"...it's hard to imagine life beyond capitalism. You know, it's easier to imagine the death of the planet than it is to imagine the death of capitalism."
It's almost amusing that neoliberals implicitly and explicitly still revert to the Spencer/Sumner argument, both of which are actually based on Puritan Calvinism if you dig back far enough, when Darwin's "survival of the fittest" has been replaced scientifically with "survival of the most adaptable".
Very well written!! I hope, though, that, at some point, you'll expand more on the distinction between personal property and private property? Because, another nasty trick that capitalist propaganda often uses these days is to erase that distinction, which most people aren't even aware exists (I wasn't myself for a long time and I'm still not clear on it), to make people afraid that any form of socialism/redistribution would control, say, what kind and size of home you and your family are allowed to live in, what kinds of things you're allowed to have in that home,, your right to have a small garden plot, etc. And unfortunately, because the difference between personal and private property is not well understood, those scare-tactics are proving very effective!
I have a lot of notes for an article on property, but have been trying to think of a way to approach the subject that hasn't been covered before - but I think your suggestions of making that distinction has to be at the heart of it
Here are a couple of articles I've liked on the subject -
I think the underlying motivation for the "average" person's defense of capitalism is fear. I think it's the result of growing up in a culture that insists on the lie that personal freedom depends upon capitalism. This was the way that I was raised. I'm sure there are different approaches to understanding the defense of capitalism, but the one I have thought about the most is whether and in what way my personal freedom depends upon capitalism. The only freedom that the economic system in the USA guarantees its citizens is the freedom to consume motivated by a society that judges and defines people in terms of real or perceived material wealth. This isn't freedom.
I thank you for the essay. It gives a better understanding of the methods used to defend a system used to control millions of people, to their detriment, for a very long time.
Many people are worse off earning wages than when they had no wages.
One example is Feudal serfs - despite that system having its own issues - had the guaranteed land, housing and food, with less working hours and far more vacation time than a modern employee, until the feudal lords discovered they needed cheap labour for the new factories under capitalism - so they made them homeless, hungry and unemployed, ripe to be exploited for pennies, most of which went to renting property (often on the land stolen off of the peasants), something they previously didn't have to pay for. British imperialism brought this same process to other countries that lived happily communally for thousands of years.
"One example is Feudal serfs - despite that system having its own issues - had the guaranteed land, housing and food, with less working hours and far more vacation time than a modern employee, "
No it didn't. That's a myth promoted by people who understand nothing about how medieval farming worked.
I could definitely write a list of all the things wrong with feudalism - I’m no fan of the power structure for a start - but … having just read a book on the ‘Enclosures of the Commons’ by a history professor (Stop Thief! Peter Linebaugh) you’ll have to forgive me for needing more evidence disputing the point I made, rather than just taking your word for it.
No, note the important word "unregulated". Unregulated Capitalism has led to the likes of Amazon paying wages under the cost of living that have to be subsidised by others. I accept that money is now needed for modern societies to function. We cannot all live as I did for years solely by barter, though that was the happiest time of my life! Paying everyone a Universal Basic Wage to cover the essential costs of living would mirror the advantages of early sharing cultures. This would provide the universal freedom needed to alter the balance of power away from the oligarchy and the owners of excess capital.
Nick may have his own reply to give you, although I had a few thoughts of my own while I'm waiting for you to reply to my previous questions.
You said - 'Notice that’s happening where there are literally thousands of regulations.'
Are the workers wages higher when union membership is higher or when regulations are lower?
You said - 'Jesus Christ it’s not about money, it’a about private property.'
What is this private property you speak of used for? Isn't it used for generating wealth in the form of money? (Note: I'm not speaking of personal property)
You said - 'Early “sharing” cultures included killing people who weren’t productive enough.'
This contradicts modern archaeological and anthropological research. These outdated narratives were originally popularised to portray early human societies as brutish and primitive, thereby justifying colonial expansion and presenting industrial capitalism as the pinnacle of human development rather than just one possible economic arrangement among many. I'd encourage you to read the book, 'The Dawn Of Everything' for a good overview of newer research.
"You said - 'Notice that’s happening where there are literally thousands of regulations.'
Are the workers wages higher when union membership is higher or when regulations are lower?"
The question isn't when were they higher, it's when were they growing?
"This contradicts modern archaeological and anthropological research. "
No it doesn't. Early "sharing cultures" had high homicide rates and a lot of it was about whether people pulled their weight (in the opinion of the tribe).
