Stanford's HUGE Mistake: Letting a Socialist Explain Capitalism

Right. I found out that uh earlier this month on August 5th, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so very prestigious encyclopedia run by Stanford University uh again in philosophy. So it's it's a philosophy encyclopedia but very prestigious. Anyway, they published for the first time a entry on capitalism and given kind of what we're doing here and given that I knew it would be somewhat negative, I figured this would be a great opportunity to discuss what is actually written uh in um in the Stanford uh in the Stanford encyclopedia. Uh they they have an entry on socialism. So uh but this is this is the entry on uh on capitalism. they gave the uh uh you know usually they they point or they ask an author to come in and and write the entry and in this case they chose a a University of Chicago philosopher by the by the name of Chiara Kelli Chara Kodelli uh an Italian uh but who works at the University of Chicago I assume in the philos in philosophy department I think she's a political philosopher And um they asked her to to write it. [clears throat] And here's the thing, right? Kelli is a massive critic of capitalism. She has very little, if anything, positive to say about capitalism in her work. her work is in the you know her work is at least in the tradition of I wouldn't say she's a Marxist but but she takes a lot of her concepts from marks and her work is dedicated to a uh a a a critique of capitalism for the purpose of establishing an overwhelmingly socialist what you would call democratic socialist but socialist and and we'll see what they mean by democratic socialist. They don't mean by democratic socialist um uh Sweden or or Denmark. They mean by democratic socialism that everybody gets to vote on everything, right? So So they mean the means of production are run democratically. Everything is run democratically and investment is run democratically. We'll get to that. Um so here's the thing, right? So when they chose to write the section on socialism, they generally picked somebody sympathetic to socialism and and it comes across and and you you can see in in in just the the the tone and the nature and the the citations the citations that that are involved. I give you I'll give you a a statistic, right? I'll give you let me see if I can find this quickly. I've got a statistic here that's pretty alarming, right? just to give you a general sense. All right. So, so, so somebody Phil Magnus and Caleb Pettit published a a review of of the uh Stanford article on capitalism and and they did a little bit of analytical stuff which Magnus was very good at and he looked at uh all the people in um uh all the citations. So, there were 169 authors cited in the capitalist entry. So there's capitalism and then there's a whole write up. We'll go through the write up and then there's all these citations. More than half are hostile or critical of capitalism roughly 8% are supportive. Now if you look at the socialism entry right the socialism article which was published in 2018 and updated in 2024 of the 160 authors cited in the socialism article about the same number only two only two are overtly critical of socialism and nearly 23 were supportive. I mean, so I I wondered right about about about uh the the encyclopedia philosophy and I went to look at the the entry fine ram and there's a lot to criticize about the entry fine rand but I have to say the anti fine rand is 100 times better than the capitalism. They picked somebody who is not hostile to Iron Man, somebody friendly. I don't think she really understands. I don't think she's she's, you know, has a a complete understanding of it and she's not definitely not a supporter of objectivism, but is somebody who studied it and and has some sympathy towards it. kind of a libertarian philosopher who's somewhat sympathetic towards Zan and a lot of the citations are people you know who are who uh who are objectivists and you know it's it's not a it's not a great presentation right man philosophy but it's not horrible in the same sense as it's not obviously hostile the entry in capitals is obviously hostile uh and and and I'll show you how uh I mean the entry begins with Marx presents his is long disputed theory of exploitation without giving readers any standard objections economic or or moral and repeatedly subjects capitalism's defenders when they describe them to rebuttals. The critics of capitalism don't get rebuttals. The defenders of capitalism get rebuttals left and right. I mean the very assumption, the whole way in which this is written is yeah, we all know capitalism is wrong. We all know capitalism is a a bad system. There's something really horrific. There's something really bad about philos about capitalism. I'm going to explain to you kind of I'm going to give you some background about how I'm going to give a little bit of of of lip service to the defenders and then we're going to get into kind of all the different ways in which it's being criticized by all kinds of people in all kinds of directions. And again, we will see that. Now, you could say, okay, I mean, this is just one scholar writing an article on capitalism. And that's true. I