Appreciating Capitalism

[@shawnbruce6934]

And the laptop can make the buyer rich if used correctly. I learned from parents who were way smarter than my school teachers. School was a waste of thousands of hours of my time.

[@1voluntaryist]

Lucky you! I was forced to attend, boycotted 1st, got expelled from 4th, 5th, and 8th. When free I could self-educate, read a lot, Austrian Economic System, Rand, revisionist history.

[@mentally_illest_radio]

I like to call it just the free market because the word capitalism is so mixed up with the coercion of government and government service monopolies. But i guess we should take back that word too if it doesnt include that.

[@kensurrency2564]

I keep telling everyone that LANGUAGE MATTERS. When words are corrupted, misconceptions flourish.

[@1voluntaryist]

Yes, yes, yes! We must fight to KEEP strict definitions. Statists purposely corrupt words (concepts) to confuse and rule. It's a dishonest strategy used to circumvent reason, using fraud.

[@looneycrow7978]

Free markets = utopian ideology

[@lucar.923]

Me too, or free trade, free exchange ("libero scambio" in italian) 🤷‍♂

[@Amanredpill]

@@kensurrency2564 English has the most definitions of deception than any other language

[@bbblackwell]

Just because our laptops have come to us through capitalism, doesn't mean capitalism is a requirement for laptops. Capitalism is more than just ownership and voluntary exchange; it's about what motivates action. There are other possible motivations besides personal material accumulation.

[@LarkenRose]

Capitalism is ABSOLUTELY a requirement for laptops. There is precisely NO CHANCE IN HELL of a laptop ever existing, if there weren't rich people with the capital to build factories to make such things. (And no, motivations have precisely NOTHING TO DO with whether something is capitalism or not. But as it happens, "greed" and striving for PERSONAL PROFIT has enriched the whole world more than anything in history, by a long shot.)

[@bbblackwell]

@@LarkenRose Capitalism is defined by the profit motive, specifically personal wealth enhancement. This is not the only way laptops can come into being. Look at your own work regarding anarchism, none of which is motivated by material accumulation. Look at all the non-profit efforts people make, alone or in groups, inspired by passion, compassion, or the mere challenge of doing something previously thought impossible. In a free world, people could *voluntarily* contribute their labor and resources, much like every tribe throughout hundreds of thousands of years of human history. Capitalism fast-tracked our technology beyond our wisdom, but we could have gotten here (or somewhere better) in due time.

[@LarkenRose]

@@bbblackwell No, that isn't what capitalism means. And yes, someone (or a limited collection of someones) having lots of capital, so they can build huge factories, is the ONLY way laptops were going to exist. It is utterly impossible for anyone to manually build a laptop. You have to build very complex, sophisticated, EXPENSIVE machines to do that. That is NEVER going to happen by random people decide to combine their "labor and resources," because NONE of their labor and NONE of their resources are ever going to make a microprocessor exist.

[@bbblackwell]

@@LarkenRose The work did all that, not the money. Money (or material reward) is what motivated them to do the work. Everyone could do everything they do now without direct compensatory reward, but it would require a level of mass consciousness exceeding even that of anarchism.

[@LarkenRose]

@@bbblackwell No, "the work" didn't all by itself make microprocessors. Duh. And no, "mass consciousness" isn't going to make microprocessors appear, either. COMPLICATED, EXPENSIVE MACHINES are, and nothing else.

[@MDHaughton]

I, Pencil.

[@captainjimolchs]

I would have said that if you didn't. Bicycles are SO complicated.

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@captainjimolchs In the 90's I read a book about Economics by Dr Gary North and I'll never forget one of his chapters was about what was involved to make a pencil. It was quite a bit.

[@captainjimolchs]

@@mustardseedsociety My tongue was in my cheek.

[@huckleberryfinney4393]

@@mustardseedsocietyGary North is my 10 year old's math instructor (on video, of course, at Ron Paul Curriculum). And the book he is teaching by - is Ray's Intellectual Arithmetics, published in 1877. Although Ray himself died in 1855, so material is even older. I think this is so cool, my kid doesn't even know it yet how cool it is, but he will.

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@huckleberryfinney4393 I had no idea Gary North taught math LOL. I just thought he stuck with History and Economics. Now for the record, there are lots of things I'm onboard with Gary North and some things I'm not. His economics as related to free market capitalism are really good. But I do remember him being a Statist - a "Christian" Statist. I personally reject Statism which is why I follow Laeken. I do not think Romans 13 is talking about "obeying your government". Romans 13 is a parallel to Hebrews 13. Hebrews 13 makes it abundantly clear as to who the "rulers" are. They are not "the government". It's those in Church leadership. Now before readers of this comment get upset, RELAX LOL - It's totally VOLUNTARY. If a person gets a job at McDonalds, the first day they report for work, they will have a leader {usually a manager or "Lead"} that they will be under. This is a voluntary thing. The new employee can work there as long as they want {provided they stay employed with acceptable job performance} The same exact thing goes for Church leadership. In a job, the benefits are a paycheck mainly & sometimes extra benefits. In a Church setting, the benefits are spiritual well being. Both are voluntary to join. The problem with Gary North's camp, is they want the State to implement Biblical "law" at the point of a gun, and I have to reject that because I don't believe in a "State". In fact, in Mathew chapter 4 verse 8 & 9, it clearly implies that "governments" belong to the Kingdom of darkness. So why would a Christian want "Biblical Law" established by the Kingdom of Darkness ?? It makes no sense. That's why I highly embrace Larken's philosophy - it's because it's the ONLY philosophy that enables EVERYONE to share the same planet without destroying each other UNLIKE the "state". It actually makes way for the Christian to practice one's faith better, which is NOT by rule of the sword, but rather serving your fellow man and not only "preaching the Gospel", but LIVING it as well. The point being, I have learned a TON from Gary North, but don't necessarily embrace everything he advocates. But I will say, Dr North and I agree on "eschatology" - in that we're both postmillennial.

[@sabman3321]

Capitalism -> The wealthy are reason you have nice things Statism -> The government is the reason you have nice things Monarchy -> The King is the reason you have nice things Religion -> God is the reason you have nice things Inventor -> I was just trying to do something cool and make a name for myself

[@LarkenRose]

Inventors don't mass produce the things they come up with. CAPITALISTS do. Example: the computer you used to type that comment.

[@bbblackwell]

@@sabman3321 You're dead-on with this. That's exactly what's going on here. This is just more Stockholm Syndrome, but in a superficially different context. Personal property rights do not imply capitalism. Willful contribution of labor and resources does not imply communism. There are more than two options here, but that old statist "left vs. right" mentality lives on strong as ever in the anarchist community, because as Mark would say, many of us haven't gone *all the way.*

[@sabman3321]

​@@LarkenRose Your statement is true, but why are you ignoring that it's a synergistic relationship? That's like me crediting KZbin for YOUR content. Without KZbin distributing your content nobody would see it. This is also a true statement. KZbin could start saying "WE MADE YOU". But, what is the platform without its content creators? I appreciate the work you've done. You've helped open up a lot of people's minds. But, I'm not getting the bigger picture here. If we accept this premise, what are you building towards teaching us?

[@huckleberryfinney4393]

And only the first statement is objectively honest. Oh, and the inventor one, I guess. I have never seen a project completed without a budget. Someone has to finance it.

[@bbblackwell]

@@huckleberryfinney4393 You've never seen a free society either.

[@LarkenRose]

It's funny how many people here are just randomly listing things they don't like, and saying, "THAT'S what capitalism means!!!" No, you randomly making shit up is not how language works. "capitalism -- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[@mariewallin1011]

It’s lonely at the top, buddy!

[@jed3544]

"Money" is an idea - a mental construct. Money, and the hoarding of it, creates nothing - HUMANS create. Humans have been creative and experimental since time immemorial, whether motivated by an idea, or necessity. Look at the cathedrals, for example - incredibly complex multigenerational endeavors incentivized not by the idea of "money", but the idea of religious devotion. Look at the Soviets who spurred incredible inventions through the mental constructs of collectivist hopium, or the fear of punishment. And let's not ignore the many problems presented by capitalim/the pursuit of profit above all other considerations.

[@LarkenRose]

@Fuji_62 "financial profit is ONLY possible if there is a larger low wage class at the BOTTOM that labor value is extracted from." That is patently false. And the silly commie notion that value is only "extracted" from poor oppressed workers ignores the fact that the working class today is literally richer than kings were, a few centuries back.

[@huckleberryfinney4393]

@@LarkenRosei witnessed thirty years ago how one man hired unskilled Mexican workers for lowest cash labor and while using them, taught them skills that he needed them to perform - woodwork, welding, construction (building a big boat). By the time he was finished with the project, in 8 years, they managed to move their families from MX, improve their lives, got green cards and moved on to high paying jobs or started their own companies. Bad, bad, exploiting capitalist pig, lol. I myself was born and raised in Soviet Union and I approve of your message! 👏🏻

[@LukesPersonalChannel]

@Fuji_62 You're exactly the kind of commie that Larken was preaching to in the video above. How is someone who is struggling to pay rent and energy bills (but objectively has had them for most of his life, at the very least) not 100X richer than people who never heard of electricity and had to build their own muddy hut dwellings? You have no idea what capitalism has brought you nor do you care, you're just a spoiled brat that is cutting his nose to spite his face.

