Arguments FOR Capitalism?

[Anti-Social Socialist]

I'm doing an academic paper on whether or not capitalism fails us (of course it does!), and my professor suggests that we address any opposing questions in it. I'm actually having trouble remembering what the arguments for capitalism are. So, if you guys wouldn't mind helping me out, what are the main arguments capitalists use to say that capitalism is right or fair?

[Yazman]

Perhaps you could post a similar thread in the Opposing Ideologies as well; there are a lot of capitalists there.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I'd start with biological innateness, the theory that mutual aid is contrary to human nature and that we're all on an individual quest for self-sustainability. Capialitism therefore meets a rpimary desire within humans to better ourselves, even at the expense of others.

Then i'd go onto meritocracy, the work hard and you'll do well argument.

Then i'd introduce some form of moralism, the fact that capitalism has brought sufficient levels of education and freedom and healthcare to most of the world.

All of which can be rubbished :)

[mykittyhasaboner]

Better than feudalism.

[Rjevan]

Hm, maybe this "invisible hand" stuff by Adam Smith about how the market will always adjust itself, that everybody has the right to seek for wealth and that everybody will be wealthy because the big companies ultimately invest in developments which are good for society. :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Don't go to OI for info on capitalism, you'll get a lot of myth and delusion. Radicals understand capitalism often better than capitalist themselves who too often fall for their own hype.

I think you can talk about how great capitalism is solely as an advance from feudalism:

- Large surplus of food and goods for the first time in history (enough to feed the world, though ironically, the system of capitalism also prevents this - bad for business you know)
- The Revolutionary struggle of the early bourgeois (French Revo, American Revo, upheavals of 1848) helped displace superstition and the belief that people were born into a social station that they could not change.
- These same revolutionary upheavals also helped build movements against slavery (Lincoln's Republicans were about "Free Men and Free Labor" and replacing the save system with an industrial system).
- The lower classes were brutally pushed off peasant lands and forced into manufacturing centers where they would one day become the working class. In the long run the is more benificial than being a pesant because now you can organize and live together and maybe even fight and win for reforms, and eventually a full takeover of power.
- Changing the worldview from one in which all people are in their assigned place prechoosen by god to a modern capitalist one means that Republican and Democratic ideas were possible (as well as egalitarian ideas).

Remember, Marx and Engels saw capitalism as an advance towards socialism and supported the fight of revolutionary capitalists against the feudal system. Bourgie Revolutionaries often were much more radical that even liberal Bourgies today because the Jacobins and Puritans needed to dipose of everything maintaining the old staus quo whereas now even liberal Bourgies are determined to uphold the staus quo (because their system now is the status quo)

So if for nothing else, capitalism is good in that it created the material conditions for socialism and ultimately classless, stateless, communism. It created the means of production, the working class as we know it and the productive capacity to feed, clothe, and build shelter for everyone. The problem as I see it is that same system also blocks this further development.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd start with biological innateness, the theory that mutual aid is contrary to human nature and that we're all on an individual quest for self-sustainability. Capialitism therefore meets a rpimary desire within humans to better ourselves, even at the expense of others.


I disagree entirely. Of course everyone has a self-preservation drive, but for most of human history this drive meant that they lived in fairly egalitarian nomadic groups. There simply wasn't enough surplus to create a class of people who horded wealth - imagine the chief of a tribe keeping all the meat from an animal he hunted to himself... without refrigeration or preservatives, it would go bad before he could eat even a fraction of the meat!

It's actually capitalism which produces individualist competition - this is shown most strikingly by the shit that day-laborers have to put up with: they literally have to compete with the guy next to them for the same shit job. Everything about our society is designed to keep us separate and competing: class ranking at school, admission to universities, individual housing units that put families in competition with eachother and so on.

[Sarah Palin]

Whenever I get into an argument with my classmates regarding communism/capitalism, I always find myself proving communism, as opposed to them taking criticism of capitalism. A recent argument FOR capitalism was invoking rights. It made no sense to me though. It was along the lines of "Why would you want to give up your rights? That's just crazy." It's bugged me ever since.