mean, if it was just her writing an essay, okay, this is her view of capitalism. Take it or leave it. But this is Stanford. This is Stanford selected the author. Stanford, accepted the structure, accepted the content and published it under the authority of an encyclopedia, a a a you know, a source of knowledge, a source of truth hopefully. And yet, you know, in all of her work clearly believes that capitalism is wrong and that it needs to be abolished. We need to move into a postcist world into ideally kind of a depending on how how socialist you want to go about as socialist as it can get. So I want to look at her argument uh look at the way she presented capitalism not really argument and then I I was going to I was going to find a lecture by her I was going to find a lecture by Kodelli on uh her critique of capitalism uh so that we could analyze it. But the reality is that I found two and and one at one one from Harvard and one from LSE, Len School of Economics, but they are so academic and so technical that I decided it would drive me and you crazy to have to listen to it. I mean, I listened to one of the lectures in completion and and it was just too difficult. So, I I've got a couple of clips from the Q&A at the LSC and and we could discuss them if we have time and there's interest, but I thought what we do instead is just go over the article um go over the uh the uh uh you know encyclopedia article. So, I mean here it is. Let me just find it for you. Yeah, you can see it right there. Right. Uh that is uh that is the article. says on the top Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and um this was published in August 5th 2026. So interesting that in article in something about philosophy capitalism you know an important social political economic system. Um it's taken them until 2026 to to publish something on this. I see there we go. You can see uh I'm not I'm trying to figure out what exactly you can see. uh when I flip through this. Okay, I think that's good. So, you can see basically what I am seeing. All right. Um so, we're going to go over this. Uh I'm going to read a few passages from it. I'm not going to read the whole thing. Obviously, the the whole thing is is is pretty lame pretty long. I don't expect you to be reading off the screen. Uh but partially I wanted to show you because I want to show you just the volume of writing on the different topics like how much does she dedicated how much does she dedicate to Carl Mars versus how much does she dedicate to I don't know Hayek Freriedman or or or or now it's important to put to say this right there's a sense in which this all makes sense and that sense is that this is not an encyclopedia of economics. This is an encyclopedia of this is an encyclopedia of you know capitalism of sorry of of philosophy. And the reality is, the reality is that in philosophy, in philosophy, qua philosophy, there are almost no defenders of capitalism. I I if we think about philosophers, not economists who do philosophical writing, I know Van Mahek, but we think about philosophers. Can you think about philosophers in the last 250 years? Philosophers who actually talk about in in [clears throat] a positive way defend make arguments for any kind of form of capitalism. So if you look at the philosophy and and you know I I'd welcome to be corrected by uh the philosophers who uh you know on on the show or on on YouTube. Uh so if you're reviewing if you're if you're a reviewer of um if you're a reviewer that is um that is reviewing you know a philosophical perspective on um on capitalism then yeah it's it's very very very very limited and biased, right? You've basically got Nosik, the libertarian philosopher, and you've got Ein and who else? I mean, if you want to think about the origins of capitalism as in private property, you could go to John Lock. But John Lock didn't really write about capitalism as a as a as a as a system. although it would be nice if he was mentioned at least in this article. Um, who else would you I'm curious if anybody else has any ideas of philosophers written positively on um on capitalism. So if you look at the philosophy of the literature, what you get is overwhelmingly negative criticism. So it's somewhat understanding if you're writing an article for philosophy audience that you give weight to the philosophy content and the philosophy content is again all all negative and and and I'm curious I I you know um I mean Freriedman defended capitalism but he was not philosophical was not a philosopher so I can understand them bracketing Freriedman and to some extent Hayek and not even mentioning Mises because they're economists. So that would be my only It also tells you something right. It tells you something about the state of a field. Here is a field, maybe the most important field of human knowledge, the [snorts] foundational field of human knowledge, and has nothing really positive to say about a political economic system. Let's call it just an economic system because that's how they view it, right? An economic system with massive political implications. that has led to the wealth creation of the last 250 years. I mean, think about there is no other period in all of human history comparable with