my hourly wage was a buck and the price of a house was 10 bucks, then the wage would be considered extremely high
9:31 "Young adults, between the ages of 18 and 25, who are hyper-online, don't leave the house that often, and have very few to no real life friends. And so let us now talk about anarcho-capitalism" SAVAGE
Just an observation: for many decades the term "Laissez-faire" capitalism was commonly used, but then wealthy people and large corporations realized that the term, while accurate, had negative connotations (actually well deserved negative connotations) and so a new term was needed to put a positive spin on the situation. Thus the term "Free Market Capitalism" was born. It means the same thing as the traditional term Laissez-faire capitalism, but it sounds like it comes with a lot of freedom, so it feels like it's a wonderful idea. This clever PR trick has been quite successful: previously, if one said he was against Laissez-faire Capitalism, people would think, well that's understandable. But today if one expresses the same idea, you're accused of being against the FREE MARKET, and everyone dismisses your view as stupid and evil. So perhaps you should reconsider using the F-M term so much in your videos.
i mean conversely people will not make the connection between laissez-faire and FMC so then they won't hold what he's saying to the modern life they actually live in.
@@dioxideuniversal just tell people that the two terms mean the same thing.
The trick is to remove the distinction between FMC and laissez faire capitalism, by treating them as the same. Changing the words he uses just protects FMC from the negative connotations it deserves.
British East India Company: Perfect example of real-life anarcho-capitalism
Those few years that there was a famine in India and instead of making sure the Indians don't starve they instead tripled the price of grain and rice, effectively starving literally millions of people, just so their bottom dollar wouldn't be effected.
I think they’re an example of Free-market capitalism because, they were allowed to set up a factory initially because the then-ruler (IIRC, it was the Mughal emperor - Jahangir) had allowed them to… however, when the decline of Mughal empire began (since Aurangzeb), the East-India company gradually became more influential (because of free-market capitalism and no regulations from both the British and India (the former in which they were guaranteed no competition, the latter because Aurangzeb was a terrible ruler and the ones after him were just weak).
@@sexxyperv Don't you mean several tens of millions people?
Congo free state is another example
Not really it was a corporation that had a monopoly on trade that was subservient to the British crown
your rise in popularity is seriously great:) I discovered you a few days ago and already binged all your videos haha
A few weeks ago he was at less than 50k subs!
@@hisownfool1 Yeah I subbed a few weeks ago when he it was around 30k and it's grown over 10x times in just a few weeks. Looking on socialblade the growth is just so much.
@@pessipaivarinne3174 Same here. I think that it was the Dubai one that led to the explosion.
I was going to write a rebuttal to Atlas Shrugged. Then I played Bio Shock and it was a perfect rebuttal, so go play that game.
Current capitalism at its core values short term profit and unsustainable growth over the wellbeing of people, usually to attract investors. Sure you can make a shit ton of money off profiting the vulnerable (American healthcare) , but everyone agrees that's fucked up.
The funniest thing to me was the Simple life is simple trope, that they can just make a self-sufficient enclave without any prior-know how in agriculture ... while even a small garden requires extended knowledge, and my elderly father still does a lot of research for every new cultivar he introduces to his garden.
@@halinaqi2194 yeah, we need to turn companies into democracies that have to share the profit directly with the workers who then can choose to return it, to grow the company. That way the values would shift to the workers and long-term investments since otherwise, the company will die.
@@halinaqi2194 It's telling the vulnerable in your mind still reside in murik.
@John Smith Religion as the moral foundation? Lmao 🤣
Self made billionaires are the proof that everyone can become wealthy with smart ideas, hard work and money from you father’s emeralds mine.
Oh yes ayn rand. the person who wrote a book inventing a perpetual motion motor only to use it to transport oil for gas profits
During her lifetime it was oil that was THE money printer. Not data. Not the Internet. Oil.
@@MrEo89 I think you missed the fact that a perpetual motion motor is literally INFINITE energy and they used it to transport oil, a finite source of energy, for money.
@@DarylStreete Nobody has ever accused Ayn Rand of . . . understanding a single fucking thing.
I can't say as I've ever read a single book of hers, just that when I did encounter them in my parents' collection I tried reading 'em for a bit, got terribly bored, and picked up some Asimov instead.
I'm glad I made the right choice.
@@angelainamarie9656 plenty of people think she understands deep truths. Just no thinking adult.
@@angelainamarie9656 "yes I did not read her books and do not understand her ideas, therefore they are bad"
incredible
ah yes, the coconut island, never gets old xD
The idea of amazon's firing squad is actually horrifying.
