What capitalism creates

[Marxist Madman]

For all the capitalists out there......

What is the end result of capitalism?
Such as; in socialist society the people are trying to move towards the ultimate goal of Communism.
But what does capitalism produce? Obviously nothing stays the same forever---> so will it be dictatorship like in Nazi Germany which evolved from capitalism, or anarcho- capitalism where every service and product is privatized?

Your opinions please,

:star: MM :star:

[Demogorgon]

That isn't how it works. It is to be hoped that the end result is Communism. That is to say Communism grows out of capitalism and eventually overthrows it. The type of political system capitalism seems to thrive best in is a sort of liberal polyarchy. That is to say a system where competing factions of the ruling class compete electorally with one another for power, without there being meaningful public participation. What we see now is mature capitalism in other words.

[trivas7]

[...] It is to be hoped that the end result is Communism. That is to say Communism grows out of capitalism and eventually overthrows it.
Yes, one can always dream... :D

The OP assumes that economic systems progress somehow. I deny it. Economic systems aren't organisms.

[cappiej]

For all the capitalists out there......

What is the end result of capitalism?
Such as; in socialist society the people are trying to move towards the ultimate goal of Communism.
But what does capitalism produce? Obviously nothing stays the same forever---> so will it be dictatorship like in Nazi Germany which evolved from capitalism, or anarcho- capitalism where every service and product is privatized?

Your opinions please,

:star: MM :star:

I hope to see further privatisation of services and a freer market.

[Marxist Madman]

How does Communism come out of capitalism?
and ask any hardcore capitalist---> none of them want anything to do with Communism or it ideals.

And cappiej, what would this freer market and privatization of services create in the long run? Lest you believe it can go on forever...

[Conquer or Die]

Marx advocated the development of capitalism in the third world because it meant that socialism could be rendered in those countries. Capitalism created innovation and excess and socialism directs that innovation and excess to equality; and communism is the end result of socialism which means total freedom and equilibrium.

Primitive Communism > Immature autocracy > feudalism > capitalism > socialism > communism.

[More Fire for the People]

Increasing profits.

[Havet]

the end result of state capitalism is dictatorship and totalitarianism

[Conquer or Die]

the end result of of any form of capitalism is dictatorship and totalitarianism

Agreed :thumbup1:

[Marxist Madman]

I too think so; but the question was for the capitalists out there, what do they think it creates in the end?

[Havet]

I too think so; but the question was for the capitalists out there, what do they think it creates in the end?

they think what everyone who has a political ideology thinks: that their system will benefit a group of people (which might or might not be a majority depending on each ideology).

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know what it actually creates. But if it doesn't feed people-f it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, just to play devils advoctate a bit,

Why are you focusing on two extremes and claiming that one must be the end goal of capitalism?

You seem to be saying that people in a society pick an economic system and everyone works towards some goal of making it the very best version of that system. That is bullshit. America, which is really all I can speak for, does not want Capitalism, as defined by either the Randroids or Hitlerites. Americans by and large support public education on the one hand (at least, a public education not necessarily the one we have now), and Americans have too many different hair styles to ever make efficient Nazis.

Nobody wants either libertarianism or fascism. A very small percentage does, and nobody gives a shit.

The end goal of capitalism is free of child labor and has all kinds of govt programs, with very low taxes.

In the last stage of Capitalism, people don't care as much about society as the do in socialism. They care about where they go to retire.

[More Fire for the People]

The end goal of capitalism is free of child labor and has all kinds of govt programs, with very low taxes.
Again, this has to do with increasing profits.

[EvigLidelse]

Such as; in socialist society the people are trying to move towards the ultimate goal of Communism.

I know you are using Marx's terms, but I just wanted to clarify that socialism necessarily doesn't have to move towards communism. I call myself a socialist, but I do not support societal communism (unless it is voluntary).



But what does capitalism produce?

Defining capitalism as "the current system" as many seem to do, you can at least say that it produces a lot of privately owned companies, surplus extraction from workers, underpayment of workers (not letting them earn the fruits of their labour), a general lack of worker influence and of course corporations, big businesses and multinational companies that undermines the possibility of the workers to pursue their rational self interests. I really hope that this is what capitalism in this sense aims at producing, because if it wouldn't - it wouldn't really be good at anything, whereas it must be abolished because of it's overall inefficiency at doing anything.

