Yet another summary, but probably the most succinct yet underlining the intrinsic problems with the systems of capitalism and why it must end.
Definitions: *Capitalist* someone who monetises capital to provide an income. *Capitalism* the system which favours Capitalists above Non-Capitalists.
2 main systematic Issues:
(1) Capitalism enforces a growth model.
(1.1) Efficiency leads to redundancy which requires innovation to create new jobs. Markets must grow. Resources must be increasingly exploited regardless other concerns if only to create jobs.
(1.2) Tight coupling of wages to employment means that non-capitalists must find work in order to subsist. This drives 1. While in one direction voluntary work is not coupled to wages (e.g. parenthood) in the other it is strict. Even government hand outs to non-capitalists are within the framework of "job seeking". Meanwhile capitalist returns are not linked to work (e.g. rental income), and provide free income for a class unjustly favoured by a supposedly democratic system. The feudal aristocratic system of landed gentry has not been removed but just put up for sale (and in fact the same families are still the major players).
(1.2) Capitalists demand return on investment and capital growth. This biases national policy toward market expansion. This historically is the reason for wars.
(1.3) Capitalism needs to create unhappiness and dissatisfaction in order to promote sales and growth. See 1.2 below.
(1) Capitalism enforces a growth model.
(1.1) Efficiency leads to redundancy which requires innovation to create new jobs. Markets must grow. Resources must be increasingly exploited regardless other concerns if only to create jobs.
(1.2) Tight coupling of wages to employment means that non-capitalists must find work in order to subsist. This drives 1. While in one direction voluntary work is not coupled to wages (e.g. parenthood) in the other it is strict. Even government hand outs to non-capitalists are within the framework of "job seeking". Meanwhile capitalist returns are not linked to work (e.g. rental income), and provide free income for a class unjustly favoured by a supposedly democratic system. The feudal aristocratic system of landed gentry has not been removed but just put up for sale (and in fact the same families are still the major players).
(1.2) Capitalists demand return on investment and capital growth. This biases national policy toward market expansion. This historically is the reason for wars.
(1.3) Capitalism needs to create unhappiness and dissatisfaction in order to promote sales and growth. See 1.2 below.
(2) Capitalism favours the wealthy over the needy. By definition those with monetised capital are favoured over those without. Thus you have the absurd situation where someone with 2 houses gains an income from tenants who have none who must pay a fee. Likewise those who need to borrow must pay an income to those with surplus wealth they can lend. And the more wealthy you are the more free income you can generate. This is why Capitalism generates profound intrinsic inequality.
Small addendum on some of the pop justifications for capitalism.
(1) Capitalism increases GDP.
(1.1) Mechanisation plays a large (possibly the only) part too by increasing efficiency. You can't have capitalism before industrialisation. It is the "un-developed" countries that are poor not the non-capitalist ones.
(1.2) Wealth is relative. Someone in UK in 2020 *feels* poor without a TV. While in 1920 without a radio. Innovation has the negative effect of creating poverty, which those hooked into the system must combat through work and shopping. This unhappiness is what lies behind consumerism and environmental damage. Poverty is a serious health concern not through obvious illness but through lifelong stress similar to what kills animals in zoos.
(2) Trickle down.
We'll make the poor wealthy by promoting the rich. Yup that makes immediate sense.
(3) The alternatives don't work/Better the devil you know.
Ironically in a system that promotes innovation, it doesn't promote innovation of itself. This is demonstration in itself of the way that Capitalism distorts human activity toward serving the rich and establishment.
(4) Lord of Flies/Catcher in the Rye/Hobbe's Leviathon/Freud/Darwin.
Conservative thinking starts with a fear of the "natural" state which leads to arguments for improvement and civilising. Its the wrong way around. A culture of improvement and growth leads to this fear. If you start running in some direction myths will be spontaneously created about what lies in the other direction.
(1) Capitalism increases GDP.
(1.1) Mechanisation plays a large (possibly the only) part too by increasing efficiency. You can't have capitalism before industrialisation. It is the "un-developed" countries that are poor not the non-capitalist ones.
(1.2) Wealth is relative. Someone in UK in 2020 *feels* poor without a TV. While in 1920 without a radio. Innovation has the negative effect of creating poverty, which those hooked into the system must combat through work and shopping. This unhappiness is what lies behind consumerism and environmental damage. Poverty is a serious health concern not through obvious illness but through lifelong stress similar to what kills animals in zoos.
(2) Trickle down.
We'll make the poor wealthy by promoting the rich. Yup that makes immediate sense.
(3) The alternatives don't work/Better the devil you know.
Ironically in a system that promotes innovation, it doesn't promote innovation of itself. This is demonstration in itself of the way that Capitalism distorts human activity toward serving the rich and establishment.
(4) Lord of Flies/Catcher in the Rye/Hobbe's Leviathon/Freud/Darwin.
Conservative thinking starts with a fear of the "natural" state which leads to arguments for improvement and civilising. Its the wrong way around. A culture of improvement and growth leads to this fear. If you start running in some direction myths will be spontaneously created about what lies in the other direction.
This all leads to a view of Capitalism similar to Swedish economist Veblen. Its actual modus operandi is not to increase human achievement and wealth as is claimed. But rather by strict control of financial contracts to limit it in favour of the wealthy. Put on a desert island with no limitations in resources and competition mankind would be fully creative and do exceptionally well. But once competition lead to conditions to limit our freedom that creativity would gradually become more restricted.