It’s probably just a delivery guy with a cardboard gun. Nothin to be afraid of
actually can happen if he gets his piece of land somewhere in moon/mars
Get used to it. It's already a reality
You need to pay extra to get the Firing Squad same day bullet delivery instead of them just chucking you into the Amazon Basics meatgrinder.
@@nil981 wait Amazon has firing squads already?!
In Ireland when someone in my business class started talking about all the benefits of free market capitalism the teacher cut him off and reminded him about the famine. He shut up pretty quickly.
WTH does the famine have to do with capitalism?
@@anonygent once the blight arrived Britain believed the market would fix itsf and refused to send aid while continuing to export food from Ireland. This caused the population to have
@@oobrien9105 have -> half ->halve
Yes I am correcting this, it isn't "it's" vs "its", this actually does hinder the ability to read that.
Edit: Halve not half
@@oobrien9105 In other words, _government_ was the problem, not the free market. Not sure why people don't get that. 99% of the problems people blame on the free market are in fact caused by government intervention, not by capitalism.
As for the blight, you can hardly blame the free market for that, either.
@@Humulator halve*
I've talked to a few ancaps. None of them were very bright.
It’s a religion, or cult rather. They act like “the market” is their god!
@@Uwrath they always talk about the "non-aggression principle" lmao. It's just as effective as the law. People still get robbed.
@@Sahtoovi “non-aggression principle” is only used to protect the extortionist coconut man from his victim.
@@Uwrath exactly. It takes next level ignorance to think that normal people would in any way benefit from an ancap society
@@Sahtoovi Ancaps think they will be coconut man, it’s literal pyramid scheme logic.
"18-25 year olds who are hyper-online and have few to no real life friends. Anyway, let's talk about anarcho-capitalism" got a chuckle out of me
Anarco capitalism is great
@@ieatlemons288 okay I hope that works out for you.
"The subordinates can only hold the owner accountable thru a government" *laughs in government bailouts* *laughs in big corps lobbying politicians so they can have and keep a monopoly*
*Laughs in corruption*
@@calibula95 *laughs in government shutting down businesses (because covid) except big corporations resulting in the worst transition of wealth we have witnessed in a long time*
Thats not even free market capitalism its just corporatism, a true balancement will be found if unions were able to negotiate with lobbies that way you will be able to maximize the social output of the market, but you dont have that in America
Well, that is what you get when you write in your constitution the right for companies to butter up politicians legally by lobbying, the worst of all worlds.
I laugh back at you in unemployment benefits, WIC, EBT, workfare, homelessness, social degradation and chemical dependency. Got any other jokes about people losing their jobs because their government didn’t cut their employer some slack?
I feel like I could ruin the analogy by fighting the coconut man for the coconuts, possibly to the death
If you translate this analogy to real life, it would be some kind of riot or war.
That’s called a Revolution.
Which is why this analogy suskcs ass
Nah. No violence needed. He has to sleep and poop sometime. And if he is guarding his stockpile 24/7 he isn’t gathering fresh coconuts that drop elsewhere. Better yet, plop down in front of him and cook a nice fish dinner while he’s eating endless diarrhea inducing coconuts. Barter will naturally spring up
and fighting the other people that he gives coconuts to in return for protecting him?
"the only people who think just moving is good have no social life to see how bad that would effect you
let's talk about AnCaps!"
I'm here before Adam gets a million subscribers. Boy is exploding.
and he deserves it
@@DyslexicMitochondria hey bro i watch ur channeI. Love ur vidz
@@DyslexicMitochondria I don't think he does. His content is too good for him to go out like that.
You know, sometimes I find it funny that UA-cam a capitalist corporation actually even tolerates socialist channels like this and gravel
Wait, wtf, he already has 370k subscribers??? When I subbed him not too long ago he had around 30k wtf.
"Ah, I see you know about the oxidizing properties of oxygen. Yet you are still breathing to keep your metabolism functional. How interesting!"
Yeah, that's a very solid argument. But then you see some of same people coming with ideologized defenses for Cuba and you can see that a lot of the most vocal questioning capitalism really have no idea about a good alternative way, Not that there's anything wrong with health care for all but a lot of these guys come across as or more disconnected from reality as those who believe in trickle down economics.
@@hags7961 that's why socialist tradition needs to be coupled with dialectical materialism. People have these weird visions of flying cars and transhumanist technology, but we can only achieve that which is possible in the tangent aspects of our productive possibilities. It doesn't mean people can't dream: the USSR launched humanity into orbit and space, but there is a way to do things properly. Socialism is the ownership of the means of productions by the workers, what will come afterwards is as good as the workers can build and plan.