But then of course, let's not forget the immorality of all of this...

[FreeMan]

For all the capitalists out there......

What is the end result of capitalism?
Such as; in socialist society the people are trying to move towards the ultimate goal of Communism.
But what does capitalism produce? Obviously nothing stays the same forever---> so will it be dictatorship like in Nazi Germany which evolved from capitalism, or anarcho- capitalism where every service and product is privatized?

Your opinions please,

:star: MM :star:

Capitalism produces the opposite of what communism produces, and that is happiness, freedom and prosperity.

Communism produces pure death. Read your history comrade. Also Nazism doesn't is nothign comparable to communism or captilsim.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Capitalism produces the opposite of what communism produces, and that is happiness, freedom and prosperity.

Communism produces pure death. Read your history comrade. Also Nazism doesn't is nothign comparable to communism or captilsim.

So just how exactly does international Communism do this if it has never been implemented?

[Cassius Clay 2009]

Most educated guesses and opinions seem to conclude that the end result of Capitalism is one giant Tesco or Walmart depending on one's location. Until that eventual paradise we will have to make the sacrafices in order to make that dream one day possible.

[cappiej]

For all the capitalists out there......

What is the end result of capitalism?
Such as; in socialist society the people are trying to move towards the ultimate goal of Communism.
But what does capitalism produce? Obviously nothing stays the same forever---> so will it be dictatorship like in Nazi Germany which evolved from capitalism, or anarcho- capitalism where every service and product is privatized?

Your opinions please,

:star: MM :star:

Well. For me its just about improving life and our standard of living, something I feel we can acheive much faster through capitalism than through socialism, if we could do it all through socialism.

Capitalism is a journey, not a destination. I guess this crucial difference is why communists are so much more committed, in general, than capitalists.

We have capitalism, just not enough of it in my view, whereas we don't have communism, although some elements of socialism (e.g. government healthcare) are present in our system so you have more to fight for.

[EvigLidelse]

Communism produces pure death. Read your history comrade. Also Nazism doesn't is nothign comparable to communism or captilsim.

Communism (societal collective ownership of the means of production) wasn't the problem, it was the statism, force and violence. Mix communism with statism and you get state-communism, probably the worst kind of fascism (and that is of course not what the communists on here RevLeft support, except for any potential state-socialists, Stalinists and other authoritarians).

Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) can equally be said to not produce freedom in itself, it is voluntaryism that does. Mix capitalism with statism and you get state-capitalism (with nazi Germany as the best example), an inherently bad and abusive system. Mix capitalism with voluntaryism, and you get anarcho-capitalism (which of course would allow unhindered competition with workers cooperatives, thus collapsing on the "capitalism" part because of the advantages of workers cooperatives).

I.E, social organization of the means production in itself can not produce freedom nor force, harmony nor genocide.

[Bud Struggle]

Yea, in the end there's no "progress" to Capitalism. On the other hand one could never say that Capitalism is static. It just gently rocks back and forth with sometimes more sometimes less governmental controls.

Over all what Capitalism seeks to attain is the greatest happiness for the greatest number while maintaining as much personal political freedom and economic freedom as possible. That's a delecate balancing act and there will always be people that make out better and people that make out worse of course but what can't be allowed to happen is too much inequality--and that's were the government steps in with taxes and other regulations to control the rich from taking over completely. Capitalism can work best only with a democracy of the masses that will "instruct" government to keep things more or less balanced.

One of the really nice thing about Capitalism that Communism dosen't have is that it takes into account people with special ability and ambition and channels it into productive areas while still limiting the power they people can aquire.

That all being said--Capitalism is vastly imperfect and there is never a certanty that it will work correctly at any given moment of for any given person. It does to it's credit seem to work fairly well for most (though not all) people in the first and second worlds.

[EvigLidelse]

Over all what Capitalism seeks to attain is the greatest happiness for the greatest number while maintaining as much personal political freedom and economic freedom as possible.

Please, define "capitalism" - since I'm pretty much laughing over here presuming that you're using the same definition as I do xD.

[Robert]

Capitalism can work best only with a democracy of the masses that will "instruct" government to keep things more or less balanced.Agreed. Which is the opposite from government instructing the people as to what needs balancing.