[@Green.Country.Agroforestry]

When one has produced more than one has need of, and saves the surplus, or exchanges the surplus for something else, one has capitalism. When one gives what one has produced to another voluntarily, one has charity. When one has what one has produced taken involuntarily (be it surplus or not) one has experienced theft. Should one argue against capitalism, that one either argues for charity or for theft. It has been my experience in life that human beings tend less towards charity, when they have been subjected to theft, and practice capitalism instinctively .. This should be expected, given that it is these exchanges that occur at the base levels of the natural world as well: The striving of each member of an ecosystem to satisfy their own needs yields a surplus that is beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole. In the interactions between trees, other plants, bacteria and fungi, the medium of exchange is carbon - the product of photosynthesis - that is exchanged in complex networks for those other needs: Capitalism IS the natural system.

[@LarkenRose]

Capitalism and charity aren't mutually exclusive.

[@Green.Country.Agroforestry]

@@LarkenRose Correct.

[@bartsavagewood9055]

"You didn't build that." Barry Sotoro

[@Jackliveshere2030]

Yer I remember the idiot saying that

[@joefization]

Greedy capitalists don't concern me unless they've been given a monopoly on the market by government or worse yet, a monopoly on a natural resource. I don't think humans should catch all the fish in the sea for example, and we really don't have the right to either. We need a volunteerist solution to responsibly manage such natural resources.

[@nicholasblakiston6297]

Boycotts, charities and consumer choice

[@joefization]

@@nicholasblakiston6297 these are great solutions. Another one is culture. Where I live there are wild raspberries and apples growing on public land which people enjoy but no one gets greedy with. As a guy with a fruit picker on a pole and a vehicle to get to the best apple tree I have the means of picking all the apples but in order to honor the culture of responsibility I only take what is reasonable, leaving plenty for others and wildlife. It's a beautiful culture I'm proud to be part of and it's a taboo to violate it.

[@michaelpoulin3445]

Fantastic ​@@joefization

[@1voluntaryist]

In a society with a mixed economy, capitalism must overcome this, struggle against statism. When no one is allowed to own anything (socialism) it creates the worst economy. The best economy is where people voluntarily make contracts of owned resources.

[@nicholasblakiston6297]

@@1voluntaryist we just need a charitably funded security force that prevents slavery, trespassing, the molestation of a minor, and the construction or possession of nuclear weapons. Under that basic structure, free markets can operate efficiently and survival post-collapse can become possible.

[@cameronpresley5771]

I do a variety of things, I’m a handyman. I’ve never been hired to do anything by a poor person almost all my clients are much wealthier than me.

[@cameronpresley5771]

@Fuji_62 I choose who I work for. Some people are a piece of shit. They don’t pay or they find something wrong with what you did as if they could do it better. They will also waste your time looking at projects they can’t afford. You are precisely one of those p.o.s. people.

[@jensenchavez265]

And that is the point, you went to work for yourself and have the choice in who you work with. That option is available to everybody and yet people like the commenter above me think it's everyone else's fault but their own for choosing to work for corrupt corporations and remaining so addicted to maintaining their privileged way of life that their highest priority has become making money. I don't care if a corporation mistreats it's employees or customers because at the end of the day it's their own fault for engaging with that business. People need to relearn the concept of personal accountability and they would see that they are responsible for the vast majority of their own mistreatment.

[@OldBastard-dj6er]

@Fuji_62 you're an . . . . .blah common folk do not have the cash to sport a handyman on the regular . . . . don't be dumb

[@bbblackwell]

@@jensenchavez265 This is so true, though maybe not so cut-and-dry. There's a satanic mega-construct around us, making a truly righteous life rather untenable. Every dollar earned or spent contributes to the government's stranglehold on us. Even without federal notes, economic systems founded on subjective valuations are fundamentally flawed (and have consequences of moral import). People can't gain direct access to land, food and water with a reasonable effort, and many moral or healthful choices are cost-prohibitive, assuming we could get good information in the first place.

[@ShanePartain805]

Living in the wilderness is great when you have gear that was created by capitalism.

[@ShanePartain805]

​@Fuji_62 And cavemen figured out how to make fire. So what? But I think you replied to the wrong comment. I was talking about the kind of stuff you can buy at REI.

[@1voluntaryist]

@Fuji_62 I'm sure there are a few innovations that happened in the USSR. It didn't save it from internal collapse, a love of capitalist goods.

[@1voluntaryist]

@Fuji_62 Yea, also I "heard" Cuba claim they live in poverty because of sanctions, US trade boycott, for over a half century. I "heard" the CIA propaganda claim the USSR was an immediate threat, from the end of WWII 'til 1989. It collapsed internally. The CIA shut up. Without boogymen to frighten the tax slaves into silence, their focus turns inward. With that comes massive social unrest, questions that the US Empire can't answer, lies exposed, homegrown fascism exposed.

[@jab1289]

Chris from ithadtobesaid just did a video response to this one.

[@TribalGlobe]

Fascinating

[@RobertBlahunka]

Property Rights.

[@JEP-Tech]

Capitalism is voluntarism. Once you understand that, to hate capitalism is to hate free human interaction. A state that permits capitalism allows for voluntary communist communities, while a state that enforces communism does not allow for voluntary capitalist communities. Global capitalism does not need governments to be enforced, because all government intervention is an impedance on capitalism, while global communism, colonialism, imperialism, fascism, feudalism, and other authoritarian systems do require governments to exist. When people criticize capitalism, they are usually misconstruing government intervention for capitalism, or they hate that voluntarism inherently produces unequal outcomes and would rather see everyone brought low than to see some do better than themselves.

[@martiendejong8857]

@@JEP-Tech Capitalism is by definition not voluntary. It is decided by the power dynamics of who owns the capital, enforced by laws and regulations that are written by the capitalists.

[@shawnbruce6934]

Nicely stated.

[@laskji]

What we have is State-Capitalism. There are an overwhelming number of government supports, protections and interventions in the capitalism we see. To remove all of these and make it voluntary would be the same as destroying it: We would be back to the prefactory era with small peasant farmers and small local markets.

[@ka-peach7945]

@@martiendejong8857 Breathtaking ignorance.

[@chokebeer5296]

@@martiendejong8857 You wanna buy my tomato? You can literally say yes or no. Voluntary as fuck.

[@Freefolkcreate]

You are so right. For me, free markets allow for lots of exchanges, that debt corporatism almost never does. Such as barter. Free markets mean you can use any medium of exchange that the parties deem of benefit. That's freedom. I have something, you have something, let's both get what we want/need. Capitalism isn't just technology being available it's also individual enterprise. It's the only system that allows people to fill the vacuum between rich and poor. The middle class is a buffer against tyranny.

[@ka-peach7945]

Well said

[@grizzz6884]

agree . but we need to agree to have a token that is not rare , with and agreed value . a lot like bit coin . but can just sit in your pocket . if we had a community that produced its needs with in a days walk , barter is great .

[@bbblackwell]

@@Freefolkcreate You're not describing capitalism. Capitalism is me putting 1 dollar into a hat and pulling out 10. Where did the other 9 come from? My contribution was 1, so the other 9 must be *other people's* contributions. Capitalism is theft; more specifically a con, because the mark hands it over willingly and feels like he won something.

[@1voluntaryist]

@@grizzz6884 Barter doesn't work in the complex Industrial complex. Money is necessary, a giant leap forward, IF it's honest, stable, e.g., gold.

[@11-474]

Honestly I'm willing to live under any form of societal organization I guess. As long as there's no duress and violence.

[@MDHaughton]

That's exactly why I don't hypneate my freedom.

[@SL2797]

Go ahead. But socialist policies always result in more and more poverty. Always, without exception.

[@ka-peach7945]

A slave mentally then.

[@bbblackwell]

@@11-474 We need to deepen our understanding of duress. How could anyone living in our modern world not see how nearly everyone is inauthentically "consenting" all day long. People are working at jobs they hate, hoping they'll have a chance to do what they really love on the weekend, or when they retire. One person's natural gifts and passions go unfulfilled, while someone else is miserable doing those very same beloved activities, each led by artificial necessity to where economic opportunity presented itself.

[@1voluntaryist]

There are ONLY two fundamental forms of society, non-violent and violent. Violent is the political paradigm worldwide. It violently opposes non-violent politics.

[@laskji]

Modern corporate capitalism requires a very very heavy handed state. Without massive protection of markets, absorption of externalities, and especially (!) Defense of capitalist property rights, capitalism would be unrecognizable (probably something more along the lines of earlier settler America: small farms and tiny markets). Ironically Larken is defending a very heavy handed state, though he doesn’t seem to know it.

[@diogenes9295]

Strongarm theft of the means of production is not capitalism.

