I think the argument is that the motivations society allowed him under capitalism are what drew him to do what he did, not just that he was some brilliant asshole but that he wanted to own the work those beneath him had done.

Lots of us who have spent our lives being told “yeahuh but that’s how it’s supposed to work!” probably have a hard time grappling the concept that just because it turns out good sometimes doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

So to the original point of the rebuttal - we’re lucky it only turned out like it did, and not way way worse (and some other high-on-capital folks have been busy proving that lately…)