Communists to their credit want to eliminate oppression, and as part of that they want to eliminate the state entirely. That sounds good, but it trusts that the People will then be able to keep things "balanced" on their own. Which means: no monitors, regulators, or cops of any kind.

Is this realistic?

[NecroCommie]

Capitalism creates boils of allergic reaction on my skin.

[Bud Struggle]

Please, define "capitalism" - since I'm pretty much laughing over here presuming that you're using the same definition as I do xD.

I'm a practicing Capitalist in the USA and I'm using the definition I live by.

[rednordman]

what do they think it creates in the end?mmm...metropololis or gotham city?

[EvigLidelse]

I'm a practicing Capitalist in the USA and I'm using the definition I live by.

Okay, so what is your definition?

[Bud Struggle]

Okay, so what is your definition?

Well, in economic terms Capitalism is a system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a direct government-controlled economy like Socialism. But when business gets mixed up with politics and government (i.e. in real life) there is a good amount of indirect government management and intervention. Since the government is (theoretically) controled by the masses--then the masses have some say on the general direction business will take.

FYI: I'm no economist, I'm just a humble businessman.

[EvigLidelse]

Well, in economic terms Capitalism is a system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a direct government-controlled economy like Socialism. But when business gets mixed up with politics and government (i.e. in real life) there is a good amount of indirect government management and intervention. Since the government is (theoretically) controled by the masses--then the masses have some say on the general direction business will take.

What you are describing basically sounds like anarcho-capitalism or mutualism, except for the private ownership of the means of production and investment part. Using your definition, one can certainly not imply that the current system is capitalism, because today we certainly don't have a genuinely free market nor any open competition - because then we wouldn't have all the monopolies that we have today (they certainly don't take place because of the freedom of a free market). We mutualists try to be clear on the fact that a lot of monopolies are directly granted by the state, for example patents, copyrights, the money monopoly and the such (that all exists today) - and we also reckon the fact that a monopoly is the worst and most ineffective state in a marketplace. Monopolies are certainly not a state of "open competition", it is the opposite.

I would also like note that your definition of capitalism is contradictory, genuinely open competition would never lead to private ownership of the means of production - unless we have a lack of competition between companies for workers. A genuinely free market without the indirect private ownership subventions we know as patents certainly would mean less incentives for owning companies privately, whereas some real competition between capitalistic companies and worker cooperatives can take place.

[Havet]

What you are describing basically sounds like anarcho-capitalism or mutualism, except for the private ownership of the means of production and investment part. Using your definition, one can certainly not imply that the current system is capitalism, because today we certainly don't have a genuinely free market nor any open competition - because then we wouldn't have all the monopolies that we have today (they certainly don't take place because of the freedom of a free market). We mutualists try to be clear on the fact that a lot of monopolies are directly granted by the state, for example patents, copyrights, the money monopoly and the such (that all exists today) - and we also reckon the fact that a monopoly is the worst and most ineffective state in a marketplace. Monopolies are certainly not a state of "open competition", it is the opposite.

I would also like note that your definition of capitalism is contradictory, genuinely open competition would never lead to private ownership of the means of production - unless we have a lack of competition between companies for workers. A genuinely free market without the indirect private ownership subventions we know as patents certainly would mean less incentives for owning companies privately, whereas some real competition between capitalistic companies and worker cooperatives can take place.

agreed. perhaps bud has missed my thread on dropping the term capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialists-and-libertarians-t112434/index.html)? hehe

[Bud Struggle]

Well maybe. It's a bit like all these Communists around here saying that Stalin wasn't a Communist because he didn't conform to some definition in some book. What is is what is--call it what you will. I described the system that we have pretty well.

Also, the system is itself contradictory and it's not a completely free market--but that's how it works. But as I said I'm no theorist.

The way the system works is that there are a lot of markets that aren't really free but to the individual entrepreneur they don't matter in the least--because those just aren't markets you enter to do business in--there are plenty of other markets that aren't regulated or aren't monopolies.

Actually as I think of it--here in the USA (where I am) at least there are really several different systems operating inside the economy at the same time. There are the government run businesses (the states and local government) that operate at times like corporations. There are the government regulated businesses and monopolies and then there are "free enterprise" businesses. All operate together.

In my businesses (commercdial real estate and chemical manufacturing) the real estate part of it is regulated by the government--I need permits to buy property and to build structures and then to maintain the structures. With that business I go before county and local planning and government commissions to change regulations and rules all of the time. In my chemical business, as long as I obey some basic workplace safty rules they leave me completely alone.