the last 250 years in terms of the material advancement of human life. Not even close in. And it's recognized even by the critics that this is a period dominated in one way or another by capitalism. And while they all talk about capitalism is cyclical, it causes crisis maybe. I mean, put that aside. Okay. But they also recognize that and Mark certainly recognized this that has created enormous material wealth and and changed the world in profound ways. And that all the profession of philosophy can do is to criticize the system, poke holes in the system, denigrate the system, challenge the system, and not try to look at it and say, "hm, [clears throat] human life is better in some meaningful way. What's going on here?" I mean, just just as a curiosity. Wouldn't Wouldn't you want to know? Here's how it begins. The case can be made that a more contested concept than capitalism does not exist. And and I think I think toan she's right. It is an incredibly contested concept and it's it's an incredibly important concept. But in the world in which we exist today, it has few defenders and almost no defenders in the field of philosophy. She says there is no agreement upon how or whether to define it. Now I don't even know what the weather means. I mean I understand that it's difficult. it you know how to define it is difficult but you'd think that you want to define all your terms all your important terms there is no agreement upon how or whether to define it many would identify capitalism with an economic system where productive assets are privately owned labor is hired for money wages through market contracts commodities are traded through exchange changed markets. Markets govern allocation of resources between productive and other activities. Investment is largely in private hands and production is oriented towards profit. I mean it's it's fascinating how these people think. I mean this is very much the way Marxists think. What what is missing from this? For example, I mean there's such a thing as productive assets and they're utilized for profit and in order to utilize them, labor is hired for money. Okay? And all of that is market contracts. And the outcome the the product of the productive stuff is traded in market exchanged in markets and and all these resources are governed by market phenomena and investment is made privately. What is missing? What is missing here? And and this, by the way, is missing from almost all discussions of capitalism, even by its supporters. I mean, no, there's there's trade here, right? Commodities are traded through exchange markets. That's there. And and rights are not here. That's true. But in her own terms, they're identifying capitalism as an economic system. So, put rights out of it. Take rights for a second out of it because rights are really a moral concept, not an economic concept. But what is missing from this economic system? There's even production because she says where productive assets are privately owned and the production is OEM towards profit. But what's still missing and and this is the major flaw with almost everybody who talks about capitalism who talks about capitalism. What's missing is the entrepreneur. What's missing is the producer. The whole way in which Markx and his followers and and most people most people in the world today think about markets and capitalism. The one entity that does not exist is, you know, the Silicon Valley founder. You'd think it's right staring them right in the face, but but doesn't exist. He's just I don't know. What is he? He's a productive asset or where is he here? He's he's a laborer. He's not exactly a laborer. He he doesn't fit into any of these categories. And yet there are no productive assets other than maybe land without an entrepreneur. I mean somebody had to create the steam engine. Somebody had to have the idea of using the steam engine in the production of textiles. Somebody had to have the idea of putting the steam engine on top of wheels and building a railroad system. They take it all of that for granted. This is and and this is by the way this is Ran's genius, right? There there have been others who've identified entrepreneur. We maybe we'll get to that, you know, we'll see how long this takes. But the reality is that Rand is the only one who fully appreciates that it is the genius, the work, the the the the passion, the focus, the the the integrity of the producer that moves the world. And it is a producer. It's not the manual laborer. It is not markets although markets are crucial but markets are driven by producers at every single level you know uh entrepreneurs in arbitrage in investment in futures markets in buying and selling the merchant who's a buyer and seller of goods all of them are crucial but you know it's just abstraction, the market. But the market is made up of people, individuals, using their mind as individuals based on their values. But the thing that really drives us forward economically is the entrepreneur and he has no place it turns out in capitalism. she goes up. However, each of these features, if taken separately, can be shown to have existed for a long, very long time. That's true, but what is she missing? She's exactly missing what has not