[@laskji]

Ironically, that is exactly how capitalism started. Including such laws as the “game laws” in England under early capitalism making it illegal to hunt or own rifles (means of production), so as to force peasants into factories to work almost as slaves….See the “land enclosures.” Educate yourself on the ACTUAL history of capitalism instead of the robinson crusoe BS handed down from mises and rand….

[@laskji]

@diogenes9295 Except that is literally how capitalism started. See the English land enclosures. Hunting and owning rifles was made illegal in order to usher (force) people into factories. Capitalism has an actually history that doesnt involve robinson crusoe (as rand and mises) would have you believe. And that history is very dark indeed: mostly force and fraud. Educate yourself instead of taking rothbard and hayek as gospel truth.

[@LarkenRose]

Ironically, your comment was profoundly stupid, though you don't seem to know it. No, people defending what is rightfully theirs doesn't require a parasitic ruling class. Duh.

[@LarkenRose]

@@laskji And you sticking the word "capitalism" on anything you don't like doesn't determine what the word actually means.

[@darrellernst5493]

If memory serves me right I have heard Larken Rose say the true definition of capitalism is free trade. If that's the case even bartering is a form of capitalism. I had someone who wanted to have an endless argument over this.😂

[@bbblackwell]

@@darrellernst5493 How does that definition account for the root premise of capitalism, which is investment of resources for the sole purpose of capital growth? If I make a break-even deal with you--two red apples for two green apples--and no one interferes, that's free trade, but it damn sure ain't capital investment with hope of greater returns.

[@1voluntaryist]

@@bbblackwell A freely done deal is capitalism. An exchange under duress is not. Economic freedom = capitalism.

[@bbblackwell]

@@1voluntaryist How does this address my previous comment where I described how that definition doesn't account for the core premise of capitalism? Capitalism isn't about regulation, it's about investment and return, and may be free or encumbered by legislation.

[@brunohendrioux1876]

That's the problem with any kind of religious fanatic, they just cannot see any other way to exist but the rules imposed by the dogma of their religion.

[@LarkenRose]

Which "religious fanatic" are you talking about?

[@CBT5777]

@@LarkenRose You. ha ha!

[@RicaRoseHopeful_Voluntarist]

"The pie is not fixed." ~ Eric D. July

[@La_Hoja_Verde]

Any thoughts on the C4SS/"free-market anti-capitalist" stances that what we describe as "capitalism" is a system of state privilege and extortion and ultimately foreign to true free-market voluntary exchange?

[@damiendeecee]

Just have a look at the dictionary definition of capitalism. It's simple: private ownership of the means of production. Larken uses the universal definition.

[@La_Hoja_Verde]

@@damiendeecee I really do wonder how much of the divide between "right" and "left" market anarchists is due to semantics and insistence on specific terminology.

[@dunhoppe]

​@@La_Hoja_VerdeThere can be people arguing for being "capitalist" and "anti-capitalist" but defending literally the same thing

[@La_Hoja_Verde]

@@dunhoppe 100%. Honestly, were it not for the turn towards paleolibertarianism in Ancap circles and the influence of a few particular nefarious actors, I think Ancap would've been accepted into the mainstream as a form of market anarchism. Instead, we're stuck sussing out *exactly* what someone means when they say "I'm an Ancap."

[@sonicbloomtuts]

@@damiendeecee Have you looked up the definition of anarchism? Do you realise that none of anything that could threaten the ruling class has been redefined.

[@LarkenRose]

And notice how many people chimed in to post one version or another of, "No, capitalism is mean, bad stuff!" without actually saying a word about the topic of the video. Aside from what someone thinks a particular word means (and they love to ignore the actual dictionary definition), where are all the commies proving that we could be having this discussion, on computers, over wires, WITHOUT there being any "greedy rich businessmen" making such things possible? Who is going to show how it's done, by making a laptop, or even just a bicycle, WITHOUT any capital investment?

[@jed3544]

@@LarkenRose "money" is an idea - a mental construct. "Money" can't create anything - humans do. Humans have been inventive and experimental since time immemorial. IDEAS are what inventivize humans to create, when not necessity. Look at the cathedrals that were built through religious devotion. Look at what the Soviets were able to accomplish with through the currency of ideas - whether it be collectivist hopium or the fear of punishment. One man need not hold a piece of paper defended by the implicit violence of the state in order for the mines to function. No, what is needed is the proper incentive. All that said and done, capitalism has played a crucial role in providing that incentive over the last few hundred years, but it would be folly to assume capitalism - as we understand it - will remain an incenticising force for the rest of human history, and it would be folly to ignore the problems presented by capitalism and the amoral pursuit of profit above all other considerations.

[@LarkenRose]

@@jed3544 The Soviets built things through MASS EXTORTION. Many cathedrals were built through MASS EXTORTION committed by the churches, when they were the government. And yes, if you know what "capitalism" is, you would know it will remain forever, because it's an essential aspect of freedom.

[@jed3544]

@@LarkenRose "capitalism" has never existed without the support of the state. Strange that you'd have missed that. Capitalism, at its heart, is a property rights relationship. The numerous time workers attempted to voluntarily better their situations, violent force administered by the state was utilized. At some point in the lifetime of every mine, factory, etc - the workers will refuse to listen to the man who claims ownership via a piece of paper, who cares only for profit which is often gained at the expense of the wealth of workers. That piece of paper that "grants ownership" only does so because of the implicit threat of state sponsored violence.

[@1voluntaryist]

@@jed3544 The coercive state doesn't "grant rights". It violates rights by deadly threat, fraud. Rights are enjoyed by all who understand they must respect the rights of others to get others to respect theirs. The so-called "Wild West" had little to no official rule. Order came from mutual respect in the mining camps, local committees had hearing, applied "justice". Crime was no problem, petty theft mainly. Why? The danger without deadly govt. is a lie. Law leads to chaos. Localized (decentralized) justice is orderly, without the initiation of violence, fraud. There is no "need" to be ruled by force. There is a need to be free from oppression. It's only logical.

[@MamaFirehorse5]

When more of us evolve spiritually and consciously and actually care for ourselves and others, capitalism and voluntaryism become easier and better - my opinion.

[@bbblackwell]

@@MamaFirehorse5 When that growth happens, we'll move *past* capitalism and voluntarism to acknowledging all others as self, seeking mutual growth with no thought of competitive personal profiteering, and no need to assert or defend rights.

[@projectone5113]

Thanks Larken 🙏

[@martiendejong8857]

Omg Larken I hadnt expected you to say something this stupid. And with so much conviction. I hold you in very high regard but this is just wrong. Rich people dont deserve to have that much at the expense of others. If I wanted to I could build my own car or laptop from scratch. Without any capitalism involved because people are sharing the designs (the means of production) on the internet. And capitalists are sueing them for it. The people who invented the ideas and made the stuff are almost never the people profiting from it. And even if they were they dont deserve 5 houses and 10 ferraris. What you are explaining is free markets and in capitalism markets are not free.

[@LarkenRose]

"If I wanted to I could build my own car or laptop from scratch" You are utterly delusional.

[@martiendejong8857]

​@@LarkenRosethank you for replying so quickly though 😅

[@martiendejong8857]

​@@LarkenRosecapitalism is crony capitalism.

[@martiendejong8857]

​@@LarkenRosein Africa people are making bycicles out of wood

[@martiendejong8857]

​@@LarkenRosewe have a different understanding of what capitalism is. I am no collectivist. I define capitalism as people hoarding capital which is only possible in a collectivist system that protects these people. Without government they wouldnt stand a chance.

[@PortugueseKeto]

Building the hut from the bison you just skinned still satisfies the Rothbardian definition of capitalism

[@SquarePeg-]

I mean I'm not against capitalism, but you're really missing a huge part of the reason it can be considered unjust. How did the first person to obtain property get it? They obviously didn't buy it which undermines the entire position. Secondly, due to inflation which is a necessary component of capitalism, it gives people that are born before you an advantage. So you can appeal to the " you have nice things because rich people" but you can never really make a claim that those who are rich have more merit than poor people. So no I don't think rich people deserve gratitude. They just happen to be rich. but you did a good job sidestepping the moral issues by doing a utilitarian analysis and then trying to dismiss the moral claims, in the most condescending way possible.

[@bbblackwell]

@@SquarePeg- If all members of a tribe went to the unlimited mango field to gather mangoes for 24 hours, the most hearty man, who needs no rest, may work every hour, while others lose 8 hours to sleep. The fastest man may outpace the others, and the most intelligent man may devise a better system, and thereby accumulate more mangoes than the others--but how much more? Maybe he's 10 times better than his fellows, and gathers 10 times more mangoes, but no man has more than 24 hours, and none are a *million* times better. It can never be the case that one man's effort would see him sitting on a mile-high pile of mangoes, while others could barely acquire enough to survive. There's much more to say for this analogy to be complete, but for the sake of brevity I'll just say that the above scenario clues us in to a feature of the natural order that is necessary to maintain balance. A sound society will evolve in unfathomable ways, but it must not stray from fundamental ordering principles. Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed. Every rich man is a thief--sneak, brute or con-man--though he may not know it. There is literally no other way for such wealth disparity to occur. I have not proven it here, but I could with more time, and I have shown the beginnings of the reasoning.