I guess, in a strict sense, today socialists (and I mean true leftist leaning people, anti capitalists, none of that liberal BS) are closer to classical liberalism (i.e. Adam Smith, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire) than the self proclaimed conservatives, which nowadays have the weirdest crush over autocratic institutions and some other weirdos have become straight up fascists.
@@DolfoLicks As long as it's real dialetics, a lot of the time it's only taught to reach to the same conclusions that Marx did, 2 centuries ago. I for one don't agree with class consciousness, for example, at least as it relates to social standing converging your interests with a whole diverse group of people and there are wrong or partially incomplete supositions as in added value coming exclusively from manual labor in that analysis as well. Anyway, it could very well be that the means of production come to be in the hands of the workers but given how much human psyche tends to the tragedy of commons it would have a lot of trouble staying that way
@@hags7961 I agree in part. Socialism is in fact a bit out of date, and there are many many reasons for that, but the most important by a long shot is: it has been brutally criminalized and demonized. Socialism proposes a base upon which a new society can be built. And there is only one sensible direction to go under socialism: more democracy. The more horizontal the decisions the more democratic, the more democratic it gets more people enter the system and it is more plural. This vision of a marxist state that atomizes to a core of aristocrats who handle the decisions over society has long been surpassed.
I even go further and use afghanistan as an example: now the taliban has the upper hand over that country, and precisely because the us army has taken off, now afghan people can be freed. Not because of the taliban, obviously. Because now THEY have to organize and decide how THE PEOPLE of afghanistan will handle this situation. Only the afghanis can truly liberate their country from tirany, and rest assured that they will do so. Not without difficulty, but most certainly they will succeed.
@@DolfoLicks I don't know that it has been completely surpassed, I wish that was the case, but as I said, you have many left wing types defending Cuba for example or identitying themselves as leninists. Democratic socialist movements (a social-democrats dare I say?) are a part but not all of the left nowadays, sometimes even reviled as reformists and even reactionaries. Democracy is good, democracy creates concensus, allows you to move forward without social instability, I consider myself a democrat, but it's not inherent to socialism or capitalism, it's also not the best solution to every facet of society, I think. In your Afghanistan example I would wager those counter-Taliban people would have to have a pretty autocratic military structure to be effective, but I do agree that the more people rallying behind them the better
Ive come to figure out "just move" is just code for "just die"
Really impressive you got Internet Historian to act in the visuals!
This better be bait
@@elixexo4011 It's a joke...
I've founded a worker cooperative. We are actually doing quite well, better than some of our non-coop competition.
But it was not easy to do so, specially because of credit. A capitalist can show up in the bank (or the government, really) and just get a loan to start a business, a group of workers can't.
And that's the main reason you don't see more workers cooperatives.
Because said capitalist is likely to make better financial decisions and pay back the loan. That's the problem with you socialists - you think there's some global capitalist conspiracy to put down workers. Banks just make decisions that are more likely to result in profit.
@@brotpros2306 "Because said capitalist is likely to make better financial decisions and pay back the loan" source?
@@brotpros2306 ua-cam.com/video/yP9Oj65OweI/v-deo.html
@@brotpros2306 there is actual evidence that you are wrong.
And - in this specific case - as I've mentioned we are doing better than our competition.
But also, why would a capitalist be more likely to make better decisions?
Are they intrinsically better at business than workers?
Considering how many capitalists have inherited money from their parents, why can a 20 year old trust fund baby just walk up to the bank and get a loan while people who have been working on the filed for their whole lives can't?
@@brotpros2306 Did you even see amazons anti union propaganda???
I couldn’t stop thinking about vaush with that opening coconut reference
Welll... Vaush bad
Well Vaush and this guy between them have an IQ of a coconut so not surprising.
@@johnbaker7102 ok, John "i am very smart" Baker
@@damjanp7920 did you just assume because Vaush and this Adam guy are idiots that makes me very smart?
…alright chalk up Damjan as another donut
@@johnbaker7102 No, I assumed it because the need to call people whose opinions you disagree with stupid (esp people who support their opinions with facts and logic) usually comes from insecurities. And calling me a donut cause I made fun of your little coping mechanism proved my point. Don't bother replying, you're not interesting
One of the funniest counters to AnCap I have heard was from a work colleague, What about streetlights?
Streetlights existing and being used generate zero profit for the operator. Zero. So under an AnCap system there would be zero streetlights in operation.
Street lights would attract more residents to the area, more residents mean more potential customers
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 but who pays for the street lights? Do you have to put a £1 in to get one to turn on?
@@cleanerben9636 the companies there pay for it, in return the population increases, so every company benefits by getting more customers.