existed for a very long time. So, she says, however, each of these features, if taken separately, can be shown to have existed for a very long time, leaving open the question of what makes capitalism a historically distinctive economic system. What makes capitalism a historically distinctive economics? Yes, I agree with him. We've had in various times and places productive assets have been in private hands. Land, for example, they've been different errors, right? Labor is hired for money wages. That that's happened before. Markets exist in exchanges. go to markets in the middle ages or or even 3,000 years ago. Markets govern that allocation between productive and other activities to some extent. That's existed in the past, not completely. Investment is largely in private hands. Government is kings have always dabbled in that. And production is always towards profit. What is unique about capitalism? Well, two things. one that all of these things all of these things exist under capitalism all at once and that is important. And second, that capitalism is the first system in human history where entrepreneurs flourish, where production driven by entrepreneurs flourishes. And then the question is why? What is it about capitalism made possible? For all these things to exist at the same time and innovation to explode and entrepreneurs to be everywhere and to you know and and and to invent and and and produce new things all the time and and to facilitate a system of you know sustained long-term economic growth. never seen before in all of human history. The only period of sustained long-term economic growth, something she never mentions, has been under capitalism, has been the last 250 years. So the question should be, okay, what? Here's the system. It's got all these features. What makes that tick? What makes that happen? And and then you can say well this is a period in which rights you know have been have been uh you know relatively uh protected. This is a system of individual liberty and individual freedom. Uh and uh and that that is what makes all these things able to happen at the same time. When people are free, when their rights are protected, they contractually arrange to work for a wage. When people are free, they invest largely in private hands. But no, I mean that that would be that would be thinking. That would be actual thinking. And and the holes in the description, never never mind everything else are astounding. Then she goes on to say, furthermore, further there is disagreement as to whether there's disagreement as to whether capitalism can be reduced in economic system in the first place. Good for her. That is a good question. As some scholars have argued, capitalism may be understood as more than just a way of organizing the economy. I I like this of organizing the economy. There's a already a collectivistic and and topdown implication then, right? somebody organizes the economy. Capitalism may be as more than just a way to organize an economy. It is an institutionalized social order, a way of organizing society and it's re it's reproduction as a whole. I don't know what that means, but a way of organizing society. Yes, as Ein said, it's a it's a social system. She continues, "The distinction feature of this mode of social organization in this view includes a sharp separation of economic sphere from the political and social sphere or from the political sphere. I'm not sure what she means by the social sphere in terms of a separation. Economic activities including relations of production and market exchange are detached from familial social and political relations. Not if you run a family business, I guess I don't. And presented as autonomous. Well, but are they really autonomous? For example, the political system has to at least protect property rights for there to be property, for there to be private property. So again, this is kind of, you know, thinking within these narrow categories and not being willing to think. However, it is argued that such autonomy is largely a fiction. That's true. There is no real autonomy which obscures the fact that economic production as well as the smooth functioning amount markets ultimately and necessarily depends on the care labor primarily performed by women within the household as well as the exploitation of nature and the presence of stable political institutions. So I want you to get this right. This is just an introduction to the chapter on capitalism. We're introduced to the idea that markets cannot function cannot function. And it's meaningless to think of markets as function without the labor performed by women within the household. Yeah. Okay. and as well as the exploitation of nature. Okay, nature definitely gets exploited under capitalism. Capitalism is the system of exploiting nature. You know, one of the things capitalism does and the presence of stable political institutions. What kind of political institution? the political you'd think something about the political institutions that foster private property. No. But she goes on, "But if capitalism could be found at work everywhere, this raises the question of how to delimmit the phenomena." God, you want to rip your hair out? What are you talking about? Beyond