https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=vQzgW2oUuUk
The next problem is the criticism of profit. It’s like, well, what’s wrong with profit exactly? What’s the problem with profit? Well, the idea from the Marxist perspective was that profit was theft. But profit, well, can be theft because crooked people can run companies, and so sometimes profit is theft, but that certainly doesn’t mean that it’s always theft. What it means, in part, at least, if the capitalist is adding value to the corporation, then there’s some utility and some fairness in him or her extracting the value of their abstract labor, their thought, their abstract abilities, their ability to manage the company, and to engage in proper competition and product development and efficiency, and the proper treatment of the workers and all of that. And then if they can create a profit, well, then they have a little bit of security for times that aren’t so good, and that seems absolutely bloody necessary as far as I’m concerned. And then the next thing is, well, how can you grow if you don’t have a profit? And if you have an enterprise that’s valuable and worthwhile, and some enterprises are valuable and worthwhile, then it seems to me that a little bit of profit to help you grow seems to be the right approach. And then the other issue with profit, and you know this if you’ve ever run a business, is it’s a really useful constraint. It’s not enough to have a good idea. It’s not enough to have a good idea and a sales and marketing plan, and then to implement that and all of that. That’s bloody difficult. Like it’s not easy to have a good idea. And it’s not easy to come up with a good sales and marketing plan. And it’s not easy to find customers and satisfy them. And so if you allow profit to constitute a limitation on what it is that you might reasonably attempt, it provides a good constraint on wasted labor. And so most of the things that I’ve done in my life, even psychologically, that were designed to help people’s psychological health, I tried to run on a for-profit basis. And the reason for that was, apart from the fact that I’m not averse to making a profit, partly so my enterprises can grow, but was also so that there were forms of stupidity that I couldn’t engage in because I would be punished by the market enough to eradicate the enterprise. Okay, and then so the next issue, this is a weird one. So Marx and Engels also assume that this dictatorship of the proletariat, which involves absurd centralization, the overwhelming probability of corruption, and impossible computation as the proletariat now try to rationally compute the manner in which an entire market economy could run, which cannot be done because it’s far too complicated for anybody to think through. The next theory is that somehow the proletariat dictatorship would become magically hyperproductive. And there’s actually no theory at all about how that’s going to happen. And so I had to infer the theory, and the theory seems to be that once you eradicate the bourgeoisie, because they’re evil, and you get rid of their private property, and you eradicate the profit motive, then all of a sudden, magically, the small percentage of the proletariat who now run the society determine how they can make their productive enterprises productive enough so they become hyperproductive. Now, and they need to become hyperproductive for the last error to be logically coherent in relationship to the Marxist theory, which is that at some point the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat, will become so hyperproductive that there’ll be enough material goods for everyone across all dimensions. And when that happens, then what people will do is spontaneously engage in meaningful creative labor, which is what they had been alienated from in the capitalist horror show, and the utopia will be magically ushered in. But there’s no indication about how that hyperproductivity is going to come about, and there’s also no understanding that, well, that isn’t the utopia that is going to suit everyone because there are great differences between people, and some people are going to find what they want in love, and some are going to find it in social being, and some are going to find it in conflict and competition, and some are going to find it in creativity, as Marx pointed out, but the notion that that will necessarily be the end goal for the utopian state is preposterous. And then there’s the Dostoevskyian observation too, which is one, not to be taken lightly, which is what sort of shallow conception of people do you have that makes you think that if you gave people enough bread and cake, and the Dostoevskyian terms, and nothing to do with busy themselves with the continuity of the species, that they would all of a sudden become peaceful and heavenly. Dostoevsky’s idea was that we were built for trouble, and if we were ever handed everything we needed on a silver platter, the first thing we would do is engage in some form of creative destruction, just so something unexpected could happen, just so we could have the adventure of our lives. And I think there’s something, well, there’s something to be said for that. Thank you.