The author doesn’t have a basic understanding of the terms he is using beginning with Capitalism, as evidenced by this statement,
“Let me prove it, with a simple and extreme example, that of a plantation, and slave, owner — the truest capitalist of all, not so long ago.”
Denying someone the fruit of their own labor is hardly capitalism. Capitalism is the free exchange of labor and services not coerced exchange.
Without food I'll die. I work therefore, because the alternative is death. That's not a free exchange of labor and services, it's coerced exchange.
We deny people the fruit of their labour all the time. If I make a piece of software that saves my company a billion dollars a year, I won't make a dime more than if I did the bare minimum at work. Large businesses couldn't post profits without denying people the fruit of their labour . . . that's what profits of a company
are - the fruit of the labour of employees that has been denied to them.
He apparently doesn’t understand that in the last century it was centrally controlled socialist and communist economies or systems that compelled people to labor absent the benefits of their labor. In a capitalist system, everyone has the right to walk away from a job that doesn’t pay enough and find better employment. A slave plantation is hardly a capitalist system but instead the truest form of centrally controlled economy the Left so admires since the slaves were given free housing, food and whatever “healthcare” the master provided.
Not everyone is free to choose their work. To provide an example . . . what if I have a mentally disabled son. He may be able to perform some menial tasks, but doesn't have the mental capacity to understand money, let alone choose an employer. What sort of freedom does he have in a capitalist society? He needs to be given free housing, food, and whatever "healthcare" that someone will provide him. What's the capitalist solution to his scenario?
Last point, consumerism is a choice and not an obligation in a capitalist system. Clearly, those lacking a good family or culture are vulnerable to squander what they earn on poor choices. That is why Libertarians are mistaken. Capitalism doesn’t produce the citizens it requires to succeed. As Jordan Peterson asserts, one needs to be industrious, disciplined and most of all conscientious to succeed in our society and economic system.
I partly agree with you here. Consumerism is a choice. However, the nature of capitalism creates incredible incentive to encourage consumption. We have people with dedicated jobs to push consumption from unhealthy foods and drinks explicitly designed to trigger addictive behaviour, to the promotion and sale of outright physically addictive products (cigarettes, alcohol, caffeine), to the overt and subtle emotional manipulation of billboards, television spots, internet ads, etc.
Consumerism is a choice, but fighting against it is always going to be a constant effort in a capitalist society.
It’s the conscientious part the author doesn’t seem to understand. Nobody can be successful in a capitalist system if you don’t understand the needs and wants of other people.
You can create wants and needs though (at least for short periods of time) through manipulation of messages that people recieve. A beanie baby is objectively useless and foolish. Yet a gigantic number of them were pushed, sold as a need, and now lie in landfills. This pattern repeats itself on a disturbingly regular basis in our society.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the (many) benefits of capitalism. It's just disturbing when I run across someone ignorant (or choosing to ignore) the negatives.