disagreement about whether capitalism is an economic system or an institutionalized social order, there's also disagreement about how through which method and with the help of which disciplines to answer the question of what capitalism is in the first place. She's writing the section on capitalism she doesn't know. While some believe that answering this question should be the purview of economic theory and conceptual analysis, others emphasize how capitalism as an historical and historically specific phenomena, the constitution and development of which can only be identified through the study of history whose complexity may confound analytic precision. Given this these disagreements, it is not surprising that no units of a conversation about capitalism exist among disciplines. That's true. But isn't that part of what you're trying to do? This is the job of philosophers to bring about a a conceptual understanding that makes it possible for us to talk about these things across disciplines. And wouldn't as a philosopher you have to integrate ideas from economics and from history and from philosophy to gain an understanding of what the phenomena phenomenon right phenomenon of capitalism actually is and maybe move towards some kind of definition. She continued, "Surely an entry such as this one might cover an extraordinary variety of themes and thinkers, but coverage must be selective and and disputable, leaving aside matters that others might plausibly argue are no less essential than what is chosen for discussion here. Since this is an entry primarily addressed to people who have philosophical and normative interesting interests in capitalism, we will exclusively focus on those accounts of capitalism that have most influenced contemporary philosophical work on the subject. So that that gives it all away, right? So if you're only focused on the things that are most influenced contemporary philosophical work on the subject and the reality is and and what this entry really brings to forward I is is is is this reality the reality is that you know [clears throat] contemporary philosophical works on the subject are all almost all exclusively negative confront ational critical of capitalism and and that's why this this whole thing is uh is exactly that u I mean uh she says you know the kind of questions we need to ask all legit questions what normative reasons and values if any support a capitalist organization of the economy and of society by contrast what reasons and values support the case for overcoming capitalism in order to try to bring about alternative modes of economic and social organization. Note, she'll talk more, you know, they'll talk more about the second than the first. Is there anything wrong or miss with the way capitalism organizes economics and social life? That'll that's almost the entire entry is just about that. If so, are these wrongs or ills distinctive of capitalism? Are they contingent to it or necessary such as they cannot be overcome by leaving capitalism behind? Is capitalism unjust? Is it illegitimate? Is capitalism if capitalism is unjust? Which I think is the her implicit assumption is absolutely and and by the way her implicit assumption is that capitalism was unjust because it leads to inequality and that is all the way through this entry. Inequality is the enemy. If capitalism is unjust, could it be tamed or regulated in ways that would make it just while still remaining capitalism? Yeah. She says, "We will leave aside questions concerning socialist alternatives to capitalism and the process of social transition to them as they have received extensive treatment in the entry on socialism." Notice there's no thinking here. Maybe we're not in a capitalist world. We don't live under capitalism and maybe what we should be discussing is ways to transition towards greater capitalism, more consistent capitalism. No, that that that would not even that would would not be considered. Okay. So, we're going to we quickly So, that's that's the that's kind of the uh intro and then she says um theories of capitalism. Section one is theories of capitalism. So this is I assume theories about what capitalism is and how it runs, how it functions, how how how it works, what's at the essence, what's at the heart of it. Theories of capitalism. So what would you expect to be the first thing you would present as a theory of capitalism? Well, you might consider maybe talking about Adam Smith or even even Hume who who wrote about markets and and and say, you know, while they don't use the term capitalism, clearly it's understood that at least Adam Smith is describing something akin to the cap a capitalist system and and that is true of kind of Hume's discussion of trade uh and and his economics writings. You could even go back and again talk about lock under the idea that ultimately capitalism rests on this idea of private property. Everything all the descriptives involve private property and and it is it is it is Lach who who really has the deeper philosophical discussion of property private property and what it is. So if you're thinking about doing historically, you think you'd go back to that. But no, there's only one place this discussion of capitalism can actually