You said - 'Early "sharing cultures" had high homicide rates and a lot of it was about whether people pulled their weight (in the opinion of the tribe).'
I made a claim saying the opposite of this, I gave one of the many sources for that claim, I can give twenty other relatively recent different sources if you like, but you still haven't given me any evidence to believe your view.
Maybe you can find an example of what you say happened. I'm not claiming people are perfect, or that no awful things happened anciently. But you are assuming an awful lot from that example.
I realise that colonial-era Social Darwinists projected modern economic values onto prehistoric societies, but modern Anthropologists, Archeologists, Evolutionary Biologists have found more direct evidence in the last few decades that you may not be aware of.
I've seen dozens of examples of recent research challenging the narrative of primitive brutality. Studies I've read of surviving hunter-gatherer and early horticultural societies reveal sophisticated social mechanisms for resource sharing and conflict resolution.
Archaeological evidence from sites like Çatalhöyük shows early settlements with remarkably egalitarian social structures and little evidence of systematic violence against 'unproductive' members. Examination of burial sites frequently reveals care for elderly and disabled individuals who couldn't 'pull their weight' by conventional standards. Then there is the example of our nearest simian cousins, the Bonobo apes, much less violent and more co-operative than any other primates.
Having said this, I believe that modern Capitalism does eliminate 'unproductive' people. Economic policies routinely allow people to die from lack of healthcare, housing, and food access when they cannot afford these necessities - this represents a systematic devaluation of human life based on economic contribution, just through market mechanisms rather than direct violence.
You said - 'Name one problem that is actually the result of capitalism.'
Perhaps nothing will fit through your flexible definition of capitalism, which seems designed to include everything beneficial while excluding anything problematic. But if we presume Capitalism is when a few have capital and use it to produce profit by putting needs and wants behind paywalls that others have to work to pay for, then this is my top ten:
1. Extreme power inequality (buying 'democracy') - 2/3rds of the world lives under declining democratic freedoms.
Extreme wealth inequality (owning the world) - 1% owns nearly half the world's wealth while a billion live in extreme poverty.
3. Environmental destruction (profit over planet) - Climate catastrophe, mass extinction with one million species at risk, including us.
4. Labour exploitation (work or die) - Billions in precarious work, 160 million child labourers, and 50 million people in modern slavery.
5. Commodification of necessities (needs behind a paywall) - 1.2 billion without adequate housing and thousands dying daily from lack of water and food despite abundant resources.
6. Imperialism and neo-colonialism (extracting wealth via violence) - Hundreds of millions killed through imperial wars and conquest, with trillions still extracted annually from former colonies.
7. Alienation and mental health crisis (humanity sacrificed for profit) - Global epidemic of depression affecting 700 million people and widespread sense of purposelessness.
8. Planned obsolescence and consumerism (made to break) - 2 billion tonnes of waste annually, massive resource depletion, and a culture of unsatisfying consumption failing to meet genuine needs.
9. Privatisation of the commons (property is theft) - Indigenous peoples displaced from ancestral lands and public assets sold to private interests, depriving communities of shared resources.
10. Human worth reduced to economic utility (people as disposable assets) - The elderly, disabled, and unemployed treated as burdens in societies measuring success by GDP rather than wellbeing.
These problems seem pretty bad to me, and I've covered a couple hundred reasons to hate Capitalism so far, and aren't running out of any.
" But if we presume Capitalism is when a few have capital and use it to produce profit by putting needs and wants behind paywalls that others have to work to pay for, then this is my top ten:"
Notice how your definition bakes in the bad stuff, like "a few have capital", "by putting needs and wants behind paywalls", so any system that doesn't do that isn't capitalist. Like I said sleazy.
"1Perhaps nothing will fit through your flexible definition of capitalism, "
My definition is the standard one, private property and enforceable contracts/free trade you're the one being sleazy.
"which seems designed to include everything beneficial while excluding anything problematic. But if we presume Capitalism is when a few have capital and use it to produce profit by putting needs and wants behind paywalls that others have to work to pay for, then this is my top ten:"
See what I mean about sleazy?
"1. Extreme power inequality (buying 'democracy')"
Note that you're talking here about he State, which is NOT a free market institution.
" - 2/3rds of the world lives under declining democratic freedoms."
Democratic freedoms, is that the freedom to oppress the minority?
"2. Extreme wealth inequality (owning the world) - 1% owns nearly half the world's wealth while a billion live in extreme poverty."
And where is the evidence that's due to actual capitalism rather than your dishonest definition of it?
