"Capitalism is Best at Problem-Solving" Argument

[Broosk]

I frequently hear capitalists argue that the capitalism has led to a higher standard of living and is the best at problem solving. My counter-argument is usually that private industries are often subsidized by the government and that capitalism has created many problems such as global warming, plundering the third world for its resources, and obesity. Are there any other good counter-arguments?

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'd say that your counter-argument makes the crucial point. The phrase in the title is just vacuous unless we determine what is meant by "problem-solving". Capitalism creates many problems which it cannot solve and hardly makes serious attempts to solve them. Socialism can actually solve those problems (or, in the case of environmental devastation, at least more effectively prevent additional damage). Problem-solving requires prioritization, and people and the environment cannot be sufficiently prioritized in capitalism next to the pocketbooks and portfolios of the rich.

You're right that government subsidies have played a major role in enabling innovation in private industry. It's worth adding that in capitalism, technological innovations which should improve or even save people's lives can leave them without access to a livelihood due to mass layoffs. Also, innovation only does us good insofar as the innovative product is accessible. Patents, costs, and more generally the way capital functions place artificially limits on access to the most innovative products. A free flow of resources and information in place of the hoarding of them for profit would be a boon rather than a hindrance to innovation.

Finally, capitalism represents a massive waste of human potential even as it stresses innovation as a matter of individualistic creative genius. Capitalist ideology not only obscures the circumstantial nature of opportunities, but the need for support from other people doing all sorts of work. It also condemns to a life of starvation and war countless people who could have made who-knows-what contributions to innovation.

In short:

1. Capitalism doesn't properly prioritize problems.
2. Competition for profit is not a necessary motive for innovation, and can in fact stifle it.
3. Capitalism represents a gigantic waste of human potential through the wars, malnutrition and disease it inflicts upon countless persons. That's not to say that each of those lives matters only insofar as it represents a potential innovator, but in the context of discussing whether capitalism is the "best" conceivable system for innovation it's worth keeping in mind.
4. It needs to be acknowledged that capitalism has undeniably brought dramatic innovation, historically speaking, industrially and technologically. It does not follow, however, that the current system is a prerequisite for future innovation.

[RedWorker]

Capitalism creates problem after problem. Which problem does it solve and how?

Capitalism is the system under which there has been the highest standard of living, sure. Just like under the Roman Empire there had probably been the highest standard of living to date. That doesn't mean anything.

[cyu]

Capitalism is the problem. We are the solution.

Slavery is good at solving the problems of the slave owners. Slavery is a problem for the slaves.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Capitalism is the problem. We are the solution.

Slavery is good at solving the problems of the slave owners. Slavery is a problem for the slaves.

This is the best answer. Even the problems under capitalism are framed from the standpoint of capital. It is the reason why worker's problems are often dismissed and thrown into the category of "individual choice" while major problems for capitalists require government action (lawmaking, military intervention abroad, etc.).

[PhoenixAsh]

Ok. How are they going to solve hunger?

You have a week. Go!

edit: crap. Learning thread. Now I have to be serious.

Capitalism is an economic model based on profit maximalisation. It is highly competitive in certain circumstances and branches and will automatically lead to monopolization of markets after the competitive phase.

It isn't inherrently good at problem solving anything...unless there is a profit to be made. In which case they throw money at it untill it goes away or can be turned into a profitable enterprise.

Which means that it is highly selective in which problems it wants to solve and the solution usually cost a lot of money to actually buy and research is patented for private ownership use.

This means that capitalism's problem solving is actually quite limited....and usually to the extent of "can I market this?" & "does it help me corner the market and outdo the competition?".

If it doesn't fall into either of these categories...capitalism usually ignores it and often isn't cooperative at all or worse...works actively to prevent solutions because those will prevent them from profiting (such as with medical research).

[newdayrising]

The question is: capitalism is better than what? Feudalism? "Communism"?
Also, when and where?
The actual formulation doesn't make a lot of sense, let alone any possible answer for it.

[consuming negativity]

anybody who says that capitalism is efficient has never worked in a factory and apparently has never bought a shirt, a phone, or a computer

we waste so much fucking shit because it's cheaper to waste than to restore. we no longer repair anything - we throw it the fuck away because it's cheaper... now. later it won't be, but now it is, and they just don't give a fuck because efficiency isn't the point. money is the point. efficiency is a byproduct where it exists.