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 or they could sell torches and make a profit instead.
@@cleanerben9636 fair, fair
the "just MOOOOOOVE" and the coconut island analogy really reminds me of someone... nah i forget
JUST ONE SMALL PROBLEM, BEN
@@Mhinqa hello yes this is vowsh. how else would you say it?
@@Mhinqa VAVFSCH
This channel feels like the birth of a movement called “Elon Musk Trutherism”
It's been going on for quite a while now, this channel didn't start it.
@Gucci Pane thanks gucci, i appreciate that
I don’t follow. Do you disagree with the points made against Musk on this channel?
@Gucci Pane Trutherism is long long invented, since the Truther’s time.
It’s called “neo-liberalism”
3:56 "Big business takes the concept of chiefdom and upgrades it to a totalitarian dictatorship" - That's pretty fast plot-twist in just 5 seconds XD
They went to a world record speedrun
The problem isn't that the coconut billionaire has gathered the coconuts on his own, or that he did all the work while you were out, no.
He exploited the birds on the island to carry the coconuts to them, now I hear he is buying all the houses on the islands too. The only option now is to punch the billionaire off his mountain of coconuts that he didn't build fairly (in this analogy, that would be making unions).
I don't know why you didn't like _Atlas Shrugged_ -- it's all about trains.
Dude I fucking LOVE trains and Kobe Bryant and theres absolutely nothing linking the two
Funny thing about Atlas, there's still government in Galt's secret settlement. They just admit they haven't used it yet because the members of their secret society are so civil to each other.
Using perpetual motion machines to transport oil around lol
And rape. Don't forget about the raping.
@@KorhalKk Technically, that was The Fountainhead. Dominique Francon is a fascinating, if wacky character. Manic-depressive and self-destructive because she's an intelligent person in a world she thinks is doomed to mediocrity.
That chapter takes place from her perspective and the way she deliberately teases and challenges Howard Roark suggests that she was doing everything in her power to provoke him into forcefully taking her. The morning after, she's VERY happy it happened. She doesn't go to the police or anything. Is Dominique a role model? Lol, nope. But she is interesting.
"Betcha not going to do it!" -Dom
"Bet." -Howard
It really is that simple. Any corporation builds power. With that power, they'll drive out competitors and crush or buy newcomers. And you now have... well, a state. There's a reason states pop off all over the place. All merchant cities eventually became states or got conquered by one.
Do you live in terror of your boss? Does he have life and death power over your life?
@@edwardelric717 He would if there wasn't a government to keep him in check.
@@screamingcactus1753 how does that work?
@@edwardelric717 Why wouldn't a company make its employees into slaves under threat of violence if there was no repercussions for doing so?
@@screamingcactus1753 how would a company do that? The only people allowed to maintain armies is the government. Companies do not have such power
I am dying over that transition to talking about anarcho-capitalists
@DEAN MURPHY yes, that part. :)
@@GentlemanlyOtter
Time stamp: 9:30
@Nikhil Mishra i dont get it either lmao
@Nikhil Mishra implying that anarcho-capitalists are 18-24 year olds who are always online and have no real life friends
There's already a good example of anarcho capitalism: The game ARK: Survival Evolved.
The biggest servers are run by big guilds that completely dominate the servers and if you don't want to join, well, you can always start on a smaller server with (hopefully) better people on it.
Co-op capitalism I think is good phrasing to help people in the smooth brained US actually start to do something
yeah, usually they just cover their years when anything is not synonymous to Capitalism.
@@abhiroopdas3232 McCarthys rotting corpse is smiling and I hate it!
You do realize how pathetic your ideology and ideas are when you have to hide them behind such phrases in the hopes people don't realize it's fucking socialism right?
Call it then:
Election freedom-based eagle gun burger capitalism.
@@KT-pv3kl are all people inherently rational?
"Imagine suffering a plane crash" - Already here, everybody knows what's coming.
Lmao I immediately thought of Vaush 3 seconds into the video
@@Yuri-hk9ft you should get that checked maybe, that mong shouldn't be living rent free in anyone's head lol
@@klontjespap You know he came up with this analogy using the exact words, right?
@Kazumaf So imagine JoJo and Dio crashed on an island, and Dio collected all the coconuts while Jojo was unconcious...
@@christianpetersen163 *Star Platinum!*
Ahh yes, the coconut island *Vaush rubs his hands*
The coconut metaphor is wrong to begin with. It will make more sense if he used a pile of fish not coconuts. Because everyday people with new ideas and practices (i.e. fishing techniques!) are piling their own. Which mean it's not a depleted source. But the people who don't have the technique, the skills or just too lazy to do it are pissed because they don't want to "suck it" and get their needs from the guy with the pile. Instead they say it's not a pile of fish that came from an ocean full of fish, but it's a pile of coconuts because this is what help my ideology.