"3. Environmental destruction (profit over planet) - Climate catastrophe, mass extinction with one million species at risk, including us."
You do know that the net amount of human deaths due to climate change is probably negative right? Less people dying of cold, slightly less dying of heat.
"4. Labour exploitation (work or die) - Billions in precarious work,"
Down from basically everyone before capitalism.
" 160 million child labourers,"
Again, as a proportion of the population, way down due to capitalism.
" and 50 million people in modern slavery."
Which is by definition a violation of property rights. Guess what? It's usually enabled by governments, which are the least capitalist part of the economy.
"5. Commodification of necessities (needs behind a paywall) - 1.2 billion without adequate housing "
And was it better before capitalism?
"and thousands dying daily from lack of water and food despite abundant resources."
Yes, usually in the socialist countries. I actually did a regression analysis of water quality versus the index of economic freedom. Socialism didn't come out looking good.
"6. Imperialism and neo-colonialism (extracting wealth via violence) - Hundreds of millions killed through imperial wars and conquest, with trillions still extracted annually from former colonies."
And again, not capitalist. By definition government wars aren't capitalistic exchange. They predate capitalism by millenia.
7-9 I'll do later.
"10. Human worth reduced to economic utility (people as disposable assets) - The elderly, disabled, and unemployed treated as burdens in societies measuring success by GDP rather than wellbeing."
Notice that the elderly, disabled and unemployed do better in capitalist societies than non-capitalist ones. Human worth is defined by people not GDP. You're acting like people treat people like disposable assets because of capitalism, but the did that for centuries, capitalism allows us to stop doing that.
You said - 'My definition is the standard one, private property and enforceable contracts/free trade you're the one being sleazy.'
1. This simplified definition conveniently ignores Capitalism's structural power dynamics. Private property in Capitalism specifically refers to productive assets controlled by a minority class, not personal possessions. This ownership pattern creates inherent inequalities that free contracts alone cannot remedy when bargaining power is fundamentally unbalanced.
You said that the state is 'NOT a free market institution', but we are talking about states that work within a Capitalist economy.
Modern capitalism has always required state backing to function. The state establishes property rights, enforces contracts, provides infrastructure, bailouts, subsidies for capital, and a backed currency. There's no historical example of Capitalism functioning without strong state support.
2-4. For your responses about inequality and labour exploitation, the question isn't whether Capitalism improved upon feudalism (it did in many ways), but whether it's the best system possible now. I would argue it isn't.
3. On climate change, your claims ignore the catastrophic long-term consequences already unfolding through extreme weather, resource conflicts, displacement, and ecosystem collapse.
4. Your arguments about child labour and poverty declining 'due to Capitalism' overlook how these gains came primarily through labour movements, regulations, and democratic reforms that capitalists vigorously opposed.
6. Your attempt to separate imperialism from Capitalism ignores how imperial expansion was explicitly driven by the need for new markets, resources, and investment opportunities for capital - a direct expression of Capitalism's growth imperative.
10. Your claim that vulnerable people fare better under capitalism sidesteps how their improved condition resulted from hard-fought (& often Socialist inspired) welfare systems that modified pure market outcomes through public provision.
Could you let me know what a test for assessing the goodness or badness of Capitalism would look like to you, under your definition of Capitalism? How would you judge when something negative was the result of Capitalism?
& calling me 'sleazy'? Really? Do insults help foster constructive conversations?
Very kind. Although I’d rather read them than write them, and I’m sure another perspective would bring out different points or reach a different group with its different approach.
Good essay. You accurately refuted a lot of the common arguments used to defend capitalism. These arguments seem to be on a continuous loop in our culture. Sadly thus far no matter how many times they are refuted these zombie arguments are resurrected in just about every debate like they were being said for the first time.
"...it's hard to imagine life beyond capitalism. You know, it's easier to imagine the death of the planet than it is to imagine the death of capitalism."
- Dr. Henry Giroux (2013) …12 years later
https://billmoyers.com/episode/zombie-politics-and-casino-capitalism/
RIP Bill Moyers
Bill Moyers Was a Truth-Teller, Not a Stenographer for the Powerful
He showed a generation of journalists, scholars, and public intellectuals what it means to speak truth to power.
It's almost amusing that neoliberals implicitly and explicitly still revert to the Spencer/Sumner argument, both of which are actually based on Puritan Calvinism if you dig back far enough, when Darwin's "survival of the fittest" has been replaced scientifically with "survival of the most adaptable".