[@LarkenRose]

1) Learn about the concept of "homesteading": kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWfPmnWNeZeJsJI 2) No, inflation is not at all necessary for capitalism. 3) There is no MORAL foundation to oppose capitalism, since, by definition, that would require FORCIBLY interfering with voluntary trade. 4) "They just happen to be rich." You understand nothing about value, or wealth, or where it comes from.

[@slimbo7858]

Inflation is not necessary to capalitism. It's antithical to it. We don't live in a capitalism.

[@slimbo7858]

After they had a crap ton of money they want to usher in socialism to protect themselves from competition. We get our cheap products from communist China. Most people wouldn't be able to afford the products they love so dear and ignore that it's affordable from slave labor.

[@slimbo7858]

You're just ignoring the slave labor that produces your cheap products. All these corporations have no problem with that, and they would do it to you too if they could get away with it.

[@Observer1964]

To bad that capitalism leads to monoploy which leads to collase and the vanishing of the culture, history is full of examples of the evolution of capitalism into oblivion. So how to solve that outcome? I am not anti capitalist but I think there needs to be more balance, more civilised.

[@diogenes9295]

Monopolies can only be supported by violins, like the st8. _"history is full of examples of the evolution of capitalism into oblivion."_ Can you name one of these times?

[@LarkenRose]

1) You're making provably ridiculous assertions. 2) A "balance" between what and what? No, extortion and violent coercion (the opposition of capitalism) is not more civilized.

[@Observer1964]

@@LarkenRose Look at the world today, I think it is the result of unlimited capitalism, everything can be bought, governments and regulations, murders on uncooperative politicians, everything is for sale. Maybe I dont understand what part is capitalism but I see it happen in our world. Historical examples are the roman empire and others. If you look at the historical cycles you can see how a free market builds up the culture and then trade and tax comes and downfall is beginning, at some point the producer gets almost nothing and the consumer cant afford it. Again, I am very much in favor of freedom, like in the beginning of a culture (like Russia now) but unless I see things wrong I see it evolve into economic slavery (like the west now). I like to refer to a short video about historical cycles to support my opinion. Although I came to my opinion through other information as well. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWe1mKh-d7CJedU

[@Observer1964]

@@LarkenRose I mean a balance between unlimited capitalism and the well being of the masses. in the notion that in capitalism the individual exploits the mass and in communism the mass exploits the individual. Somewhere a balance between the 2 is needed to prevent cultural selfdestruction.

[@diogenes9295]

@@Observer1964 You can't regulate capitalism, and then blame the regulation corruption on capitalism.

[@mcbowler]

The word capitalism is a dirty word meant to criticize people that care about money above all else. It’s much better to use “free market” or voluntary. Some people assume capitalism requires the state to enforce the monetary and property rights, and is corrupted by the state, lust for money, or both.

[@DanielBice]

Well, you know what happens when you assume🤷🏻‍♀️

[@1voluntaryist]

Words that are potent, e.g., rights, capitalism, can't be openly attacked, refuted. To be destroyed concepts they need to be married to contradictory concepts or arbitrary negative words, e.g., "greedy capitalists" or "crony (conspiring to cheat) capitalists". This is using the fallacy of "The stolen concept". It's all the opponents have when reason is useless. Is it wise to let them do it? Or, should we defend the truth with more truth?

[@Eaglefriend19]

Nothing you said is incorrect, private property etc if totally fine but if gathering as much capital is the main philosophy, then the problem inevitably is that the methods to gain the capital are always gained by having knowledge (that others don't have!). So for rich capitalists to continue to keep being rich, their main objective primarily will be to dumb down and hide as much knowledge from everyone else. the main incentive then becomes making others dumb and incapable which leads to endless stagnation And this ultimately will reflect in the products, systems and organizations purely capitalists people will make, they will make products, systems and organizations that are designed to hide information and designed to dumb down their customers

[@sonicbloomtuts]

It's totally incorrect what he said. It's like you all can't see.the forest for the tree. Capitalism is called that for a reason and it was done so by the capitalists themselves. "gathering as much capital is the main philosophy" is literally what capitalism is all about.

[@Eaglefriend19]

@@sonicbloomtuts no capitalism as a system is great, it really doesn't need a name as it it self evident, you could name it "free trade + private property" (no slavery) but thats where discernment is needed capitalism is a great system (because it is not a system) but it is a terrible philosophy, they need not me mixed

[@jasonshults368]

As long as a single group doesn't determine the currency and it's characteristics, capitalism is generally awesome.

[@1voluntaryist]

Without free banking, a money monopoly will exist, will tax, will destroy the economy. Free banking requires a free country, i.e., no statism (authoritarianism). That exists nowhere.

[@normalsee4447]

Would you say Nikola Tesla created and contributed his inventions out of greed?

[@LarkenRose]

Inventing something isn't the same as producing it. Without people with lots of capital to put his ideas into practice, we wouldn't have the electricity to be having this conversation.

[@CarsonKevin]

He trots out the right-libertarian "That's not capitalism it's corporatism/cronyism" cliche like he just thought of it himself. Rose: Any form of business enterprise connected with the state isn't really capitalism. Also Rose: The tech industry and Internet -- developed almost entirely through state-funded R&D -- are an example of the achievements of capitalism. Apparently this man is incapable of speaking two consecutive sentences that don't directly contradict each another.

[@LarkenRose]

1) "Capitalism" has a definition, and it doesn't depend upon whatever you personally wish it meant. "capitalism -- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2) "The tech industry and Internet -- developed almost entirely through state-funded R&D..." Just making up ridiculous shit doesn't make it true.

[@diogenes9295]

Sure, and the state invented roads.

[@CarsonKevin]

@@LarkenRose Yeah, I know making up ridiculous shit doesn't make it so. Hence my response to your video. If you thinking up my statement about the Internet, you obviously know very little about the history of the Pentagon's involvement in funding tech industry R&D and developing ARPANet. There's a whole body of work by technological historians like David Noble on the role of the Pentagon in developing miniaturized technology. And dictionary definitions don't trump actual history. The word "capitalism" was coined in the 19th century in reference to the actually existing historical system of capitalism -- the economic system that succeeded feudalism in the early modern period. It wasn't recuperated by people like Mises and Rand, as a synonym for a "free market" system, until the early 20th century. It's still used in the original sense by historians, and basically everybody but ancaps and right-libertarian polemicists.

[@LarkenRose]

@@CarsonKevin ... and people who write dictionaries, apparently.

[@TheGoreforce]

Their reason: You can own some things.

[@craigtirrell3026]

The intelligence that it took to turn sand into a pretty mirtor shiny disk that are millions of transistors amazes me. Just as the invention of internal combustion engine and automatic transmissions. We wouldnt be where we are if those brilliant minds didn't leave anyone on the knowledge to build upon ti make things even better. Our ancestors were intelligent and wanted to make things better for everyone.

[@AmineDiva]

An outstanding video us usual, thanks larken rose.

[@icejackalgodofmetal14]

6:27 It'd be more accurate to say "You have some riches, Because there are people way more rich than you" Because I'm poor I'm not rich at all, but having capitalist "goods" can also be called "riches" sometimes "riches" is a replacement word for "goods" Like "food" and "grub"

[@LarkenRose]

You're "not rich at all" ... but you have a computer in front of you, connected to the whole world? Yes, you ARE rich, compared to most people throughout most of history.

[@sabman3321]

​@@LarkenRose That's kind of myopic to suggest we're historically rich cause we have a computer. For example, perhaps having books or a piano made people just as happy in the old days. In the future there's going to be something we don't have, so we're relatively poor already in comparison by that logic. Your statement should have just stopped at "You are rich compared to most people in the world". Living in the West distorts perceptions of wealth. There's lots of poor people the world.

[@icejackalgodofmetal14]

8:38 Yeah this doesn't sound at all evil or oppressive It sounds really cool and awesome

[@LarkenRose]

If you think it's "evil and oppressive" for someone to hope to make money by selling things to willing customers, enjoy your caveman existence, because it's all you will ever have.