Two different systems working together right in my own life.

[EvigLidelse]

Two different systems working together right in my own life.

Not really, they are both an example of state intervention.

[Bud Struggle]

Not really, they are both an example of state intervention.

Well in one business the state is involved--in the other I'm completely on my own.

[EvigLidelse]

Well in one business the state is involved--in the other I'm completely on my own.

"as long as I obey some basic workplace safty rules[...]"

Completely on your own?

[Bud Struggle]

"as long as I obey some basic workplace safty rules[...]"

Completely on your own?

No, but that is so minor compared to the other things it's almost non existant. And most improtantly it's not about the business itself. Local and state regulatory bodies can directly affect how much money I make.

Safty guidline have nothing to do with that.

[Edit] Now that I think of it--OSHA rules protect me the factory owner--that they protect the worker is a happy coincidence. As long as I post the right signs and have the right equipment, if a worker gets hurt, well that's his/her fault not mine. ;)

[EvigLidelse]

No, but that is so minor compared to the other things it's almost non existant. And most improtantly it's not about the business itself. Local and state regulatory bodies can directly affect how much money I make.

Yes, but does that make a "different system"?

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, but does that make a "different system"?

Of course. I could care less about laws that don't affect my bottom line. I certainly care about laws that do. In the real world bottom lines matter and both types of companies that I mentioned are treated from an entrepreneaurs point of view as totally different types of businesses. You want to play word games--all well and good, but each type of business has to be approached quite differently. A similar type business to my real estate business let's say the insurance business--also well regulated would be treated differently than if I opend up a cleaning service.

[EvigLidelse]

Of course. I could care less about laws that don't affect my bottom line. I certainly care about laws that do.

If a law "affects your bottom line", do you need to get forced to do it? Isn't the incentives of benefiting you strong enough? Of course the other alternative is if the government forces others in your benefit, but that is just pure immorality and theft. Using the gun of the state to take from others in order to benefit yourself isn't any less immoral than using your local mafia to do your "evil deeds" for you. I thus see no reason speaking about this alternative since it's not a defendable position.

Nevertheless, the big question is - do you need the state to force you to act in your own rational self-interest? If not, then what is the state ever going to do for you other than using force to steal from others (and yourself) and give some back to you? Why not just let go of this whole state-capitalism thing, since it's so obviously immoral, unjust and hierarchical?

[Bud Struggle]

If a law "affects your bottom line", do you need to get forced to do it? Isn't the incentives of benefiting you strong enough? Of course the other alternative is if the government forces others in your benefit, but that is just pure immorality and theft. Using the gun of the state to take from others in order to benefit yourself isn't any less immoral than using your local mafia to do your "evil deeds" for you. I thus see no reason speaking about this alternative since it's not a defendable position. It's like this: business is like a willful little boy, sometimes brash and illbehaved looking after only his own self interest--government is like a mother, looking after the little boy's long term well being and behavior. In Real Estate--I'd easily buy up all sorts of land and put up all sorts of buildings if I could--government stops me, for the betterment of everyone so we could have fair zoning and green space and a nice enviorment. I don't always "like" when they tell me "no" but I certainly understand that (for the most part) they are acting in the best general interest of the public, and that public even includes me.


Nevertheless, the big question is - do you need the state to force you to act in your own rational self-interest? If not, then what is the state ever going to do for you other than using force to steal from others (and yourself) and give some back to you? Why not just let go of this whole state-capitalism thing, since it's so obviously immoral, unjust and hierarchical? No, the state serves an important and viable purpose for the general betterment of everyone. (At least here in the USA) where the government is not needed they play almost no part at all (e.g. my chemical business.) On the other hand they do play an important part in my real estate business where land usage isn't just a matter of my wants, but rather an amalgum of my wants and what's best for the community in general. It tries to deal fairly with a limited resource that is in some sense in the public trust.

Government serves it's purpose if done correctly. Now, getting it to always act correctly--that's another matter. :rolleyes:

And taxes for the general welfare is definitly in my interenst--I'm part of that welfare the taxes serve. (I could go into a long speech about how the "welfare state" is the best thing that ever happened to Capitalism--but it would make me sound quite cynical. ;) )

[EvigLidelse]

It's like this: business is like a willful little boy, sometimes brash and illbehaved looking after only his own self interest--government is like a mother, looking after the little boy's long term well being and behavior.

