Capitalism Violates NAP – Radical Reviewer

Capitalism Violates NAP – Radical Reviewer


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

69 Comments on "Capitalism Violates NAP – Radical Reviewer"


  1. Stopped at 6:03 : Also, how would this budding capitalist acquire the private property (land) to do so? The land belongs to the community…so how would the land be sold (assuming money of some kind was still around) to them?

    Reply

  2. In medieval times in what is now Ukraine if a dude didn't have sons but only daughters, the land was passed down to feudal lords, not the daughters to inherit
    Also, many people lost land because taxes were too high

    Reply

  3. It's the taxes…so, when tax breaks are given to these corporations everything booms! No, wait, they keep the money and lay off staff.

    Reply

  4. Marx has a good quote on primitive accumulation:

    "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of capitalist production."

    It's almost like the an-caps don't understand history… or economics, or politics, or how to be consistent, argue, think…

    Reply

  5. There is also the idea of "receiving stolen property". If the land was someone/s elses and you strongarm them out of it (robbery), use the land, sell the land. .. everyone that owns that land afterwards has received stolen property, right?

    Reply

  6. When I pet an intelligent dog. Can I say my normal dog compliments or do I have to put thought into them so they don't argue?

    Reply

  7. The issue you seem to have in understanding the Non-Aggression Principle is that most anarcho-Capitalists, and Libertarian-Liberal Ethics in general, assume that you cannot have moral discourse without owning something. Stemming from John Locke's view of Property to Lysander Spooner's theory to Mises' view of Human Action and Hoppe's Argumentative Ethics, a consistent aspect of these ideas is that property is a necessity for moral discourse, not an innate evil against the "property of all" as you put it..

    Even your examples have been discussed by many of these Property Advocates of the years, such as your example of owning land has been discussed by Rothbard and his Homestead Theory where if you own a particular piece of land and you do something which harms a neighbor's thy have a right to sue or, via Hoppe, physically remove you from that land if you bring too much harm to the other landowners. On top of that, the example of inheritance and doing one specific thing doesn't work, as libertarian ethics states I can do whatever I want with my property so long as it doesn't bring immediate harm to others and their respective property. That includes deciding what kind of facility I wish to build and deciding who I give the money to when I have no use for it. Your general argument for land just doesn't hold up, I'm afraid to say.

    If you truly want to debate against the Non-Aggression principle and the ethics of its advocates, at least read their works. I would recommend starting with Spooner's Science of Right and moving on from there.

    Reply

  8. I watched so many an-cap videos I know what they are going to say. Unless someone is pretty much pointing a gun at you then you are not being forced to do anything. It doesn't matter if you need to eat, that just nature. How it meant to be. They will refuse to accept any idea of collective ownership. If the land was undeveloped then it was unowned and not collectively owed. This, of course, ignores the native lands that were robbed and the encloser act. They put in the "work" to develop the land, and so now they own it. IF you are harmed by pollution or landslides, then you can sue. This again ignores the fact that you could be hurt or killed in such a way that you could not sue. Some damage cannot simply be undone. Suing would not fit those kinds of problems. They can think they can get away with it and you will still be just as dead.

    Reply

  9. Raymond Geuss talks about Marx's perspective on different ideas of freedom and on the Liberal idea of "the freedom of contract" here https://youtu.be/f9wEbcBUkvs?t=3035
    and I'd highly recommend it.
    "The Liberal thinks consent is the non plus ultra, it's the final thing, and what he wants to say is consent is important but it's not the final thing, there are other things and even the notion of consent must be seen in it's context. Consent to what? and under what circumstances?"

    Reply

  10. I'm about half way into this video, so maybe you go into this more later, though it seems like you're kinda done with the aspect of this video that I'm going to critique now, and if not, its something that I think needs to be more frontloaded if your goal is to provide a persuasive argument against ancaps. You talk about how "land is theft", and at one point all land was common, but you don't really take a deep dive into the history of primitive accumulation. I think to convince ancaps you're going to actually need to explicitly show the coercion that underlies present day economy. This also has a bonus especially when discussing this in the US because the methods of primitive accumulation in the US are couched in techniques and language that contemporary self described libertarians are very critical of. In the antebellum era fiatization of the currency was essential to northern primitive accumulation as it caused a series of foreclosure outbreaks which fueled large land speculation markets, while in the south land was homesteaded by slaves and stolen by the plantations. In the civil war and post civil war periods primitive accumulation occured primarily through transport subsidies, in which rail companies were given not just the land for the track, but huge swaths of land near the tracks. (the most valuable land in the country as the US economy quickly restructured around the railroad.) About half of all land within the continental US.