begin and that is with Kmox. That is with Carmox. Now this again somewhat makes sense. It makes sense because I think that and and I I don't know enough about contemporary philosophy to say it, but I think more broadly in the social sciences, in the humanities, and in in in in in other fields outside of economics, put it that way, outside of economics, the only prism through which people look at capitalism is a Marxist prism. It's in everything. Now, some of it is kind of in a postmx, postmodern prism but but even postmodernism you know takes when it comes to capitalism takes a Marxist perspective and it says okay but Marx was wrong and all these other things and we're going to do something different but they all start with Marx any I mean it seems like almost all discussions out there in the world about capitalism in academia outside of economics start with Marx Marx is the benchmark. And what does Marx say? What is the essence of capitalism? It's not according to her and and and I'm not going to critique her understanding of Marx um but just just discuss what she possess. Marx is saying capitalism is relentless accumulation. And here's how she starts as far as theorizing capitalism is concerned above anyone else. above anyone else, not even historically, just above anyone else is Carmox, who while he rarely, very rarely employed the word the term capitalism, titled his multi volume opus capital, a critique of political economy. She goes on, for Markx, notice above all else, for Markx the relentless accumulation of capital is the driving dynamic of capitalism. The relentless accumulation of capital is the driving dynamic of capitalism. Now you know Markx believes that. But is there going to be any critique of this view? Is this true? Is has history shown him to be right on this? What about growing standard of living which is something Marx understood and increasing wages among the working class which is again Markx understood but no it's the relentless accumulation of industrial capital or the means of production. Now she says look Marx is very complex. We're not going to get in theory of capitalism is very complex. I'm going to get into everything but but you know but it's accumulation of capital and its exploitation. She says she writes the widespread prominence of wage labor and the absence of alternatives to it is a necessary condition for the existence of capitalism. Again it it God this is so upside down. I mean [clears throat] waged labor is a way in which people organize themselves when they are [clears throat] free from feudal shackles and of course they are free to organize themselves in other ways. They can for example form um what do you call it communes. They can uh form um co-ops. They can form other means by which to associate and to produce. They can become partners. They can form partnerships. But again the the the wage labor is a nesting condition for the existence of capitalism. Maybe capitalism makes possible i.e. the freedom a a a free political order makes possible wage labor which is a good because we consider it a good because it's voluntary but here's here's how she possess marks wage laborers must be divorced from the means of production for capitalism to exist this divorce happens when one class the capitalist own the mean of production as their private property and the other class, the proletariat, own nothing else but their labor but their labor power. Well, I mean there's a lot that can be said here. We're not going to do a whole thing on Marx, right? But I mean, you know, the uh the reality is that why is that a divorce? The labor owns their own labor power and they get compensated for that labor power. The capitalist, see, here's the thing. It goes back to that entrepreneur. You remember I talked about early that what they always miss, what's always excluded is the entrepreneur. The businessman, the businessman, which I man celebrates, the businessman is completely missing because the reality is that they don't understand what a businessman does. This is why he's exploited. So the businessman doesn't do anything except own the means of production. Everything that actually gets done and only an academic can believe this and this is why this is why you don't have um many Marxists who are not intellectuals. But you know the businessman does nothing but own the means of production and therefore he's separated from the labor. But if the businessman as actually works actually does stuff he's not just a paper shuffler but he's actually producing act actively engage in productive activity. He's in a sense a laborer. He's a worker. He's also owns the means of production. And god forbid if you was to give the workers some shares like in their pension plan or 401k and they are now quote capitalist and they own some of the means of production. She can't even I mean Marx can't and she can't comprehend such combinations. So the workers are forced by the inability to independently access the means of subsistence to work for the capitalist. So here's the thing. They can't they they can't work to earn a living. They can't earn a living. They can't feed themselves other than by working for the capitalist. And in that sense, right, that is since they