It's more like the physically abusive father that hits you with a belt everytime you do something bad. How can you support something as forceful as this, and how doesn't this contradict your definition of capitalism? You remind me of the conservative people that say that children need to get beaten from time to time in order to become obedient and responsible.



No, the state serves an important and viable purpose for the general betterment of everyone.

Read some on the early states, I find this answer kind of fallacious.



Government serves it's purpose if done correctly. Now, getting it to always act correctly--that's another matter. :rolleyes:

Well, what if it doesn't? You can't just assume that it does, and go with it. I think it's kind of clear that it doesn't, just noting all current the events.

[Robert]

Well, what if it doesn't?

Then we fix it?

[Bud Struggle]

Then we fix it?


What's money for if it doesn't fix things that need fixing? ;):)

[EvigLidelse]

Then we fix it?

How do you "fix" a clearly criminal organization? Can you "fix" the mafia, and turn them into a charity organisation?

[Robert]

How do you "fix" a clearly criminal organization?

Well, if that's your belief, you're right to want revolution. It isn't mine. Capitalism is way too complex and extensive to constitute an "organization."

Good luck.

[EvigLidelse]

Well, if that's your belief, you're right to want revolution. It isn't mine. Capitalism is way too complex and extensive to constitute an "organization."

Good luck.

First of all, I hope you don't mean a social revolution (which I don't support). Second, we're discussing the state now, since it is a contradictory part of his definition of capitalism.

[Marxist Madman]

Then what form of revolution do you support? A social revolution and an armed revolution go hand in hand--> You need to change minds and opinions before you destroy a government from within.

[Pogue]

A social revolution is the political/sociological term for what libertarian communists advocate.

[EvigLidelse]

A social revolution is the political/sociological term for what libertarian communists advocate.

I've always thought of it as violent revolution, am I wrong in my definition?

EDIT: Reading some on it, I realized it's defined as the change of mindset and the acting upon this mindset - a change of system. Is this more correct?



Then what form of revolution do you support? A social revolution and an armed revolution go hand in hand--> You need to change minds and opinions before you destroy a government from within.

I support a change of mindset, of course - but I do not support a violent revolution. I hope I'm not causing any semantic disputes.

[Judicator]

Capitalism produces the optimal allocation of resources now and over time, given currently available information. There is no "end goal" in a sense of a magical transformation that will occur in the future. We will just most likely have more stuff.

[Havet]

Capitalism produces the optimal allocation of resources now and over time, given currently available information. There is no "end goal" in a sense of a magical transformation that will occur in the future. We will just most likely have more stuff.

Actually existing capitalism does not (http://investmoneyinindia.com/2009-world-unemployment-could-rise-by-40-million-says-un/) produce the optimal allocation of resources, either now or over time.

I think you'll be restricted soon. Enjoy your freedom now to post outside of OI.

[NecroCommie]

If capitalism would be the best way to produce goods in the software/media industry, piracy would be practically non-existent. However, the failure of privately owned medias to answer to the increasing demand has given birth to a world wide collective media culture, in which media and information is exchanged almost completely regardless who originally claimed the ownership of that said product. IF capitalism were the natural and most efficient way to produce goods, the growth of modern piracy would take place within the realm of private ownership. Yet it does not.

As technology advances, the production of all other trades will rise in similar ways. Then the entire system of private ownership must be cast away for the sake of progress.

[Bud Struggle]

If capitalism would be the best way to produce goods in the software/media industry, piracy would be practically non-existent. However, the failure of privately owned medias to answer to the increasing demand has given birth to a world wide collective media culture, in which media and information is exchanged almost completely regardless who originally claimed the ownership of that said product. IF capitalism were the natural and most efficient way to produce goods, the growth of modern piracy would take place within the realm of private ownership. Yet it does not.

As technology advances, the production of all other trades will rise in similar ways. Then the entire system of private ownership must be cast away for the sake of progress.


Tosh! You mistake Capitalism for copywrite laws. They are nice and all of that, but 99% of Capitalism avoids the laws entirely. Individual media will devolve to collective media that will devolve to something else that will yeald to something else. And it will all be in private hands.