[@AxmihaMeuSaco]

Yes, and yes, of course, yes, but one thing I think Larken is not considering is that many, like in a lot, of the things made were made with other intentions than to help or provide "goods" to people for money. The synth was cool and made cool sounds, yes, but then it evolved into the sampler (for those who don't know the synth makes synthetic electronic sounds, while the sampler is the actual real instrument recorded digitally), and now you have 60 musicians unemployed because you have the best sounding string section in your finger. Lots of drummers lost their jobs because you have the best drum sound in a plugin. Argentina used to have trains, and now 90 % or more is in the bin. Cars and buses substituted trains for no other reason than to monopolize the transportation system for Goodyear, Shell and whatnot. What the Rockefellers did with medicine is quite the opposite of "healing". I'm no expert on socio-philo-political economics, but the point is that the billionaires have intentions - to control slaves absolutely - and they are of the eugenic ideology, so they produce (or finance) things primarily for that end, the "good things" the thing does being just a secondary distraction. Internet came from DARPA and the last thing in their minds was providing people with information and all that crap - on the contrary; confuse them with a quadrillion terabytes per millisecond and they'll go insane. Just look around to see what an insane asylum we are, and how much more dumb and controllable people are. Some group in some university a long time ago did a study about automation and concluded that the employer LOST money when changing to automation, meaning that the sole purpose of automation was to control the workers. Etcetera. So yes, capitalism is great in theory. That raises the question; when a thing is great, but impossible, is it relevant? We have this satanic eugenic sort of capitalism, and no, I wouldn't want communism in its place. It's still a lot better than Stalin, but if you think about it, not much of a difference. And if there is a difference, it's getting smaller and smaller every day.

[@huckleberryfinney4393]

Trust me, I lived in Soviet Union, there is a HUUUUGE difference. The problem you describe is that the people in power sell us the snake oil. But why wouldn't they, if we BUY IT? The way I look at it - work on myself, discipline and conscious presence. Awareness about what I consume. If I am not lazy - I will find clean local food to buy, craftsmen, small producers of various goods and not use that what I know to be harmful to me. Look at Amish! Of course, there still be a ton of harmful things, but it comes with the freedom of choice. That includes bad choice.

[@AKNigel]

I thought Larken Rose would have made it down the Libertarian to anticapitalist pipeline by now. Capitalism is a few hundred years old. It's a real thing, separate from the brochure level propaganda. Read Anthony Migchels.

[@diogenes9295]

Capitalism is as old as the first voluntary trade.

[@LarkenRose]

People trading stuff is way older than all of recorded history. The words used to describe it don't matter. If you know what "capitalism" actually means, being anti-capitalist is being anti-freedom, for reasons explained in this video (which you didn't bother to respond to in any way).

[@sonicbloomtuts]

@@diogenes9295 The first trade happened without any involvement of money,. The term capitalist was coined by capitalists for a reason.

[@diogenes9295]

@@sonicbloomtuts Trading a sandwich for an apple is capitalism. Money is just a representation of capital. You could trade a sandwich for an IOU instead.

[@jed3544]

@@diogenes9295 trading a sandwich for an apple is not capitalism lol. Capitalism is a property rights relationship specifically concerning the means of production and financial instruments

[@randybearded]

"If I sent you into the woods with a hatchet, how long would it take before you could send me an email?" - Joe Rogan

[@kaboom4679]

Who else sees the loophole ?

[@bbblackwell]

@@randybearded That's exactly what *did* happen. It took thousands of years--so what?

[@tkoll6268]

Damn Your Right, the Definition was Changed in My Mind! I was asking for the answer last night, and You have Delivered the Truth!

[@speedfiend925]

Capitalism historically has been what you described in the beginning of the video. Innovation happens because of people not because of Capitalism which is a system of exploitation and control which depends on Government to survive. The Free Market does not depend on Government, Capitalism historically has depended on Government. Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, et al is what constitutes Capitalism. A Small Business is Free Market.

[@LarkenRose]

You just making up a new definition for "capitalism" doesn't change what the word actually means. If not for rich people having the CAPITAL to build factories, YOU would be dramatically less comfortable.

[@sonicbloomtuts]

@@LarkenRose You're one making up a new meaning., If you think capitalism means free market, you've brainwashed by capitalism, because it's not rooted in historical facts.

[@LarkenRose]

@@sonicbloomtuts "Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[@breakngtheirhold]

​@@LarkenRose To support this definition of capitalism, don't I have to believe in government? The definition includes "or Corporate ownership". Isn't a corporation a legal entity that would not be possible to exist without government? Also where it says "mainly by competition in a free market" implies that it is not totally by competition in a free market, which makes me wonder, what is the other part determined by? This is honestly a lightbulb moment for me, i dont mean to argue. This has made me realize, I will need to specify anarcho-capitalism in each and every argument about this, instead of just defending outright 'capitalism'

[@sonicbloomtuts]

@@LarkenRose That's ahistorical, and a dictionary definition records the usage of the word, that's all. So using this as evidence shows me you never looked into this and went with the ruling class brainwashing..

[@chrischandler889]

I agree with all this. One thing I've been contemplating for a while is though is land. Should 1 person or a small group be able to own 100,000 acres where the state protects all of it via deeds and police? Abentee property ownership? Beyond just enough for their home dwelling and lets say their business?

[@LarkenRose]

A video about that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWfPmnWNeZeJsJI

[@chrischandler889]

@@LarkenRose awesome. Thanks Larken. Great work.

[@breakngtheirhold]

Hi Larken. I am reading your book right now and you have completely changed my opinion on the state. So thank you for that. Would you agree that collectivists could use the same argument - "you can't make complicated things on your own out of natural resources, therefore you need collectivism?" I quite often hear collectivists have the same argument, but they believe that government and democracy are going to make the "right" decisions on what to produce. I 100% agree with you that government involvement in capitalism is the problem and this video will definitely help me focus on which points to use when arguing against statists.

[@LarkenRose]

No, because it's not an argument. People can't make microprocessors without really complicated MACHINES, that cost lots of money. That is just a description of reality. Claiming we need some "collective" to do it is just a provably false assertion.

[@breakngtheirhold]

Then how do we explain to anti-capitalists the fact that the USSR, China, and Nazi Germany were able to build complicated machines? My point being, complicated machines can be produced under both systems, so the most important distinction is, that under anarcho-capitalism, individuals are able to choose and influence WHICH complicated machines are produced instead of being forced to make complicated machines because the "authority" wants them produced. Because WE KNOW statists will think - "oh well if we controlled the government, we could control what complicated machines are produced!!"

[@supplanterjim]

"Wait, so it's *_not_* a zero-sum game?"

[@jasonshults368]

In reality, there is no sum.

[@IAmPamPoovey]

Loved hearing you on Toward Anarchy with Michael Storm! Thanks for all the great content!

[@mustardseedsociety]

That was truly a fantastic video on the basics of "Econ 101". I'm going to tell others about this video.

[@RobertMcGlynJrRob]

Even if your goal is Communism, you must first allow the free market (i.e. Capitalism) to first be successful enough to have a central authority then steal that wealth and redistribute it to those who fall below whatever threshold they're calling "the poverty line", or to other countries during times of war as "aid", or to serve whatever other agenda can monger fear out of the populace. All of that first requires enough money to be circulating so that it can be stolen and still not cause a total economic collapse.

[@sonicbloomtuts]

Capitalisnm has never been the free market. The hint's actually in the name. It's for those who have capital, and they didn't mean pocket money. You can have communism and free markets, but not capitalism and free markets.

[@ka-peach7945]

LOL

[@1voluntaryist]

@@sonicbloomtuts You have it BACKWARDS! Obtaining capital is much easier with capitalism. The more capitalism, the wealthier the nation. LOOK at economies.

[@sonicbloomtuts]

@@1voluntaryist You're confusing "the nation" with people. The US a is wealthy nation with people living under third world country conditions.

[@bbblackwell]

@@RobertMcGlynJrRob What if your goal is not communism, but just nice humans being nice humans? Do you have "capitalism" or "communism" between you and your family? What if we viewed everyone as family? Yes, it really can be that simple, but not if we've given up on that basic, fundamental goal.

[@constantreader4088]

Terrible premise. Houses, etc., existed prior to capitalism.

[@LarkenRose]

There is no such thing as "prior to capitalism." People owning things, and trading things, predates all of recorded history.

[@constantreader4088]

@@LarkenRose I'm talking about the 18th century concept. You must be talking about something else.

[@diogenes9295]

@@constantreader4088 Your premise is terrible. You are talking about the 17th century constructed terminology for the word "capitalism", which is derived from the word chattel, which is yet earlier derived from the ownership and trade of cattle, which people have done for eons. The concept is as old as handshakes. Do you think that gravity didn't exist, until someone constructed the modern terminology for gravity?

[@constantreader4088]

@@diogenes9295 No, I think capitalism didn't exist as a concept prior to the 18th century. I think you are confusing markets with capitalism. Also the word 'capitalism' didn't come from 'chattel' so...

[@diogenes9295]

@@constantreader4088So... nobody owned or traded capital before the 18th century? What is your definition of capitalism?

[@PonziZombieKiller]

Long way down to find true price discovery.

[@stocklumina2556]

And they say freemasons landed on the moon with less computing power than a Gameboy ?

[@normalsee4447]

Hey Larken- first I want to thank you for all you are doing & have done to promote & teach us as to what freedom truly is. I’ve enjoyed & learned so much from your videos & will no doubt eventually watch them all. I know that you are correct in your view that to ever bring about change in our awful authoritarian governmental systems, it begins with ideas. I wonder what was your original motivation or desire that brought you to that realization? Reading a book by David Lynch called “Catching The Big Fish” he states that ideas, especially valuable ones arise when we have a desire. Wondering if you would ever consider doing a talk about how those of us (like me) who are 100% in agreement with your ideas about statism vs real freedom can instill or inspire others to have a desire to recognize the truth vs the false, conditioned ideas we have all been taught to believe. Or would you say it’s not possible to create desire in someone else-that each person desires what fits with their values, and if so, how can we create conditions for them to honestly begin to question their values regarding what freedom and truth really are?

