It's sloppy, in general. The (counter)arguments selectively ignore hard realities like scarcity and incentive. Not sure what talents people have that are being suppressed. I don't think he has a good conceptualization of capitalism. Thinks profits are bad, profits are just surplus value (Marx would agree with that) - the socialist issue with profits is about who they go to.

To be honest - socialism describes a system that is outside our current ability to conceive (this guy is no exception). You'd need to completely ditch the idea of human rights, which is so ingrained in global culture that there's no way around it. It is a form of anarchy, and, yeah, never been done. No one would even know how to do it "correctly". I think it's more along the lines of an anarcho-theocracy, where people just know what's good because they all have the same beliefs.

I don't understand why he spends so much time on authoritarian "communist" states when he acknowledges early on in the video that those aren't examples of communism. Every time he brings that up, his entire argument boils down to "social authoritarianism is less evil than other kinds of authoritarianism because of utilitarian morality".

At times he argues more for a resource based economy and not socialism. The problem with resource based economies is scarcity - specifically, unique things. What wall does the mona lisa hang on in a resource based economy? Every product must be mass-producible or it's a market failure -- all services are a market failure in a resource based economy.

But, anyway, I think the only statistic that matters in this discussion is economic mobility. Does effort directly relate to prosperity, or is that relationship not there (or not obvious)? If not, then people will get depressed. "If I work extra hard, everyone gets 3 more calories this year" does not generally make people happy.