To think we are the Apoctoliptic "END TIMES" of capitalism is rediculous. Capitalism is the Energizer Battery Bunny--it just keeps going on and on and on and on.

[NecroCommie]

Tosh! You mistake Capitalism for copywrite laws. They are nice and all of that, but 99% of Capitalism avoids the laws entirely. Individual media will devolve to collective media that will devolve to something else that will yeald to something else. And it will all be in private hands.
You should watch steal this movie 2 It will reveal to you how it is impossible to keep private property if the production reaches too high levels. Copyright law is just another law that forces a commodity to be owned privately. It is not somekind of exception, except if we are talking which trades have production numbers superior to demand.

In order to own property, you need to have a monopoly of violence over your property and everyone who try to violate that claim. In piracy it has become virtually (heh, what a choice of words) impossible to contain property because it multiplies uncontrollably. Similarly in nordic countries no-one is allowed to declare land private, in a way that they would prevent someone from roaming or camping there. This is because no sane person would even attempt to enforce such claims, due to the ridiculous amount of wilderness in nordic countries.

This rule applies to every commodity whether abstract or concrete. And this is why capitalism artificially reduces production levels so that they would never exceed the demand. If demand were to become the smaller figure, no further companies would emerge to that trade anymore.

Good example is the housing business. All old houses are demolished if no one lives there, yet there are homeless people. This is because it all goes to the advantage of not just one, but many private onwers. (building company owners, the previous owner of that house, demolishing company owners)

Even the godfather of capitalist economics mr Keynes realized that when the production is high and profits roll in, the inflation will trigger a new recession during which jobs are lost, companies disappear and production is just generally reduced. This inescepable cycle of capitalist misery (read Keynesian economics) will artificially keep private property alive.

This simply is a point foolish to question, the weight of proof is immense.
Capitalism has to artificially reduce production in order to keep private property alive.

To think we are the Apoctoliptic "END TIMES" of capitalism is rediculous. Capitalism is the Energizer Battery Bunny--it just keeps going on and on and on and on.
No, if it is to go by the "natural" flow of human culture then capitalism is here for centuries to come. Hopefully other people realize the ridiculousness of this "system" and topple it before that. In the end capitalism will be remembered as "just another system" along with mercantilism and feudalism. The history of capitalism has been very short and unstable when compared to any other system, and I see no reason why it should make somekind of miraculous stabilization and remain for following thousand years.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Capitalism produces the optimal allocation of resources now and over time, given currently available information. There is no "end goal" in a sense of a magical transformation that will occur in the future. We will just most likely have more stuff.

Optimal from the perspective of the capitalist, sure. I don't think any normal person considers things like planned obsolescence, dedicating huge portions of our resources towards luxuries while people starve, having thousands of empty homes and thousands of homeless, dumping toxic wastes into the oceans, utilizing only 80% of our production capacity, etc. optimal.

[Jonnydraft]

I too think so; but the question was for the capitalists out there, what do they think it creates in the end?

Many would argue a greater distribution of wealth vis a vis the trickle down effect. Naturally, all empirical evidence indicates otherwise - but that is the standard rhetoric employed.

[Judicator]

Actually existing capitalism produce the optimal allocation of resources, either now or over time.

I think you'll be restricted soon. Enjoy your freedom now to post outside of OI.

Why post outside OI? I know I have an OI and it's your forum so there's really no good reason to break the rules just because I can. I'd be starting or engaging in debates I couldn't finish. While I don't appreciate being relegated to OI this forum is its owners private property so they can do whate they want with it.

Of coruse "optimal" is going to be a debateable term, so what's optimal will depend on how you define it. Capitalists would say capitalism maximizes producer and consumer surplus.


Optimal from the perspective of the capitalist, sure. I don't think any normal person considers things like planned obsolescence, dedicating huge portions of our resources towards luxuries while people starve, having thousands of empty homes and thousands of homeless, dumping toxic wastes into the oceans, utilizing only 80% of our production capacity, etc. optimal.

Optimal in the sense that resources are allocated where they are most productive. Initial resource endowments may be extremely inequitable, but given any initial resource setup capitalism should move resources towards the places where they are most productive. It's not optimal in a moral sense, but in the sense of production. I don't think anyone would claim (except maybe Ayn Rand lolol) that the unbridled capitalist system produces the most morally desirable outcome.