[Alet]

capitalism has led to a higher standard of living

This is completely irrelevant, because the material wealth we enjoy today is not an universal need. Let's assume that communism had been built up in the 19th century and that liberals are right, when they say we would not have internet and smartphones today, if this was the case - why does it matter? Would we miss it? Obviously not, since people have always been able to live without it. Modern technology will be effective in future communism, so we will probably make use of the internet, but it is as necessary as it was back then. Communism redefines wealth, so that the argument "Capitalism increased the living standard" (with all its inequalities, social and ecological problems) will be invalid.

[Rafiq]

The problem iwth this argument is that it pre-supposes some kind of universal, metaphysically based consensus on what constitutes a problem. Capitalism "creates" its own standards of what is a problem, and solves them. But the practical reality is missing here: Problems are relative!

A problem for who? Why is this a problem? Even if we abstract some kind of ethical category - the universal and innate existence of "human needs and wants", capitalism precisely is incapable of properly fulfilling these. The point of when it is said that capitalism is composed of various antagonisms is that it precisely sets a definite standard in place, which it is incapable of abiding by. Our standards for freedom, and emancipation, are all standards derived from capitalism, without which we would have no constellation, no means of conceiving them. This is why some might call Communism a "capitalist fantasy" - because it is contingent upon the demand for something that wouldn't have otherwise been able to even be linguistically processed. The point that is missing is precisely that this is exactly how historical change occurs - new epochs can only arise through the pre-existence of antagonisms which existed in previous epochs.

[ckaihatsu]

anybody who says that capitalism is efficient has never worked in a factory and apparently has never bought a shirt, a phone, or a computer

we waste so much fucking shit because it's cheaper to waste than to restore. we no longer repair anything - we throw it the fuck away because it's cheaper... now. later it won't be, but now it is, and they just don't give a fuck because efficiency isn't the point. money is the point. efficiency is a byproduct where it exists.


This is a *moralistic* argument, though. There's no real basis for arguing that 'We should squeeze every ounce of utility out of everything produced' when what's *really* at stake is human labor itself -- if a post-capitalist social order was able to 100% automate the creation and recycling of *all* items, then there wouldn't be any "problem" with disposing of something after one use only (since it would simply be converted, with zero effort and free energy, into something else that's usable).

Granted, under capitalism *human labor* is used wantonly, since it's cheaper for ownership and profit-making to do so than to *automate* the production process for actual, universal usability.

[The Intransigent Faction]

This is a *moralistic* argument, though. There's no real basis for arguing that 'We should squeeze every ounce of utility out of everything produced' when what's *really* at stake is human labor itself -- if a post-capitalist social order was able to 100% automate the creation and recycling of *all* items, then there wouldn't be any "problem" with disposing of something after one use only (since it would simply be converted, with zero effort and free energy, into something else that's usable).

Granted, under capitalism *human labor* is used wantonly, since it's cheaper for ownership and profit-making to do so than to *automate* the production process for actual, universal usability.

The issue isn't a moral one surrounding consumers' behaviour. It's that planned obsolescence reflects wastefulness in the productive process, i.e. using more fragile materials or cheaper production methods, not only to cut the cost of production but in order to reproduce that market for product B when product A breaks down, and so on. Even without automation, plenty of labour time could be freed up for leisure by making things more durable (and even easier to reuse or repair). It's a variation on Marx's quip of "Sell a man a fish; you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity".

Why, after all, in a postcapitalist society, would we create shoddy products using cheaper materials which have to be constantly reproduced by man or machine, at least if something better is just as available?

[ckaihatsu]

The issue isn't a moral one surrounding consumers' behaviour. It's that planned obsolescence reflects wastefulness in the productive process, i.e. using more fragile materials or cheaper production methods, not only to cut the cost of production but in order to reproduce that market for product B when product A breaks down, and so on. Even without automation, plenty of labour time could be freed up for leisure by making things more durable (and even easier to reuse or repair). It's a variation on Marx's quip of "Sell a man a fish; you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity".


Sure, insofar as the argument is a critique of prevailing *capitalist* productive practices, it's accurate and correct.





Why, after all, in a postcapitalist society, would we create shoddy products using cheaper materials which have to be constantly reproduced by man or machine, at least if something better is just as available?


But regarding the *post*-capitalist context, *my* argument remains valid -- arguing against 'wanton wastefulness' would be a non-starter since there'd be zero hindrances to a socially *rational* handling of material concerns, for universal usability -- any remaining concerns would be purely *logistical*, by definition / default.