[LOLseph Stalin]

You could talk about the only incentive Capitalism offers is "work hard or starve", something like that. You could also mention that in the electoral system money=power and votes. Of course this is due to the fact that many political parties are funded by the wealthy so must do what they want to get votes. That's just a few suggestions.

[Idealism]

I'm doing an academic paper on whether or not capitalism fails us (of course it does!), and my professor suggests that we address any opposing questions in it. I'm actually having trouble remembering what the arguments for capitalism are. So, if you guys wouldn't mind helping me out, what are the main arguments capitalists use to say that capitalism is right or fair?

I think the ideas of collectivism and individualist-self pursuit are hard to compare, anyway id say these points (none of which i believe are true)
-Everyone has the ability to become rich
-Skill is given reward
-Private ownership offers everyone the right to own the amount equal to the work they have contributed to society
-Globalization and the pursuit of profit can help workers get work, and through the same system improve lives of those in the third world
-People will "self regulate the market"

Again i dont think any of those are true, but they are the points ive heard made by capitalists.

[Bitter Ashes]

The only thing I'm pretty certain about that capitalism "suceeds" at is that individual production is maximised. Capitalism has created a society where theoritically, they only need 1 in 5 people employed to maintain thier current level of productivity in industry and 1 in 200 to maintain thier level of food production, and even then there's enough suplus to let them waste it.

As we all know however, that level of individual productivty comes at a heavy price though, as the best ways to maximise it are what we'd usualy reffer to as exploitation.

[Dr.Claw]

Perhaps you could post a similar thread in the Opposing Ideologies as well; there are a lot of capitalists there.
or better yet post some excerpts from your paper.

[ZeroNowhere]

Do the voluntary contract argument. It's incredibly easy to refute.
Then there's the human nature argument:
1. There's no evidence for it.
2. It doesn't have any effect on the practicability of socialism ("Possession of the Means of Work — Raw Material, Factories, Machinery — By the Working People Themselves.") if people are innately greedy or whatever.

Also see here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secBcon.html), here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secCcon.html), here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/index.htm) (well, it just explains Marx's critique of the political economy better than the AFAQ could), and here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html).

[Post-Something]

The two best arguments for Capitalism I've heard:

1. Socialism can't work in the near future, so it's best to use capitalism to advance technology first.

2. Capitalism has evolved passed anything socialism can realistically offer in the 21st century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The two best arguments for Capitalism I've heard:

1. Socialism can't work in the near future, so it's best to use capitalism to advance technology first.

2. Capitalism has evolved passed anything socialism can realistically offer in the 21st century.

Notice that both of those arguments are tied to the relationship between the so-called "real economy" (industrial capital) and the "fictitious economy" (finance). Between the two, only the former can "advance technology first." The evolution towards the dominance of the latter may indicate decadence (shitloads of consumer, business, and government debt being practically treated as free money these days).

[Brother No. 1]

Maybe you should say how Capitalism has starved people,killed people,make them poor,work them for little pay,make them work at their backs for barely any amount of moeny and all the crimes Capitalism has done for the past 500 years.

[Patchd]

Maybe you should say how Capitalism has starved people,killed people,make them poor,work them for little pay,make them work at their backs for barely any amount of moeny and all the crimes Capitalism has done for the past 500 years.

That's not an argument for Capitalism though is it? Just to clarify, the OP wanted to know what arguments for Capitalism there are/people use for a piece of work they're doing.

[Post-Something]

Maybe you should say how Capitalism has starved people,killed people,make them poor,work them for little pay,make them work at their backs for barely any amount of moeny and all the crimes Capitalism has done for the past 500 years.

Yes, and even then, I'm not sure a communist would be in the position to make that argument...

[Cynical Observer]

i think the best argument FOR capitalism and it's one of the few that gnaws at me is: if everyone is granted equal wages and a guaranteed livelihood, what incentive is there for performing to the best of ur ability in your work, or for scientific progress? can we really count on brother love to sustain people?

or just read atlas shrugged...