[@LarkenRose]

Well, it's not so much about create a desire, as giving people an incentive to reconsider things they've always assumed. And I did make a program for exactly that, called "Candles in the Dark." www.attendcandles.com

[@DerykRobosson]

There are many individuals in the comment section below that would benefit from reading, and understanding, the book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand.

[@LucidDream101]

Even cavemen traded among tribes. Capitalism is part of human existence. Mises and Rothbard are good too.

[@bbblackwell]

@@LucidDream101 Yes, they traded *between* tribes, not within them. If we extrapolate on that, deeply contemplating the implications in all directions, much will be revealed.

[@LucidDream101]

@@bbblackwell Agreed. I've thought about this many times. The "Capitalism is BAD" crowd are indoctrinated.

[@drewmoore365]

​@bbblackwell shh you know you can't go there on this channel lol. Before govt people lived in groups/tribes. If govt ceased to exist today. It's what we would go back to

[@bbblackwell]

@@drewmoore365 And you see how they've made "tribalism" a dirty word in popular political culture. The core essence of a species maintains as it evolves, it is not replaced. Our creative intelligence has gotten the better of us because we allowed our immature ego to play with the grown-up tools.

[@drewmoore365]

@@bbblackwell exactly 💯. In my opinion that's where we need to go back to. I honestly think with inflation we might be forced to. We never see the amish complaining. But then again they don't rely on govt

[@FlatLeeo]

Thank you!!

[@0nlyjob]

Are you sure it is due to concept of _capitalism_ versus concept of _trade_?

[@OWEN-CASH]

The problem with capitalism is that it's easily corruptible unless heavily regulated... and the capitalists are against any type of regulation.

[@LarkenRose]

99% of the time, the "regulation" IS the corruption. The use of government violence to give economic advantage is the problem.

[@diogenes9295]

Regulation is an uninvited 3rd party imposing it's violins on an otherwise voluntary trade. It's not capitalism.

[@11-474]

Thanks for the CNN take kind stranger

[@DanielBice]

“The state has used regulations and violence to create and sustain these corrupt ass corporations. Maybe employing MORE regulations will solve this!!”

[@DanielBice]

Also, regulated by whom? The politicians that you guys quite clearly view as being beyond corruptible?

[@icejackalgodofmetal14]

12:30 Yeah because I typically go outside without my phone occasionally for a couple hours at most but never a whole day But even if I did went outside all day went for a hike without my phone I would still have the clothes on my back and the boots on my feet that were a product of capitalism So exactly, You can't do it without getting a decent exposure charge because you would have to be naked to completely live truly communist. Excellent video Larkin as usual Sorry I don't comment on here too much I just don't know what to say or I'm nervous to ask some stuff

[@shawnbruce6934]

One of the real questions is how did they get the crap pile of money Its like the golden gate bridge. Not being a protaganist just posing the notion.

[@grizzz6884]

from the government , all money fiat money belongs to the government , that is why they can devalue it

[@bbblackwell]

@@shawnbruce6934 There's only one way to get the crap pile of money--by stealing it. This requires alchemical wisdom to fully understand... Money is an artificial representation of value, and *man cannot create, alter, or manipulate value.* He can position himself favorably, but no man can amass vastly uncommon value, except by theft, because no man is vastly uncommon relative to his fellows. He can't do anything a million times better or longer, such that he would amass a million times more. People need to venture into the esoteric, or they're stuck just rearranging the same old poisoned ideas promulgated by their masters. And that lot don't take chances--they made sure those ideas can never create freedom in any arrangement before they put them out there.

[@NanceeMarin]

People confuse REAL capitalism with crony capitalism and so-called capitalism where government has its grubby little tentacles on everything.

[@diogenes9295]

By design.

[@NanceeMarin]

​@@diogenes9295Yep.

[@laskji]

Except real capitalism would not look anything at all like what we have today. Like its not just a matter of take away the state and you still have large corporations. The landscape would be unrecognizable.

[@mszabodc]

A little while ago, I remember seeing a video with Larken discussing a movie that a couple of guys were trying to get funding for regarding politicians and their doublespeak...can anyone direct me to some more information about that please?

[@LarkenRose]

It's called "Jones Plantation," and it's now on Amazon Prime and Apple TV, as well as www.jonesplantationfilm.com

[@mszabodc]

@@LarkenRose thank you very much. Just watched the trailer - looks fantastic!! I was aware that this was in the making, and look forward to watching it in full, but I thought there was another one that two men were trying to get funding for, regarding politicians and the fact they never directly answer questions with any meaningful information, and that once one is aware of this, you can never go back to listening to their verbal diarrhea the same way again...was it you that was promoting/endorsing this, and if so, do you know if production is going ahead?

[@shawnbruce6934]

And the challenge is impossible. Great analogy.

[@stevesmith7839]

The USSR, China, and Cuba all produced goods AND had manufacturing and commerce. AK-47's, cars, motorbikes, bicycles, fertilizer, oil, coal, coffee, cigars were all sold globally. The strength of capitalism (ideally) is that anyone is free to produce goods and services, and conduct commerce. Capitalism allows anyone to identify a need and fill it by whatever means they choose and realize a reward for doing so in the form of profit, which means a relentless scrutiny by the public for business opportunities. Basically, no viable business opportunity is likely to go unexploited. Communism sought to mitigate the down sides of the competition to exploit opportunities. Unchecked competition will ALWAYS lead to destructive competition. So capitalism always requires an entity over it to set rules for fair, non destructive conduct. The rules have to apply to everyone and ideally be made with the interests of everyone in mind, not just an industry. Self regulating industries that are not destructive are a fairy tale. If rules were removed from basketball, players would start shoving and tripping to win, then they would escalate to punching, then escalate to using bats, then guns to win. The NBA sets rules for all competition that are in the interests of the team owners, the players, and the fans, and no team is allowed in the league that doesn't abide by the rules. Further, the NBA abides by rules set by government prohibiting fraud, collusion, unfair labor practices, and racketeering in the interests of society as a whole. Industrial competition if left unregulated WILL predictably 100% lead to pollution, market manipulation, price fixing, collusion, government subversion, conspiracy against employees and customers, and the eventual decline of its own markets. It doesn't have to be a modern problem or be about real needs of society. Examine the tulip market crash long ago in Holland. Look at what the British export business did to the rest of the world with colonialism, war, murder, and exploitation. Look at King Leopold in Africa. Look at the banana republics. In your utopia, YOU might be non violent and your society might be non violent, but how do you propose to stop a business from violently destroying other countries to sell you cheap bananas??? When your neighbors demand ivory, what stops King Leopold from getting it for them??? When all these technological wonders that you brag about require the production of HUGE amounts of toxic chemicals that are being dumped onto private property, how do you prevent that BEFORE it contaminates the water of an entire region??? Going afterward and "suing" for damages is TOO LATE. Rules must exist after the very first time that they are needed and preempt every successive destructive incident so that losses from destructive competition don't continue to build.

[@laskji]

This video is the equivalent of claiming all of the cheap prices at Walmart as a benefit of the free market. However Walmart is a creature of state or ‘crony capitalism’ as it depends on the government in myriad ways. Without the state, walmart simply would not exist in its present form, it would maybe be a single store somewhere. Claiming the benefits of state capitalism as a victory for some “pure version” of capitalism is nonsensical.

[@LarkenRose]

Starting right off with a giant strawman there. And a particularly goofy one, since in this video I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS the issue of huge corporations using the force of government to give themselves advantages. So good job "refuting" an argument that NO ONE was making, and an argument which I very clearly pointed out I WASN'T making.

[@laskji]

@LarkenRose Except that you cannot turn around and claim the victories of the strawman figure, while similtaneously claiming to reject it… There is a pervasive fitness influencer scam that has been around for decades, where a beautifully muscled individual sells training programs to uninitiated noobs, using their own physique results as evidense of their programs value. What is not mentioned in the advertisement is that the beautifully muscled fitness influencer is a heavy steroid user. Is it correct for the fitness influencer to claim that their results are the result of the training program they are selling? No. Does their moral abhorence of steroid use change this? No. There is a hidden factor that confounds the results. And we do not know the value of the program sans steroids. So the influencer is either dishonest, ignorant or somehow blinded. Likewise with the economy. We cannot claim the results (victories) from state capitalism and act like they are the result of pure captialism. There is a hidden factor that completely confounds the results (namely pervasive use of the state to externalize costs and internalize profits). You are talking like you can just pull the government, military and police and everything just stays the same. It would not. Not even close.

[@sawtoothiandi]

capital implies those without capital? are we not all capitalists? even if we have a penny or penny farthing what about those trillions in debt? like the gubmint of us and a as they keep tellin us..

