Yeah, because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world (and you can see that, proven again when Communist China started to inject some capitalism in its economy in the 1990s), and summarizing is as simply "greed" just does not do much justice to it.
> because Capitalism is a system that has put millions/billions of people out of misery and starvation throughout the world
And meanwhile, it has systematized the misery and starvation of millions and billions of people itself, while – cruelly – being so opportunistic, so seemingly advantageous to the resourceful individual, that it teaches us to despise those who suffer, to see them as somehow beneath us. The contempt that was once the property of those few at the very, very top has become democratized, so that we may all join in in feeling it.
I'm not purely anti-capitalist, but your dismissal of the possibility that capitalism could have possibly done anything as horribly wrong to the world as its critics claim is pretty one-dimensional itself. There's a good argument to be made that capitalism hand-in-hand with the mass-production mindset of the Industrial Revolution led to a society in which the value of individuals is reduced rather than enhanced, and that this is one of the central crises of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Your abrupt dismissal of that possibility doesn't make it go away; it just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
> Your abrupt dismissal of that possibility doesn't make it go away; it just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
Yet you write this on a computer, a smartphone or a tablet, which has been provided to you at a very low, affordable price thanks to this capitalistic model you seem to despise. And you are the one who is accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about.
Yeah, see, this is the sort of argument that even freshmen College Democrats think isn't worth arguing.
Yeah, my computer's a result of that capitalistic model. That computer was made in a factory that attracted a lot of controversy for having working conditions so poor that employees literally killed themselves. That factory is the result of a line of thinking that dates back to Henry Ford, which is: let's find exactly the price that we can pay people to get them doing monotonous, soul-deadening work for eight to sixteen hours a day without them walking out. And the more these factories become the norm, the less we'll have to pay, because the fewer other places they can go.
What amuses me about this is that I am not a radical critic of capitalism. As far as people who think capitalism's less than perfect goes, I am so far along being okay with capitalism that my radical friends make fun of me for it. Your treating me like I'm some idiot who doesn't know the first thing about history suggests you haven't had many conversations about this, because trust me, nothing I'm saying is controversial in the least.
The way I see it, capitalism is a very sensible model for creating new things, for innovating, for encouraging systematic change in the directions of optimization and consumer satisfaction. But this model is only as effective, basically, as the freedoms which you're given within it – same as any system, right? In capitalism, the biggest threat is basically that those with the means of production and wealth hold all the reins, and they can inflict horrible suffering upon lots of people without punishment. I'm not just talking about paying people cruel wages to work at factories – I'm talking TV networks producing terrible bottom-of-the-rung shows, and opposing competition from cable networks who'd like to offer quality programming. Or a music industry that is so determined to squeeze as much money as possible out of super-celebrity bands that it's hurt the ability of smaller, local bands to support themselves. The scale at which mass production operates is literally inhuman: that is, it is so large that we are mentally incapable of processing it without a whole lot of effort. And because of that, it's led to a lot of nastiness that's hurt a bunch of people, not even because the people inflicting the pain are evil, but because they can't comprehend the extent of their actions. And, of course, they have incentives to look only at the good their actions create, and not at all at the bad – much like you with your silly "YOU USE COMPUTERS TOO" argument.
Now, the reason I'm not a radical anarchist like some of my friends is that I feel people attempting to revise capitalism can still achieve something from within the system. I also think that capitalism is better enough than the old alternatives that its shittiness can be, not forgiven, but understood within the greater historical context. My radical friends would disagree with this: they'd argue that enough freedom was lost in the 20th century that we're worse off now than ever before. I suspect they're wrong. They'd also argue that capitalism cannot be fixed without outright revolution – I disagree with that too. But I think it's pretty obvious that "capitalism unto itself" is an outdated economic model with some blatant flaws, and that we'll see the world slowly adopting more humane systems. And again, this is not a controversial thought except among those who've rationalized the deaths and sufferings of all the people who go into making this comfortable system for we lucky few.
I'm conflicted about how stuck I am with the system that currently exists, about how little alternative I have. I hope that tech manufacturers figure out a way to offer me good products with much less human suffering behind their manufacturing; I'd pay a premium for that, in fact. And capitalism allows for that too, so I can criticize the state of our capitalist world today without rejecting capitalism outright and going to live in the woods. I like civilization. I just happen to think that capitalism is not quite so civilized as you'd like to believe it is for convenience's sake.
> that it teaches us to despise those who suffer, to see them as somehow beneath us. The contempt that was once the property of those few at the very, very top has become democratized, so that we may all join in in feeling it.
To me, economics is purely a system of wealth creation and the regulation, or lack there of, of that wealth. I see it as an amoral system. I don't see a society of capitalism and a society of everybody making sure that everybody else is taken care of as mutually exclusive.
Morality is influenced by a wide wide wide variety of isms, movements, culture, media, technology, population size, and famous people. The economic model of a society is certainly one of them but by no means the only issue that matters. I think this can be proven by tracing the moral compasses of various societies whose economic model has stayed roughly the same over a period of say 100 years but morality of the society has drastically changed.
Unfortunately, our economy influences our culture, media, technology, and celebrity. The book Monoculture: How One Story is Changing Everything, published 2011, makes the argument that economy is the underlying force that defines everything else. It affects how our media reports stories, for instance, which creates openings for entrepreneurs who want to manipulate that system for their own profit, which in turn has made America's political process into a carnival sideshow, which discourages Americans from paying attention and makes the problem even worse. It also gives business owners an incentive to pay their employees as little as possible, and to oppose any sort of regulation that would force them to give employees any kind of benefits which would cost them time and money.
I wish I could say that technology start-ups are exempt from this, that we enlightened bunch are nice enough and smart enough that we do capitalism right, and there are a bunch of tech companies that really do some great things for employees and charity and that try to minimize suffering. Unfortunately, even among start-ups you have some instances of awful jackassery, and even among the tech legends there is some less-than-good stuff happening. Amazon in particular has notoriously bad warehouse policies, and I've heard reports that even the higher-up employees are routinely treated like shit. There is a culture wherein we expect start-up people to undergo excruciating hours and a lot of stress for even the hope of success, and while I understand why that culture exists, I also think it's not especially healthy that we consider this process to be the norm. There are some people who truly do thrive under such pressure, but there are plenty others who are smart and hard-working and have good ideas who are either crushed by that process, or who are too intimidated by it to try working within it, and that's less than good.
Some things capitalism does are great, and I suspect that they'll remain great as we slowly reform society. But the system as-is is too problematic in too many ways for me to excuse them all, or to forgive capitalism's flaws which allowed this.
Capitalism has also annihilated entire species from the face of the Earth and is a leading, driving force in causing global climate change. Summarizing it as having put billions of people out of misery is not doing it justice.
You probably prefer other systems who focuses on the annihilation of the human race above all ? If you were born in a "capitalist" country you are probably owing to that system the right to be alive nowadays, well fed and educated. Look at how people fare in countries where there is no entrepreneurship, no free markets and no way to invest the fruits of your labor. You ought to travel a little more.
I've spent as much time travelling in Eastern Europe as my bank account can afford. It's insulting and rude to suggest I don't have world knowledge merely because I can see pitfalls of capitalism.
> An obtuse comment considering he's a leading scientist.
So what? Since when being recognized in one field makes you competent in another? A widespread fallacy.