The Case Against Capitalism

Listen, I know capitalism is indefensible right now. That doesn't mean you can use PC - like tactics to stop people from talking about solutions or try to marginalize viewpoints you don't approve of.

Also, please wait for me to push for Communist - like solutions before calling me one. The accompanying thread for alternative solutions is empty right now so I haven't advocated anything yet.

Btw, feel free to try and justify the continuance of capitalism in its current form.

 

Simple. because only Capitalism can allow a person to be truly free. Free from government burdens and oppression.

 

Example? Which country is the exemplar, or are we talking utopian pipe dreams?

 

Wall Street, the heart of capitalism, was built on oppression. Fast forward present day, hardly any dollars get made without driving people into slave wages, slum conditions, or pushed onto social safety nets.

 

Only if you prefer to be clueless and Causeless when you argue with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Like in 1929?

 

We should be able to use the textbook definition for capitalism; private ownership of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth through corporations or private individuals. Even with regulation, if production, distribution, or exchange of wealth happens through corporations or private individuals, it is still capitalism.

I wanted to keep the other systems out of the discussion because every time a critique is made on capitalism, it becomes a conversation comparing the differences between socialism/communism and capitalism. I wanted to solicit critiques on capitalism without all the deflections is all.

 

So in your definition of "capitalism," it can include a progressive tax system, a system of state welfare, social pensions and universal healthcare, unemployment compensation, unions, workplace safety and wage and hours rules, regulations to protect the environment, protect against unfair competition and consumer fraud, minimum wages, and taxes to ensure a reasonable distribution of income and wealth among working people.

So what is the criticism of that?

 

I see these as attempts to mitigate the faults of capitalism. The progressive tax system, welfare, pensions, etc. are examples of ways to try and keep an exploitative system from draining all the resources from the people and leaving them destitute. The fact they are needed is the criticism.

 

How does Capitalism solve for social issues? There is no capital mechanism for States or statism.

 

Capitalism is an economic system, not any form of Government. Mixed market economies do better due to gains from division of labor.

 

How do you solve for the voluntary nature of social transactions under Capitalism?

How would true capitalism solve for any poverty of capital among market participants? Barter is not usually considered more advanced than digital market transactions.

There is no true capitalism with any form of public sector with a legal monopoly on the coercive use of force.

 

"How does capitalism solve for social issues?"
I doesn't imho. It's just a means to harvest free labor and private ownership of resources.

"There is no capital mechanism for States or statism."
Please clarify this statement for me.

 

To the first question, which I'm interpreting literally, is humans being humans. People are social by nature.

Capitalism does not solve for poverty.

Bartering may not be as sophisticated as digital market transactions, but it sure is the fallback for when the system crashes.

To the last statement, I strongly disagree. The all or nothing may be one form of capitalism, but as long as an economy is based on the facets of capitalism, it is what it is.

 

The only way capitalism can ever look unappealing is if you compare it against absolute perfection which does not appear anywhere in human nature. There is no such thing as a viable alternative to it. Everything else is far more oppressive.

 

The mechanism is inherent in the nature of money. Debt is a form of bondage, and money is a frorm of debt. It says it right on your dollar bill: "this note is legal tender for all debts public and private."

Furthermore, it would not be sufficient to suppress or remove the mechanics of capitalism. These "mechanics" evolved over time, and reflect the evolved social behaviors of the human species.

 

That's why I asked. So if we add these things -- a progressive tax system, a system of state welfare, social pensions and universal healthcare, unemployment compensation, unions, workplace safety and wage and hours rules, regulations to protect the environment, protect against unfair competition and consumer fraud, minimum wages, and taxes to ensure a reasonable distribution of income and wealth among working people -- it is no longer "capitalism" in your view, even though we have private ownership of production?

Are you asking for a criticism of laissez-faire capitalism, or any system that includes private ownership of production?

They can be very different things but still considered capitalism.

 

How do you figure my post described a form of government as opposed to an economic system?

- - - Updated - - -

You think?

You take the promissory note. I'll take the cash. Since they are both "forms of debt," we'll call it even. Deal?

 

I didn't. I merely posted it for the benefit of the, fantastical right, since they sometimes neglect that bit of reality in their arguments.

 

Systems can influence behaviors over time. Individualism, materialism, and hard-core competition will push people away from each other while another form of socioeconomics will push people together and form group economics, co-opts, etc. I don't believe what I'm seeing in some locales are behaviors humans would engage in under alternative systems.

 

To the first question, looking at our system, no it doesn't stop being capitalist just because some interference takes place. If I had to place it on a spectrum, it is still pretty capitalist.

To the second question, yes both.

 

How does capitalism solve social problems?

 

True. Nevertherless, the underlying mechanism of money constrain the available directions it can evolve. Mechanisms have their own logic, and the logic of the debt-ratchet pushes any system that employs it towards capital formation.

 

I would criticize a laissez-faire system of capitalism because it basically values every member of society solely on their current market demand for whatever skills or labor they possess. It doesn't nothing to address those who are disabled or whose skills have been displaced or whose skills are not needed for temporary market disruptions. It does nothing to provide for minimum levels of the general welfare. It does nothing to address a reasonable distribution of resources in terms of income and wealth.

The programs I mentioned, however, largely ameliorate these deficiencies, while still maintaining the rewards that provide incentive for working hard, risk taking, and innovation that make the economy grow more efficiently.

 

No, they are not. The US Constitution spells out IN DETAIL what the Federal Government can and cannot do.