Very well written!! I hope, though, that, at some point, you'll expand more on the distinction between personal property and private property? Because, another nasty trick that capitalist propaganda often uses these days is to erase that distinction, which most people aren't even aware exists (I wasn't myself for a long time and I'm still not clear on it), to make people afraid that any form of socialism/redistribution would control, say, what kind and size of home you and your family are allowed to live in, what kinds of things you're allowed to have in that home,, your right to have a small garden plot, etc. And unfortunately, because the difference between personal and private property is not well understood, those scare-tactics are proving very effective!
Glad you liked it!
I have a lot of notes for an article on property, but have been trying to think of a way to approach the subject that hasn't been covered before - but I think your suggestions of making that distinction has to be at the heart of it
Here are a couple of articles I've liked on the subject -
* https://judgesabo.substack.com/p/property-is-despotism
* https://audiopervert.substack.com/p/property-and-poverty
I think the underlying motivation for the "average" person's defense of capitalism is fear. I think it's the result of growing up in a culture that insists on the lie that personal freedom depends upon capitalism. This was the way that I was raised. I'm sure there are different approaches to understanding the defense of capitalism, but the one I have thought about the most is whether and in what way my personal freedom depends upon capitalism. The only freedom that the economic system in the USA guarantees its citizens is the freedom to consume motivated by a society that judges and defines people in terms of real or perceived material wealth. This isn't freedom.
I thank you for the essay. It gives a better understanding of the methods used to defend a system used to control millions of people, to their detriment, for a very long time.
Capital elitism is still elitism.
"Historical examples of unregulated Capitalism don’t show good outcomes for workers. "
They have increased worker wages and conditions far more than any other system.
Many people are worse off earning wages than when they had no wages.
One example is Feudal serfs - despite that system having its own issues - had the guaranteed land, housing and food, with less working hours and far more vacation time than a modern employee, until the feudal lords discovered they needed cheap labour for the new factories under capitalism - so they made them homeless, hungry and unemployed, ripe to be exploited for pennies, most of which went to renting property (often on the land stolen off of the peasants), something they previously didn't have to pay for. British imperialism brought this same process to other countries that lived happily communally for thousands of years.
"One example is Feudal serfs - despite that system having its own issues - had the guaranteed land, housing and food, with less working hours and far more vacation time than a modern employee, "
No it didn't. That's a myth promoted by people who understand nothing about how medieval farming worked.
I could definitely write a list of all the things wrong with feudalism - I’m no fan of the power structure for a start - but … having just read a book on the ‘Enclosures of the Commons’ by a history professor (Stop Thief! Peter Linebaugh) you’ll have to forgive me for needing more evidence disputing the point I made, rather than just taking your word for it.
No, note the important word "unregulated". Unregulated Capitalism has led to the likes of Amazon paying wages under the cost of living that have to be subsidised by others. I accept that money is now needed for modern societies to function. We cannot all live as I did for years solely by barter, though that was the happiest time of my life! Paying everyone a Universal Basic Wage to cover the essential costs of living would mirror the advantages of early sharing cultures. This would provide the universal freedom needed to alter the balance of power away from the oligarchy and the owners of excess capital.
“Unregulated Capitalism has led to the likes of Amazon paying wages under the cost of living that have to be subsidised by others.”
Notice that’s happening where there are literally thousands of regulations.
“I accept that money is now needed for modern societies to function. We cannot all live as I did for years solely by barter,:”
Jesus Christ it’s not about money, it’a about private property.
:”Paying everyone a Universal Basic Wage to cover the essential costs of living would mirror the advantages of early sharing cultures. :
No it wouldn’t. Early “sharing” cultures included killing people who weren’t productive enough. No thanks.
Name one problem that is actually the result of capitalism.
Nick may have his own reply to give you, although I had a few thoughts of my own while I'm waiting for you to reply to my previous questions.
You said - 'Notice that’s happening where there are literally thousands of regulations.'
Are the workers wages higher when union membership is higher or when regulations are lower?
You said - 'Jesus Christ it’s not about money, it’a about private property.'
What is this private property you speak of used for? Isn't it used for generating wealth in the form of money? (Note: I'm not speaking of personal property)
You said - 'Early “sharing” cultures included killing people who weren’t productive enough.'
This contradicts modern archaeological and anthropological research. These outdated narratives were originally popularised to portray early human societies as brutish and primitive, thereby justifying colonial expansion and presenting industrial capitalism as the pinnacle of human development rather than just one possible economic arrangement among many. I'd encourage you to read the book, 'The Dawn Of Everything' for a good overview of newer research.