    You make allusions to the relationship between the indigenous population and the theft of their land, and its true, indigenous land was stolen from its people, often very brutally. However, this doesn't tell the whole story of enclosure in the US. North America, while populated, was sparsely so. After first contact was made disease wiped out an estimated 70 to 95 percent of the population, and even before, north America didn't have the sort of population density that urbanization had been creating in Europe. North America had plenty of room for settlers fleeing enclosure or religious political conflict to homestead. To explain the American imperial market that emerges in the latter half of the 19th century you absolutely need to look at how land was stolen from immigrants and transatlantic slaves as well.

    Reply

  11. Really neat video. I was just thinking about this last night, and it's like you took my disconnected stream-of-consciousness and made it into a researched presentation. How serendipitous.

    Reply

  12. Dogs, Babies, and radical leftist theory. This is all of the content I look for on youtube rolled into one video. Also. what type of dog are you? I've been dying to know.

    Reply

  13. Hi, love your videos and reviews, but some constructive criticism of this video I think is in order. I feel this video is only really effective at persuading those who were already far left leaning. I am not entirely sure on your goal with this video but when it first started it seemed to me it was going to be a bit more far reaching. Unfortunately that is not really what I saw here. There are quite a few points in the video in which there was a lot of assumptions you made on the viewer that they would already know and should have delved deeper on. It seems like mixed signals for trying to persuade a capitalist, vs trying to persuade a communist who just hasnt realized they were a communist yet.

    Reply

  14. Motherfuckers concerned with the NAP are usually AnCaps. Basically stupid people concerned with stupid shit.
    Like Republicans and Democrats concerned with "muh deficit".

    Reply

  15. Although I disagree with what you say, I admire the unique style of your production. Lol.
    Live action talking dog…
    It's definitely different.

    Reply

  16. this video is too dogmatic just because arguments are pretty empty
    "property is theft" but why is it theft? by the which facts we can say that NAP and having a property is unethical? all i want is more logic
    most of examples are made like i have to make conclusion by myself, it makes huge hole between argumentation and final
    i hope i described my
    pretensions
    accessibly

    also nice dog

    Reply

  17. Radical Reviewer have you considered reaching out to a streamer named Destiny who does Debates/Discussions, he has yet to have on a competent Anarcho Communist that can explain this stuff to him and i think you and others akin to you are capable of sharing this stuff with him. Just a thought Comrade!
    See what i mean.
    https://youtu.be/Av0BvRJtmjQ

    Reply

  18. Personally, I generally just explain to them that the NAP is itself inherently aggressive, since no one made any of the lands anyone built anything on, and thus to claim it without others support is to steal it from the commons…

    Reply

  19. If only we could train ancaps as well as you’ve trained this dog. I love it. You’re criminally undersubbed

    Reply

  20. The Enclosure Acts are historical proof the argument that private property is theft of communally owned land. The Enclosure Acts lasted from the 1600s all the way up to the early 20th century! Millions of acres of land were given to privileged nobles; nearly all of this land was used by farmers and laborers for mutual benefit. Industrial capitalism was founded in an act of theft as large as feudalism.

    Great video, really enjoyed it.

    Reply

  21. Also, I'd love to a review of some of Proudhon's work, or maybe even some individualist anarchist work from Benjamin Tucker or Kevin Carson.

    Reply

  22. You are such a good doggo!! This was an absolutely fantastic video!! You thoroughly nailed down your points and backed them all up with evidence and facts that can be proven to be true, and provided all of your sources including your own personal experiences, which I really love and respect. I consider AnCaps to be just the edgelord equivalent to right wing Libertarians, and I see both ideologies (even though they are essentially the same) as ridiculous, nonsensical, counter-intuitive, and essentially contradictory to themselves in multiple ways.