[teenagebricks]

The freedom of capitalism is probably the best agrument for it in my opinion, but that's the problem, too much freedom will only lead to people being exploited.

[Patchd]

The freedom of capitalism is probably the best agrument for it in my opinion, but that's the problem, too much freedom will only lead to people being exploited.

It's an argument they use, but not one which stands at all, like the other arguments. For many people, they have no real freedom, the freedom lies within the bourgeoisie, so getting rid of "some" freedom like you suggested to keep people safe is wrong at the same time. More people would have more freedom under a workerist society.

[teenagebricks]

I agree, the general misguided concensus among capitalists is that hard work should pay off financially, which in essence may be correct, but in fact the opposite is true, in an anarchist or communist society it is the real hard workers who would thrive, the people who fix cars, clean the streets and provide services to the community. Like I said, capitalism just leaves too much room for exploitation, the only freedom we need to get rid of is the freedom to use people for your own ends, that should not have been a freedom in the first place, it's criminal.

[KurtFF8]

For argument from a revolutionary socialist perspective on how Capitalism was revolutionary in ridding the world of Feudalism, look no further than Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm) (Since you're doing this for an academic paper, I don't feel bad just suggesting an entire chapter for you ;) )

As for broader more contemporary arguments, look for arguments for "Liberalism" including the arguments by Milton Friedman, to some extend William Buckley Jr., etc.

I don't know of too many specific articles/videos/etc. but I'm more aware of the broader discourse so I can't help with too many of the specifics. In all actually, you have to look to leftist sources to see the arguments for capitalism, i.e. in ParEcon, Michael Albert deals with some of the common arguments for capitalism and debunks them (e.g. the "Human Nature" argument, progress, etc. etc.)

[Weezer]

Better than feudalism.

This.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The freedom of capitalism is probably the best agrument for it in my opinion, but that's the problem, too much freedom will only lead to people being exploited.

You're dead on about why Anarcho-Capitalism would be the ultimate nightmare. Anarchy is about freedom as we know, eliminating the state and all that. Of course with that there would be no limits as to what people could do in Anarcho-Capitalism. They could oppress people all they want without laws restricting them. As long as they're making money anything is ok. Losing a job in such as system would suck too as there would be no government sponsored social networks. Losing your job would lead to extreme poverty and starvation.

[ZeroNowhere]

Of course with that there would be no limits as to what people could do in Anarcho-Capitalism.
Some people. If everybody were a capitalist, nobody would be a capitalist.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Some people. If everybody were a capitalist, nobody would be a capitalist.

Even in Anarcho-Capitalism not everybody would be Capitalist. In order for Capitalism to work there needs to be those down below who work in the factories to make stuff for the Capitalists. They would need this to have stuff to sell for their profits. Eventually the system would just destroy itself. You have no state and a bunch of oppressed workers. I'm sure that would lead to some chaos and eventually revolution. It would be easy without a state holding the Capitalist class in power.

[ZeroNowhere]

You have no state and a bunch of oppressed workers
You're accepting their rhetoric too much, 'anarcho'-capitalists are very much statist, they just want the state to take a different form (private armies and police forces, etc).


Even in Anarcho-Capitalism not everybody would be Capitalist.
My point was that everybody could not be a capitalist, and, for that matter, only a minority could, so only a few people would have very few limits on what they could do and oppress people all they want, etc. For this to apply to people in general would be basically impossible.


I'm sure that would lead to some chaos and eventually revolution. It would be easy without a state holding the Capitalist class in power.I'm sure that would lead to some chaos and eventually revolution. It would be easy without a state holding the Capitalist class in power.
I'd say that its more likely that a welfare state would be reformed anyways if there were pressure on the system, and perhaps a reversion to the current form of the state anyways.

[Angry Young Man]

I'd start with biological innateness, the theory that mutual aid is contrary to human nature and that we're all on an individual quest for self-sustainability. Capialitism therefore meets a rpimary desire within humans to better ourselves, even at the expense of others.

We're tribal animals. So bollocks to any theory of humans being naturally selfish. There is no anthropological or archeological evidence of humans living in a similar way to, say, polar bears or spiders. Then you could throw in a bit of Rousseau.

