Capitalism simply means assets are owned by individuals and operated for profit. The implementation details depend on the individuals (and their values). Nothing about capitalism says anyone or thing needs to be exploited, cheated or monopolized.
Thank you for presenting a reasonable and realistic viewpoint. Too much lately, anytime capitalism comes up on this site, we get a deluge of people just spouting left'ish wing propaganda and disparaging capitalism and capitalists.
I think the problem is that there are a lot of practicing capitalists that also happen to be massive assholes. It's not the capitalism that's the problem, it's the asshole part.
But the assholes insist that they're _required_ to be that way, by the rules of capitalism, and almost no one seems to argue with them (except those "spouting left'ish wing propaganda").
It shouldn't be so taboo to discuss flaws in the capitalist system.. The article itself is a very raw exposition of a characteristic of it that I imagine is understood by people on both ends of the political alignment spectrum as a damaging thing, not that it couldn't not be.. I think the discussion matters because reality matters.
That would include say a totalitarian state where everything is owned by the God King (and operated for profit). Capitalism usually means some variant of "laissez faire" capitalism, where stuff is privately held, the state doesn't interfere with day-to-day business (too much, for some value of too much), and there is enforcement of contracts. The enforcement of contracts bit is where you end up with big debate, because ultimately it means you might need courts, policemen, taxes, the national guard, the EPA, the FBI, and the Department of Agriculture.
Thank you for pointing this out, I agree with your comments further down in this thread about that it is the jerks who ruin it.
However, I do want to strongly note that "profit" here often gets re-invested into the company to develop new and better products (or use the money to damage others, aka the "jerk" behavior). This no longer is "profit" then, by definition, but now has become overhead in the company.
Meaning, "for profit" does not equate to "for filthy riches".
I believe that the need for profit drives certain values over others. Do you think this need for profit has no affect on values? Also, what values do you suppose motivated a system that requires a drive for profit?
Need for profit is not just a value but a requirement for doing business. However, you did not answer any of my questio ns. what values do you think profit motivates if any? And what values motivated profit value?
I think the idea is that in a capitalist competition we should assume all actors are trying to monopolize the industry and really only follow laws to avoid harming their bottom line. The same way you'd design any system by assuming any user might be malicious. The way to manage this is to eliminate corruption and strictly scrutinize the relationships between businesses and gov't entities.
It can't, but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. A system that is less corrupt functions more smoothly than one that is more corrupt, even if there is still corruption.
In the U.S, corruption takes the form of old-boy networks for financial access, exclusive business relationships, under-the-table deals that you'd rather not be made public, close relationships between business and politicians, alumni networks, etc. In many other countries, corruption takes the form of bribes needed to even start a business, hired goons that you have to pay off for protection, unreserved Party loyalty, and midnight executions of people who are deemed a threat. As a startup founder, I get annoyed at all the hoops I have to jump through that have little to do with building a good product, but realistically, I am risking comparatively little and there are ways to convince people that don't involve obsequiousness. Doing something disruptive in, say, sub-Saharan Africa or China or the Philippines often involves much more significant risks to life or property.
It, of course, can't be done practically speaking.
That's one of the the basic failings of all the true free market capitalists (at least the ones who really believe in it and aren't just using the idea to manipulate others the way religions do with their 'flocks').
They have this naive understanding of human nature that believes such a system could exist without corruption when history shows again and again and again (and again...) that even if you start from a system relatively free of corruption, if there are not pre-existing checks and balances (eg. meaningful government regulations) that are constantly maintained the entities who "win" at the system invariably become corrupt in order to maintain the status quo that has worked out so well for them and they begin to tilt the system in their favor. Since they won (and thus have the most resources) they are in the perfect position to influence the system to bend to them, which they invariably eventually do if given the chance.
I think the thought seems to be that if we don't allow people to organize in any meaningful way (i.e. against the people) then the problem of organizations is solved.
Never mind that said organizations would simply resort to setting up unofficial enforcement mechanisms, much like organized crime already does today. Other counter-examples aren't that hard to find either.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. There is a lot of gray area between lobbying and corruption. And lobbying has a bad connotation, but people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives and advocate for legislative outcomes.
> people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives
A lack of lobbying wouldn't prevent anyone from speaking to their representatives. The negative connotations around lobbying come from things like:
- Large campaign contributors getting more attention than constituents (even if their industry isn't in the state; See Orrin Hatch and Hollywood for an example).
- Lobbyists being people that know the politicians, and therefore are being paid to use that trust.
Not all capitalists. I'm not sure I can think of any actual ones for whom any democracy is the most horrible thing. Bit of a straw man argument perhaps?
"Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites"
This is why State capitalism or something like fascism to them is the ideal. Any democracy is the most HORRIBLE thing.
Because after all, there are only a few capitalists, and then there is everyone else...