    Also: YAY for the puppet, and for the "cameo" voiceovers by other LeftTubers!! 💯👏👏👏🏴🚩

    Reply

  23. what's stopping you from doing things that people want or need?

    you will instantly win the competition from super mega corporations, since they don`t do this(

    with your words)

    Reply

  24. On your point: "capitalism does not create Innovation" I think you need to revise that argument. I say this as I recently made a similar argument with a friend (who is also very left), and he pointed out that Capitalism is a political-economic system. Insofar that the private sector is constantly trying to make production cheaper and produce at maximum profit, the state, operating on behalf of capitalism funds innovation to stay geopolitically competitiveto insure that capital within the state continues to grow. To that another friend responded that this cycle is self-defeating. Innovation under capitalism is not one about serving needs, but inspired by market fetishizism. In other words the state doesn't invest in innovation that is needs based, but rather what is profitable. And innovation that is not profitable, but fulfills needs are not invested in.

    Reply

  25. Thanks for your awesome reviews and videos!

    I’d like to track down the clip about the coal mine/surgeon. Any help? It’s good to have every angle of attack in one’s arsenal so as to bypass thick skulls of whichever variety.

    Reply

  26. I'm actually arguing with someone making these same "get a new job" arguments and people are expected to work hard to succeed. He's probably an an-cap.

    Reply

  27. Also the notion of “land improvement” under the tenets of classical liberalism rationalized the stolen land from the Native Americans by saying unless you use the land for profit it isn’t really owned, even by the commons.

    Reply

  28. How appropriate that your avatar is a dog cause your thinking is very primitive and you smell like shit

    Reply

  29. Of cause you cant compete: no one cares about your fuckin buisness noone want to pay for your shity expensive products that is why you cant compete. You also dont understand what consumers want. This channel is a gold mine of cringe had to stop the video every 15sec

    Reply

  30. The think the doggo needs a chair upgrade. Either a lazyboy or a kotatsu table. O' My gosh please get the doggo a kotatsu table that would be soooo cute too cute. #propertyistheft

    Reply

  31. I hadn't truly understood the "property is theft" idea until this video explained it to me. Thanks doggo.

    Reply

  32. Hello, I have a few questions about your belief system.

    1. If ‘belonging to no one’ is really a fallacious way of saying ‘belonging to everyone’, then I can either belong to myself, another person/people, or everyone. I think you agree with me that a person shouldn’t be owned by anyone else so I think it’s fair to ask: In your world view, am I owned by myself or am I owned by everyone?

    Since all the material in my body was once raw material that belonged to everyone according to you, then I think I would belong to everyone using the logic you used for land. If I belong to everyone, does that mean that literally everyone has a legitimate say in everything I do and in what others can do to me? If everyone does, how Would decisions about me ideally be made? Surely not through a unanimous vote because then if everyone can’t come to an agreement, I would not be able to do anything without violating everyone’s property rights. Since it can’t be through unanimous voting, then (in some possible versions of the process) it’s possible that I can come to a disagreement with whatever decision is made. Is it ok for ‘the will of the people’ to override my consent? If so, how far is too far? If on the other hand I do belong only to myself, then some property/ownership/whatever clearly isn’t theft.

    2. If space communism of whatever flavor you prefer arises in the future and they come across a planet occupied by an alien hive mind that stubbornly claims to own the planet, then what should they do? The alien was a hive mind that existed before e even evolved sapience; additionally, e was the only species to evolve sapience too so it didn’t take any land from anyone except ‘the people’ and it couldn’t have been sure other people existed until now. No amount of negotiating will convince em to give up er planet to ‘the people’ and e is fully prepared to defend er planet if the space communists become hostile. If e puts up too much resistance for the planet to be occupied or for em to be species napped from the planet, should the space communists go full on genocidal and scour more than half of em from the planet so that they can successfully colonize liberate the planet for ‘the people’? Is causing the alien the pain of trillions of er human equivalent bodies (bodies capable of equivalent levels of awareness, pain, emotion, and intellect to a human) dying in a high tech artillery barrage justified for resources to fuel the growing collectivist imperialist communist machine?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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