Also, why assume that the second guy was knocked out longer and the first one was first to wake up? There are people who too young and piled their own while people twice their age would come to suck them off for some fish! And don't come to me with the inheritance argument. We all know that most people with the biggest piles are self-made pilings. Specially the face used in the story whom I hate so much for being an evil man. But that doesn't mean to be dishonest.
Socialism is about destorying the stronger and smarter, capitalism is about crushing the weaker and dumber. Both are evil if they have power. The problem is not systems or ideologies. The problem is human nature. We think of rules and ideologies as if we are machines but we're not! Humans don't follow the rules because they have feelings like envy, greed, hate and love. Capitalism fuels greed and kill compassion. Socialism fuels envy and kills motivation. Capitalism eventually create many mini Gods. Socialism always ends with one God.
@@M17-f4c Man, that's some good satire.
@@M17-f4c i genuinely don't know if this is just satire
@@mothgoth0 Well, do you need someone to tell you what to think? Someone used a metaphor and someone else played the same story. If someone disagrees they should address the idea. Satire or not, if you see something wrong in it you should address it.
@@M17-f4c you didn't address the metaphor, you created a new one and strawmanned yourself out of the argument. Satire or not, this is absolutely hilarious
judging from the comments... we're screwed...
The fact that you used the coconut island analogy just made my entire week. Thank you.
I always thought this was pretty stupid. Because anybody in a survival situation like that would just wait until that guy falls asleep incapacitate him and then take his coconuts.
@@darkstar844able based
@@darkstar844able except the coconut guy has to food so is more likely to stay awake longer…but either way the analogy works if you’re arguing in good faith
That is a refreshing alternative from the overused animal farm
The analogy assumes there's just one resource in the world. It's completely useless.
The unregulated free market is literally the law of the jungle. Everybody thinks they're the top dog. In reality 90% would quickly find out they're the cod fish in the piranha pond. Which is the very reason we always have had some sort of government/state to prevent this from happening.
"Young adults between the ages of 18 to 25, who are hyper online, don't leave the house that often , and have very few to no (real life) friends"
ouch
Except for leaving the house part (hike and cycle on weekends to escape from the grind of a weekday tech job) this fits me, and I guess majority of the viewers, pretty accurately.
jokes on him, im 26...
*cries*
Jesus in in my 30s and still he comes for me 😭😭
The irony of capitalism is that it needs government intervention in some sectors and some specific occurrences to remain the free market. Just like being tolerant means you eventually have to be intolerant to remain tolerant.
People making the case for anarchist societies are either playing funny mind games or are very funny in their minds. Both capitalists and socialists in that case.
Any anarchist society is doomed to fail
agree. Marxist-leninist socialist state for the win!
@@abuthahirumarhathab4201 only that socialism will and has ALWAYS lead to catastrophes.
No, the ideal state must remain capitalist, liberal and individualist
@@sweetnerevar7030 No. Capitalism sucks
@@abuthahirumarhathab4201 nah not really. While capitalism has its problems when not regulated it seems to be the freest system aswell as the most productive one. You know because you actually get to keep the fruits of your labor
@@sweetnerevar7030 Not really. My father worked as a butcher for 10 years and as a teacher for 20 years. He is still not able to own a house. My mother gets a measly 10000 rupees as salary per month, with which u literally can't do anything. So....no.
With your points about moving, that hits on one of my biggest issues with capitalism and that it relies on people with the fewest resources to make the most changes.
Just for the reference, losing stock options (which was casually mentioned for people who are joining the union) can be losing about half of your total salary. So, yes, if I say if you are joining the Union it means I will take away your bonus which is doubling your salary I don't think it is any fair.
>get propelled to new heights by the algorithm overlords
>shortly posts a video clowning free market capitalism
Yes, I think this is based.
Go back
been here all summer
@@dizzymetrics Ever notice its only weeaboo societal leeches that are pro communism and anti capitalism.
Like, the ones who only worked maybe 13 hours a week?
@@indoom666 BOOTLICKER ALERT, 📢 📢 THIS DUDE PROBABLY WORKS 60 HOURS A WEEK FOR UNDER $15 AND PROBABLY THINKS THATS SOME KIND OF ACHIEVEMENT, YEAH GREAT JOB CHAD
@@xxnekonekox he's on the sigma grindset and we're just worker's rights betas dude :,(
Adam is the friend i wanted all my life but never had - i can't fucking talk to anyone