"You said - 'Notice that’s happening where there are literally thousands of regulations.'
Are the workers wages higher when union membership is higher or when regulations are lower?"
The question isn't when were they higher, it's when were they growing?
"This contradicts modern archaeological and anthropological research. "
No it doesn't. Early "sharing cultures" had high homicide rates and a lot of it was about whether people pulled their weight (in the opinion of the tribe).
You said - 'Early "sharing cultures" had high homicide rates and a lot of it was about whether people pulled their weight (in the opinion of the tribe).'
I made a claim saying the opposite of this, I gave one of the many sources for that claim, I can give twenty other relatively recent different sources if you like, but you still haven't given me any evidence to believe your view.
Maybe you can find an example of what you say happened. I'm not claiming people are perfect, or that no awful things happened anciently. But you are assuming an awful lot from that example.
I realise that colonial-era Social Darwinists projected modern economic values onto prehistoric societies, but modern Anthropologists, Archeologists, Evolutionary Biologists have found more direct evidence in the last few decades that you may not be aware of.
I've seen dozens of examples of recent research challenging the narrative of primitive brutality. Studies I've read of surviving hunter-gatherer and early horticultural societies reveal sophisticated social mechanisms for resource sharing and conflict resolution.
Archaeological evidence from sites like Çatalhöyük shows early settlements with remarkably egalitarian social structures and little evidence of systematic violence against 'unproductive' members. Examination of burial sites frequently reveals care for elderly and disabled individuals who couldn't 'pull their weight' by conventional standards. Then there is the example of our nearest simian cousins, the Bonobo apes, much less violent and more co-operative than any other primates.
If you know of modern research that contradicts these conclusions please do direct me to them, but the evidence I've seen suggests the opposite. https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/were-we-born-evil-or-did-capitalism
Having said this, I believe that modern Capitalism does eliminate 'unproductive' people. Economic policies routinely allow people to die from lack of healthcare, housing, and food access when they cannot afford these necessities - this represents a systematic devaluation of human life based on economic contribution, just through market mechanisms rather than direct violence.
You said - 'Name one problem that is actually the result of capitalism.'
Perhaps nothing will fit through your flexible definition of capitalism, which seems designed to include everything beneficial while excluding anything problematic. But if we presume Capitalism is when a few have capital and use it to produce profit by putting needs and wants behind paywalls that others have to work to pay for, then this is my top ten:
1. Extreme power inequality (buying 'democracy') - 2/3rds of the world lives under declining democratic freedoms.
Extreme wealth inequality (owning the world) - 1% owns nearly half the world's wealth while a billion live in extreme poverty.
3. Environmental destruction (profit over planet) - Climate catastrophe, mass extinction with one million species at risk, including us.
4. Labour exploitation (work or die) - Billions in precarious work, 160 million child labourers, and 50 million people in modern slavery.
5. Commodification of necessities (needs behind a paywall) - 1.2 billion without adequate housing and thousands dying daily from lack of water and food despite abundant resources.
6. Imperialism and neo-colonialism (extracting wealth via violence) - Hundreds of millions killed through imperial wars and conquest, with trillions still extracted annually from former colonies.
7. Alienation and mental health crisis (humanity sacrificed for profit) - Global epidemic of depression affecting 700 million people and widespread sense of purposelessness.
8. Planned obsolescence and consumerism (made to break) - 2 billion tonnes of waste annually, massive resource depletion, and a culture of unsatisfying consumption failing to meet genuine needs.
9. Privatisation of the commons (property is theft) - Indigenous peoples displaced from ancestral lands and public assets sold to private interests, depriving communities of shared resources.
10. Human worth reduced to economic utility (people as disposable assets) - The elderly, disabled, and unemployed treated as burdens in societies measuring success by GDP rather than wellbeing.
These problems seem pretty bad to me, and I've covered a couple hundred reasons to hate Capitalism so far, and aren't running out of any.
" But if we presume Capitalism is when a few have capital and use it to produce profit by putting needs and wants behind paywalls that others have to work to pay for, then this is my top ten:"
Notice how your definition bakes in the bad stuff, like "a few have capital", "by putting needs and wants behind paywalls", so any system that doesn't do that isn't capitalist. Like I said sleazy.
"1Perhaps nothing will fit through your flexible definition of capitalism, "
My definition is the standard one, private property and enforceable contracts/free trade you're the one being sleazy.