Then make a more academic way of saying that the invisible hand has wanker's cramp.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

i think the best argument FOR capitalism and it's one of the few that gnaws at me is: if everyone is granted equal wages and a guaranteed livelihood, what incentive is there for performing to the best of ur ability in your work, or for scientific progress? can we really count on brother love to sustain people?

Neither of those are necessary characteristics of socialism. In Marx's conception a persons contribution would be measured by time and intensity, meaning the more productive you are, the more you receive. As far as scientific progress, well, Necessity is the mother of invention. Most scientific breakthroughs are not a result of capitalism anyway.

Concerning the topic, what about the Austrian time preference argument?

[RebelDog]

Better than feudalism.

Some might say capitalism is industrial feudalism with the factory supplanting the land.

[KurtFF8]

Some might say capitalism is industrial feudalism with the factory supplanting the land.

That of course would be quite lacking in terms of class analysis. Serfs under feudalism, while they share the fact that they were being exploited, had drastically different social relations to the ruling class than the proletariat under capitalism.

[Klaatu]

Some people. If everybody were a capitalist, nobody would be a capitalist.

That is equivalent to saying that not everyone can simultaneously be wealthy. The few will always be wealthier than most, in a capitalist society. Since everyone cannot possibly be as wealthy as Bill Gates, the argument of "equal opportunity" is an invalid tautology.

Equal opportunity assumes equal probability of potential success. Since we know that everyone cannot possibly coexist as billionaires, we can thus never have true equality under a capitalist system.

[Klaatu]

Let me add that is a valid reason to spread the wealth around. Not to say that everyone should have exactly equal pay. But a little more equitable, by chipping some off the top of the top. Heavily-graduated income taxes are a start. However, since the 1960s, this established progressive tax system has been under continual attack from the political right wing.

[RebelDog]

there are some good points that exist within capitalism like the element of social cooperation in production that workers engage in, but of course capitalism introduces negative elements like undemocratic ownership and control in order to rob workers of the fruits of this process and this of course leads to negative outcomes. When we talk of what we call capitalism today in the USA and Europe we shouldn't even refer to it as capitalism. As Chomsky points out, the economy is more or less structured to the extent that the costs (both financial and social) and the risks involved in research, finance and production are taken up by the wider population and the profit is reserved exclusively for the business elite. In other words modern economy is run simply for the welfare of a powerful minority. Tails they win, heads we lose. That is parisitical and parasites have no redeeming features.

[Nwoye]

It's pretty easy. John Locke's argument for private property (mixing your labor w/ natural resources) and Adam Smith's analysis of market efficiency. Those two sources really form the basis for the justification of capitalism.

[Black Sheep]

Better than feudalism.
Hmm... on a strictly individual economic basis, is it?
I mean didnt the serf take a percentage of the harvested crops to themselves?

[Klaatu]

Watch out, because the U.S. may be headed toward feudalism.
The "middle class" is already being crushed. It is a short road to
capitalist dominance of the proletariat.

Then its: Welcome to the 12th century!

[Il Medico]

It is the high life of opportunity and happiness.... that is if you in the top 1% of the population, otherwise it sucks.

[JammyDodger]

I'd start with biological innateness, the theory that mutual aid is contrary to human nature and that we're all on an individual quest for self-sustainability. Capialitism therefore meets a rpimary desire within humans to better ourselves, even at the expense of others.

Then i'd go onto meritocracy, the work hard and you'll do well argument.

Then i'd introduce some form of moralism, the fact that capitalism has brought sufficient levels of education and freedom and healthcare to most of the world.

All of which can be rubbished :)

Just out of interest (as this is a sound bite generation) putting in to words short hand, if a capitalist said any of the above how would you reply to rubbish it ?

Might come in handy:)

[Bilan]

Why not look into some famous capitalist authors, and their thoughts? If you're too respond to the supports of capitalism, it's best to go to their most respectable theorists.
Failing that, why not look at some journals or something. Many of these would provide arguments for capitalism.
Most of these would be much more useful for an essay then a response from a member in OI.