[@LarkenRose]

Yes, we all are.

[@LowWiseZahStudios]

I feel there is a balance - I agree with what you're saying but the subtleties between the matter are the driving force - hence, lobbying and things of that nature as you referenced. Take money out of politics then corporations would run more fairly

[@LarkenRose]

Take politics out of society, and money and capitalism cease to be a problem.

[@sonicbloomtuts]

@@LarkenRose Good to know how naive you are and how little historical knowledge you've got. All you do is rtant and even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

[@DanielBice]

Why do we need politics?

[@kstats8243]

Grab some dirt and make a i7 intel core shop laptop. That’s pretty much what we were made to believe how we came to be. Evolution

[@Esoterrorized]

Book entitled "What is property?" By author Proudhon, I believe. ??.

[@LarkenRose]

"Property is theft!" - Proudhon It's hard to take anyone seriously who says that. And it's hard to express anything so utterly stupid in only three words.

[@LarkenRose]

And in case you wanted to see him elaborate on an already moronic claim.... “Property and society are completely irreconcilable with one another. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property.” - Proudhon

[@Esoterrorized]

@@LarkenRose I think the legal definition of property was understandable but it became oppressive to society as a whole once the arguable "fiction" of corporations came along. With these 2 legal terms the world has been divided up by a handful of families and their extended families. There should've at least been a 'cap' placed on individual or family wealth to prevent what we have now....a bunch of Dr. Evils planning to 'thin the herd' because keeping them all would cost us too much.

[@LarkenRose]

@@Esoterrorized There doesn't need to be a "cap" on anything, except a "cap" at ZERO on coercion, especially committed by authoritarian ruling classes. Without that, it would be REALLY damn difficult for anyone to get rich without benefiting humanity (whether he wanted to or not).

[@Esoterrorized]

@@LarkenRose I appreciate you talking to me. I do respect you and your views. I'm not some smart guy that knows alot. I just don't have anything left now except my hatred for injustice and tyranny. I'm probably better off sticking to the few areas I know more about. Just wish enough people would stand and stop the machine that's causing death, pain and suffering when it's so unnecessary.

[@nemanjamirkovic6536]

What you just explained, Larken, in your video here, is this similar to neoliberal capitalism?

[@kensurrency2564]

Well said!!!

[@posivibe989]

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

[@Imagine369hz]

Bicycle- do you believe in evolution or a creator/designer?

[@drewmoore365]

What we have is crony capitalism 😊

[@looneycrow7978]

You should stop and wonder why we call government building the "Capital" = seat of government and influence.

[@diogenes9295]

You should stop and wonder why they call taking OPM "liberalism".

[@LarkenRose]

We don't. The seat of "government" is the "capitol," not "capital." But both come from Latin roots, meaning "head" or "wealth." Which makes perfect sense, and requires no conspiracy or anything sneaky.

[@BenEthridge]

I've grown accustomed to my poverty

[@fedorshinkarenko6416]

Larken, bro, capitalism - is the term coined by marxian socialists - it is a central concept in marxian religion. Marxians believe that humankind in its development drifts from capitalism to socialism, they believe that pure 100% capitalism is a door to socialism. Later, after WWII, under the influence of socialists and nazis, the academic world transformed this term and accepted it for the designation of oligarchic interventionist markets. So, I really don't appreciate capitalism, and I don't know what it is since capitalism is religious socialist BS for the designation of 19th-century oligarchy.

[@LarkenRose]

Private ownership of the means of production. There, now you know what it is. And it is absolutely indispensable to any level of human existence above caveman status.

[@fedorshinkarenko6416]

@@LarkenRose so it is according to you, bro. In reality, capitalism is either a 19th-century oligarchic economic system or a modern interventionist economy with 90% taxation, oligarchy, and police brutality. I don't see a "Private ownership of the means of production" in either case. I don't understand what you are talking about... Or, do you believe that taxation and oligarchy are compatible with "Private ownership of the means of production"? Rather, the ideology of Private ownership of the means of production is propertarianism, propertarian voluntarism, classic liberalism, or whatever like that. Some authors offer to use "innovationism" instead of "capitalism".

[@looneycrow7978]

Capitalism "IS NOT" when we just own stuff.. or make things... thats super disingenuous simplification. Capitalism is excess of wealth, resources, power that's used to make more capital. Capitalism also has nothing do with volunteering, willfully making choices... Through capital gains governments/gangs/armies arise which will enforce that groups rule. Authority arises from accumulation of power which authorities intent is to remove threat to itself, all competition and opposition to itself. This is heart of capitalism is to remove competition and free trade.. not facilitate its continuation.

[@RtaniDean]

Yep.

[@LarkenRose]

You just making up whatever definitions you want, is not how language works. "capitalism -- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[@terrybrooks597]

Definitions are a tool that is used to structure value and power. Tell me, what ia the definition of " furniture"? 1. large movable equipment, such as tables and chairs, used to make a house, office, or other space suitable for living or working. By this definition, once you place a bookcase in a wall making it non movable, its no longer " furniture". If you make a couch that is inset into the structure and not movible, not furniture anymore. So definitions only give us a guideline, they arent absolutes and definitions change as language changes. Thats how language works.

[@i-voicez2-i872]

@@LarkenRose Dictionaries aren't prescriptive they're descriptive. No one has to conform to dictionary definitions. The only practical use for them is for communicating. Look up the appeal to definition fallacy

[@looneycrow7978]

@LarkenRose capitalism is having private ownership over "capital" = excess of assets over liabilities, accumulated goods devoted to the production of more capital... the distribution of goods is determined by the capitalist entity who's successful in destroying competition. Price and production aswell as interests of individuals are manipulated and regulated to fill need of the most powerful. Over simplification of complex, abstract terms often used in opaque ways in attempts to brand capitalism as benevolent is just as deplorable same as in cases made for statism, socialism or communism.

[@deborahsavageshaffer6846]

Excellent rant. Really fabulous!

[@antyrak7905]

That's why i don't call it capitalism, it's basically a very emotionally charged word that means so much to so many people. So i just don't use the word.

[@ka-peach7945]

All government schools blame everything bad on Capitalism. Free people is the last thing government wants for that would expose what government is. A giant crime syndicate.

[@Somberdemure]

So you are censoring yourself.

[@antyrak7905]

@@Somberdemure no, it's just emotionally loaded term and means nothing at this point, so I say what I mean, like "I belive in free exchange of goods and services and that you should keep all the fruits of your labor" sounds way better than "I believe in capitalism" and doesn't create any misunderstandings in between.

[@Somberdemure]

@@antyrak7905 Smh. Just like you probably censor yourself from using the word anarchy. Smh

[@antyrak7905]

@@Somberdemure I mean those words don't help the conversation at all

[@shawnbruce6934]

This is a Great video Larken. Well explained.

[@Aalii6]

👍👍

[@jed3544]

Free markets are not the same thing as capitalism.

[@diogenes9295]

Capitalism can only exist within a free market.

[@David-os7eo]

Yes, they are.

[@jed3544]

@@David-os7eo So everything with 4 legs and fur is a cat? Lol. Capitalism isn't the same thing as mercantilism, or feudalism, or anarcho-syndicalism, etc. Capitalism is a "property rights" arrangement as pertains to the means of production.

[@robertmiller5835]

👍👍👍👍👍

[@komiczar]

The only thing that we can be truly certain of is that we are the products of the Nature. We most certainly are Humans and are born on Earth. The identity labels that are referred to in the in popular culture are relatively subjective, generally arbitrary, and can limit cognition of personal agency that obscures self-mastery, because it mindlesdly reacts, rather than mindfully responding, by mindlessly submitting to the false popular delusional narratives of the dominant system, which seems to be commited to the destruction of Humans. Yes while it is true to some extent in the mazes created by oppressive deception that one may initially accept the limiting labels as a tool to navigate their understanding until the moment of truth becomes evident. One should conscientiously operate as the best version of himself at every moment of his existence in the learning process that is eexperiened in every enounter by applying the best of his innate and acquired abilities. If one honestly and logically explores, investigates, examines, and analyzes it becomes evident that since "super-Humans and "sub-Humans" are prominently promoted, then one should cross-examine his own thinkingg regarding the existence of Humans. Consider that one of the most important components of self-mastery is the individual right to define one's own self based upon logical common sense applied through the honest and truthful cross-examination tested by thoroughly clear thinking that fully validates one's ability to govern one's self. As Humans we must consider that of all the creatures on Earth that we are the newcomers among the diverse and various organisms on Earth, who still are learning about ourselves and our environments. We are in an learning environment with unique learning equipment that helps us figure things out to enhance our learning capabilities as to how we willfully submit ourselves to harmoniously cooperate with the Nature on the path to collaboratively individual and collective self-mastery. For Humans, one can conclude that self-mastery cullmiates in the Art of Peace. "The Art of Peace" begins with you. Work on yourself and your appointed task in the Art of Peace. Everyone has as spirit that can be refined, a body that can be trained in some manner, a suitable path to follow. You are here for no other purpose than to realize your inner divinity and manifest your innate enlightenment. Foster Peace in your own Life and then apply the Art to all you encounter." ~ M. Ueshiba If "The People"are supposed to be the government, then they need to behave as if they qualify, by seeing that which needs to be done, and just by being about the business of simply doing it!

