LogFAQs > #962157724

To answer TC's initial question, it's because bad faith arguments are required to be able to write off some of the unintentional side effects of a "mature" capitalistic system. They fixate on the more "pure" applications of it that clearly don't exist in practice. They argue that corporations ought to do the right thing by paying fair wages, by not putting profit above the harm of others, the environment, etc. This has repeatedly been shown to not be the way it is practiced because the exercise of capitalism kind of takes a life of its own. Much like biological systems compete with one another for resources so too do actors in a capitalistic system. There is an eventual "winner" of capitalism at which being it ceases to be capitalism at that point anymore.

To that extent it's my opinion we're not a purely capitalistic society. Even the US is currently some degree of socialism, albeit an ineffectual and weak one. We do have systems in place to take care of the less fortunate. It's not entirely a "fend for yourself." Look at social security, medicare, public school, fire departments, police forces, and a whole host of regulatory agencies.

The arguments therefore then end up being that people "against capitalism" are advocating for a more aggressive social safety net still under the base of capitalism. And proponents for capitalism advocate for a lessening of these systems under the belief that the bigger actors in said system (namely larger corporations) will do the irrational thing of "doing the right thing."

The thing is--an early society does benefit from a more open capitalistic society as that drives innovation, allows mobility in socioeconomic class, and rapidly advances said society. That's because even "bad faith actors" with their tactics aren't necessarily preventing others from taking their own maximum amount of the pie they can hold. Because there is still so much unclaimed pie left.

Once a capitalistic system begins to mature, however, there is less and less of the pie available and the "leaders" of said system then turn to reducing the proportion of the pie to those holding less of it to begin with. That's the more exploitative form of it that on a long enough time line will collapse itself. So the observation that most western societies employing capitalism have some "degree of socialism" is really meant as a compensatory mechanism to slow down the exploitation of large sums of wealth and to "even out the footing." That being said, like biological systems, the "leaders" will work to undermine said efforts. Competition becomes less about the "pure application" of capitalism that proponents like about it (the thing which drives innovation, lower prices, etc) but instead becomes a mechanism for the greatest holder of wealth to continue to siphon other sources of wealth without having to lower said costs or drive innovation. It's parasitic.

Of course I don't have an economics background, but this is how I view it having more of a biological background. I think capitalism is a flawed, but arguably the "best" system we've had thus far. I don't think socialism is inherently different, it's simply a different flavor of capitalism that nevertheless slows down the exploitation of a "mature" capitalistic system. While proponents of "capitalism" argue for it's merits in isolation of observed reality (and those merits are real in theory), it's more of a spectrum that needs constant adjustment to maintain said merits. Otherwise we're in for a world of hurt.