lack their own means of production, they are forced forced forced to sell the only commodity they own, their labor power in order to survive. So labor is coercive. It's forced because what's the labor going to do? Starve. That's not a choice. He can't go back to subsistence farming. They would argue because how would he buy the farm? So the only way he can survive is by getting a job which means that's coast. That's forced. And of course, who's forcing him that? The capitalists. Now, you could argue that it's forced forced in quotation marks by nature, by reality, by the fact that you have to produce the stuff that you're going to consume. And if you're going to eat, you have to produce that stuff that you're going to eat. And that is what so work is necessary. And then the question is what type of work are you engaged? You you know the farmers could have stayed on their land and be subsistent farmer. They chose to leave because wage labor actually turned out to be more valuable than subsistent farming. more valuable to their lives, more valuable by the standard of their life. Now, you know, I I don't want to go into the whole thing of marks. I I want to show you something though. So, all of this, you know, there's a next paragraph starts in addition to commodification commodification of labor power. For Marks, a related precondition for the existence of capitalism is the widespread prominence of market exchange and the generalization of the commodity form. Workers produce neither for their own direct consumption nor for immediate consumption by the employer. Rather, they produce commodities for the sale in the marketplace. Okay, obvious. And he and he goes on, the dual prominence, notice how long this is, by the way, the dual prominence of wage labor and market exchange. Marx assumes the existence of perfect market competition when modeling the exchange of all commodities. For Marx, labor is necessary exploited by owners of capital. Marx is widely thought to use the term exploitation in a technical nonmoralized sense uh as extraction of surplus value surplus value from labor. However, however, Marx's understanding of exploitation has been used to ground many normative critiques of capitalism as unjust because exploitative system. But what is exploitation for Marx? Marx is more about she says according to Marx's labor theory of value, the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor required for its production. And she goes on, capitalists may extract absolute surplus value. And then she goes on because of market competition to say in business capitalists have no choice other than to pay their workers the minimum wage the labor market will allow they they also have no choice because of market competition. So there really no choices in capitalism. Everything is imposed by nobody by a market phenomena which is anonymous. This is her this is really her big thing is is this anonymizing force that is placed on all of us. The unending uh need to extract relative surplus value is the engine of capital accumulation as well as capitalism's drive to incessantly revolutionize all methods of production. Incessantly revolutionize. That's called innovation. But it just happens. It just happens. Doesn't require any any particular thing for people to do. Thus, for Markx, capitalism is an economic system premised upon relentless and systematic accumulation of capital, the use of innovative disruptive technologies of production just happens. And last but not least, labor exploitation. Um, and then she says in the vast Marxist literature, various commentators and philosophers have emphasizes different dimensions of Marx analysis of capitalism. Some emphasize classes, some emphasize this other stuff. And then others have explored Marx's emphasis on various crisis tendencies. Uh Marx has inspired theorist of of racial capitalism. We'll get to that. Markx focuses on an equal exchange and a capitalism has led right as imperialism. All this stuff. And what is missing from all of this? She doesn't mention one person, one person who is actually critical of monks. She mentions mocks. She writes up marks. No question about labor theory of value is true. Like labor theory of value has been recognized by economists as untrue since at least the 1870s. 1870s. 1556 years ago. Does she mention that when she's writing about Marx? Does she critique it? No. Are there writers out there who think that there is no such thing as exploitation in the wage relationship? Wage relationship. Yeah, the writers like that. Does she mention any of them? No. Now again, maybe they're not in the philosophy relationship. Is anybody does there anybody out there who challenges the idea that profit is surplus value and that profit is unearned? Maybe profit is a reward on risk. Maybe profit is a reward for time. Maybe profit is a reward for the labor of the entrepreneur, the manager, the capitalist. No. Is there any challenge to these? None. Zero. Nada. Marxist just presented as is and then said, "Oh, there are all kinds of people who do all kinds of things with this Marxist stuff." But to challenge any of the Marxist assumptions, zero, nada, nothing. So the whole article becomes then just about capitalism quam.