"which seems designed to include everything beneficial while excluding anything problematic. But if we presume Capitalism is when a few have capital and use it to produce profit by putting needs and wants behind paywalls that others have to work to pay for, then this is my top ten:"
See what I mean about sleazy?
"1. Extreme power inequality (buying 'democracy')"
Note that you're talking here about he State, which is NOT a free market institution.
" - 2/3rds of the world lives under declining democratic freedoms."
Democratic freedoms, is that the freedom to oppress the minority?
"2. Extreme wealth inequality (owning the world) - 1% owns nearly half the world's wealth while a billion live in extreme poverty."
And where is the evidence that's due to actual capitalism rather than your dishonest definition of it?
"3. Environmental destruction (profit over planet) - Climate catastrophe, mass extinction with one million species at risk, including us."
You do know that the net amount of human deaths due to climate change is probably negative right? Less people dying of cold, slightly less dying of heat.
"4. Labour exploitation (work or die) - Billions in precarious work,"
Down from basically everyone before capitalism.
" 160 million child labourers,"
Again, as a proportion of the population, way down due to capitalism.
" and 50 million people in modern slavery."
Which is by definition a violation of property rights. Guess what? It's usually enabled by governments, which are the least capitalist part of the economy.
"5. Commodification of necessities (needs behind a paywall) - 1.2 billion without adequate housing "
And was it better before capitalism?
"and thousands dying daily from lack of water and food despite abundant resources."
Yes, usually in the socialist countries. I actually did a regression analysis of water quality versus the index of economic freedom. Socialism didn't come out looking good.
"6. Imperialism and neo-colonialism (extracting wealth via violence) - Hundreds of millions killed through imperial wars and conquest, with trillions still extracted annually from former colonies."
And again, not capitalist. By definition government wars aren't capitalistic exchange. They predate capitalism by millenia.
7-9 I'll do later.
"10. Human worth reduced to economic utility (people as disposable assets) - The elderly, disabled, and unemployed treated as burdens in societies measuring success by GDP rather than wellbeing."
Notice that the elderly, disabled and unemployed do better in capitalist societies than non-capitalist ones. Human worth is defined by people not GDP. You're acting like people treat people like disposable assets because of capitalism, but the did that for centuries, capitalism allows us to stop doing that.
You said - 'My definition is the standard one, private property and enforceable contracts/free trade you're the one being sleazy.'
1. This simplified definition conveniently ignores Capitalism's structural power dynamics. Private property in Capitalism specifically refers to productive assets controlled by a minority class, not personal possessions. This ownership pattern creates inherent inequalities that free contracts alone cannot remedy when bargaining power is fundamentally unbalanced.
You said that the state is 'NOT a free market institution', but we are talking about states that work within a Capitalist economy.
Modern capitalism has always required state backing to function. The state establishes property rights, enforces contracts, provides infrastructure, bailouts, subsidies for capital, and a backed currency. There's no historical example of Capitalism functioning without strong state support.
2-4. For your responses about inequality and labour exploitation, the question isn't whether Capitalism improved upon feudalism (it did in many ways), but whether it's the best system possible now. I would argue it isn't.
3. On climate change, your claims ignore the catastrophic long-term consequences already unfolding through extreme weather, resource conflicts, displacement, and ecosystem collapse.
4. Your arguments about child labour and poverty declining 'due to Capitalism' overlook how these gains came primarily through labour movements, regulations, and democratic reforms that capitalists vigorously opposed.
6. Your attempt to separate imperialism from Capitalism ignores how imperial expansion was explicitly driven by the need for new markets, resources, and investment opportunities for capital - a direct expression of Capitalism's growth imperative.
10. Your claim that vulnerable people fare better under capitalism sidesteps how their improved condition resulted from hard-fought (& often Socialist inspired) welfare systems that modified pure market outcomes through public provision.
Could you let me know what a test for assessing the goodness or badness of Capitalism would look like to you, under your definition of Capitalism? How would you judge when something negative was the result of Capitalism?
& calling me 'sleazy'? Really? Do insults help foster constructive conversations?
Looks like I can cross this essay idea off my list. Great piece!
Very kind. Although I’d rather read them than write them, and I’m sure another perspective would bring out different points or reach a different group with its different approach.
Fantastic post!
Very useful essay. Many thanks!
Excellent walk-through, thank you!
Good essay. You accurately refuted a lot of the common arguments used to defend capitalism. These arguments seem to be on a continuous loop in our culture. Sadly thus far no matter how many times they are refuted these zombie arguments are resurrected in just about every debate like they were being said for the first time.