[@TheRichie213]

So capitalism is just free trade? Why don't we split up all Earth's resources as even as possible to each individual and then we can start trading?

[@TribalGlobe]

Who are you going to put in charge to delegate those resources? And you actually trust somebody to do so? What about all the resources that somebody doesn't particularly want? What about the fact that value is subjective, and each person interprets their own value, depending on their own circumstances, appreciation of things, and lack of it or not. Some people have skills, that they don't need other people to provide them things of that nature for.

[@TheRichie213]

@@TribalGlobe If it was up to me there would be no money. Just build your house and garden for free and live self sufficient. Since there's a thing called money and you need to pay to live we're in a different predicament. And yes, it's slavery. In capitalism, if you have the money then you can buy it. There's no real limit. So the rich bought basic the whole world and either keep it to themselves or sell or rent it out at ridiculous prices. You can say that's not real capitalism but since there's a money system with no limits, that's the result. I get that two people made the deal but those guys don't own the earth and have no right to sell big quantities. These billionaires own literally millions of acres of land.

[@TheRichie213]

@@TribalGlobe There's enough resources for every single human to live really well. It doesn't have to be 100% divided but it can be so much more fair than it is now. I get some people don't like certain things and some people need more of something. Do I trust the people that would be in charge? I don't know but it's worth a shot. In the future, AI will figure out this math problem. It's everyone's earth right to build a house on a piece of land for free. Owning millions of acres shouldn't be allowed. That's hogging the earth.

[@TribalGlobe]

@@TheRichie213 Yes, there are more than enough resources for every single human, but not for the lazy. If you don't want to make an effort, and you just want some corporation to pay you a paycheck for your hours, then lower your expectations. There are plenty of other opportunities. Our economy is all about promoting things and services that have value. If you offer value, then you benefit society and you succeed. The economy is not a pie but an oven capable of baking many pies Wealth is not static, and it can be created and multiplied through value creation. This stands in contrast to certain socialist / communist ideologies that suggest there is only a fixed amount of wealth and it needs to be redistributed, ignoring the dynamic and innovative nature of market economies. The creation of value is a central concept in free-market economics. Value is indeed subjective and individual, as it depends on the needs and preferences of people. If you have chickens, someone offering you eggs, might not be as valuable to you as for someone who doesn't have chickens. Entrepreneurs and businesses create wealth by identifying what is valuable to others and offering products or services that satisfy those needs. The offering must be more valuable to the one it serves than the cost of acquiring it. And the cost of providing it, to the seller, must be less than the amount they will receive providing it. This is the core of a thriving and growing economy. Poverty is the default condition, just as being single is. It takes effort and initiative to improve one's economic circumstances, just as it does to find a partner. Expecting others to alleviate one's poverty without personal effort is not a sustainable solution and undermines personal responsibility. Equal opportunity is a fundamental principle and it is essential for people to pursue their own happiness and wealth. This opportunity extends beyond traditional employment, because individuals have the freedom to explore self-employment and entrepreneurship, investing (in a plethora of forms) and creating their own virtual or brick and mortar businesses. However, it's crucial to note that achieving success in these endeavours often requires effort, innovation, and the ability to provide value that distinguishes one from competitors. Wealth distribution systems appeal to the envious and the corrupt and inevitably concentrate power and resources in the hands of a few, exacerbating income inequality. Efficient allocation of resources is much more achievable in competitive private sectors, because governments, like any other monopoly, lacks the competition that would motivate them to offer a better product/service and price, keeping their quality of offering lower and prices higher. Competition motivates businesses to improve quality and lower prices to attract customers, weeding out those that do not, leading to a more efficient allocation of resources. Expecting government to be the primary provider of support, or jobs (or just about anything else) leads to inefficiency and a lack of innovation. Socialism and communism are rooted in envy and control. Envy is a mental and spiritual disease that destroys your integrity and rots your soul. These ideologies stifle individual initiative and entrepreneurship by excessively regulating and centralising economic activities, and they hinder economic growth by not fully harnessing the creative and competitive energies of the private sector. They also stifle motivation to improve or do any better. Free market economies are dynamic and innovative by nature, while centralized economic systems stifle individual and economic growth. Markets which are free of third party interlopers and parasitic entities encourages a focus on personal responsibility and the pursuit of value creation as the key to economic prosperity. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJObg51rrdB3hs0

[@icejackalgodofmetal14]

I really need your help Larkin

[@mcjohnsonsgirl]

Fantastic explanation

[@nitsudocsicnarf347]

The religion of money.

[@LarkenRose]

Nope.

[@AmineDiva]

Capitalism = Property rights.

[@sinematographynaction]

I know.

[@thomasmeadows256]

❤

[@icejackalgodofmetal14]

I need your help

[@plagakiller4125]

I never got a job from a poor person.

[@sonicbloomtuts]

You also never were exploited by one. The brainwashing runs deep.

[@diogenes9295]

@@sonicbloomtuts Exploitation by violins, which the socialists use, is the problem, not "exploitation" by offering voluntary opportunities.

[@CBT5777]

You never worked for your parents?

[@looneycrow7978]

There is lack of evidence trickle down economic woks. Studies have consistently failed to show a demonstrable link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth. In fact, many studies have found that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to increased income inequality and decreased economic mobility. The idea that tax cuts for the wealthy will lead to increased consumer spending and job creation relies on a flawed multiplier effect. In reality, the wealthy tend to save a larger proportion of their income, rather than spending it, which reduces the potential economic stimulus. And theory also overlooks the importance of aggregate demand in driving economic growth. Instead, it relies on supply-side factors, such as tax cuts and deregulation, to stimulate the economy. However, aggregate demand is primarily driven by consumer spending, which is influenced by income and employment levels, rather than tax policies.

[@LarkenRose]

"There is lack of evidence trickle down economic woks." You literally just typed that on something that exists ONLY because of capitalism, and rich people owning factories making stuff.

[@LarkenRose]

By the way, how you think armed robbery will turn out in the long run doesn't make robbery okay. If you think you have the right to decide how much you want to LET other people keep what they produce, you're a control freak piece of crap.

[@diogenes9295]

There is a lack of evidence that taking OPM by 4ce stimulates the economy.

[@1voluntaryist]

Taxation is theft, even if it is popular, organized by those who enjoy an exemption from morality. And immoral acts, EVEN when ignored by the public's "willful blindness", e.g., "civil (public) asset forfeiture (robbery)" are not orderly, economically viable. GO SELL YOUR BULLSHIT SOMEWHERE ELSE!

[@rassvetlug6209]

As middle class, our highly predictable levels of ease, available comforts, indulgences, and entertainment, appliances to do all of our chores, transportation choices, housing choices, indoor plumbing and sanitation, heat, communictions, healthcare, rapid travel, other choices and opportunities, etc...far exceed what kings and queens of old could have dreamed. Their lives were aways teetering on the edge of destruction. Just by owning a washer and dryer (inside the house no less--in a whole room dedicated to that!), I've "arrived," by the rubric of hopes and dreams had by my great grandarents and grandparents.

[@sonicbloomtuts]

LOL, no. They had people doing the washing, cooking, keeping them warm. Your great grandarents and grandparents weren't kings and queens.

[@rassvetlug6209]

@sonicbloomtuts yet their lives were always precarious. My servants...appliances, electronics, delivery services, communications systems, entertainment, climate controlled vehicles, etc...don't plot court intrigue against me or betray me.

[@bradwatson7324]

I once saw a great bumper sticker that said, "Capitalism -- it's what people do when they're left alone."

[@agorist.boogaloo]

Please come to Liberpulco ❤

[@kemonoyama2084]

Capitolists screwed Nikola Tesla...

[@HowToBeFree]

🤦

[@hermestrismegistus5384]

You're just dumb son

[@jeffreyohler2599]

Thankyou for that. Most don't seem to understand the significance of *Literally Every Single piece of Modern Electronics contains multiple instances of Tesla Tech!* Yet he Died broke while living alone in a Hotel Room. His body not found for weeks after! Once found,the Government's 1st response was to confiscate every single document of his they could find. They revoked & reallocate his legitimate patents while allowing others to enrich themselves as the beneficiaries of his denied Patents & works. Also known as Plagerism & Patent Infringement or simple Theft of Intellectual Property! *Capitalist's are now as they've always been,Delusional!*

[@doompaul7315]

Larken, forgive me for nitpicking, but you need some air conditioning over there asap, don't get a heatstroke!

[@LarkenRose]

It's August, in Phoenix, in a room in our apartment with two exterior walls. Yeah, it gets a tad toasty, in spite of our mediocre air conditioner working hard.

[@stlouisix3]

☦️⛪️✝️