I hesitate to reply to people that hide behind throwaway accounts, but sure, I'll bite.
>Even aside from the overwhelming historical evidence soundly disproving your point
That has basically nothing to compare against it. The very few attempts that we had in modern times were ultimately sabotaged by capitalism. Maybe those attempts would not succeed even without the sabotage but regardless, of course it's better than feudalism and its predecessors. The key question for me is: is that the best we can do?
Capitalism did sprout innovation, but that does not mean it's the best way to do so. Ignoring the inherent flaws around the profit motive doesn't help anyone.
>Strawman argument
I don't think so, honestly. The reality is that a lot of research is done with the question of "how can we make money solving this problem?", rather than "how can we solve this problem?". You can't deny that.
Maybe categorizing that as pure/non-pure innovation is not a good way to put it, but the incentives of research do change with profit seeking. It's undeniable.
>corrupt regulators that anti-capitalists would happily put into greater positions of power and give more power to meaningfully decrease the quality of human life.
Regulators that are corrupted in search of capital. It's a circular system.
Many do believe that democratically elect people should have more power than private institutions with zero transparency or checks. Not sure exactly how that "decreases the quality of human life". Where did that come from?
> Regulators that are corrupted in search of capital.
Isn't that the same thing that happened in every socialist attempt in the modern era? Isn't the cause the fact of original sin not the particular economic structures? To put it another way, how do you propose to solve the issue of "[sabotage] by capitalism" the line between good and evil that runs, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says, "right through every human heart"
You're right that corruption is not exclusive to capitalism. All systems will have that in one way or another. That was something the person I was replying to brought up. I don't think it matters for capitalism specifically. Any system worth considering should accept that corruption is unavoidable.
As for a solution... I don't know. I truly wish I had a ready answer to something as big as this, but I don't. The best I can come up with are multiple systems with checks, and we have some governments that attempt this, but inevitably someone ends up with unchecked power.
Today the power that goes unchecked is capital. It can corrupt other systems that don't account for it. Lobbying, donations, media time, etc. It's all affected by it, as systems like democracy were not designed to deal with external influence that is then used to consolidate itself.
That's why it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
> You're right that corruption is not exclusive to capitalism. All systems will have that in one way or another.
Right, and if you'd done any research into alternative economic systems at all, you'd realize that free market systems are the only feasible economic system because it best addresses corruption. Socialism, communism, fascism, and other systems are more vulnerable to corruption than free market systems.
> I truly wish I had a ready answer to something as big as this, but I don't
If you don't, then don't suggest that people experiment with other economic systems when the cumulative toll of those experiment to date weighs in at over a hundred million lives.
> The best I can come up with are multiple systems with checks
That is what we have right now. In America, Canada, the EU, and many, many other "capitalist" systems. Why are you proposing it, when we have it right now?
> Today the power that goes unchecked is capital
This is objectively false. Laughably so. "Capital", whatever that means (as anti-capitalists regularly shift their use of it to avoid being caught in logical fallacies), is not an unchecked power in any of the top dozen current world powers - especially not the US, where there are literally dozens[1] of government agencies tasked with monitoring and controlling money and business in the country.
> Lobbying, donations, media time, etc. It's all affected by it
Everything is also affected by the pride of human beings - yet that has no bearing on the equivalent claim that "the power that goes unchecked is ego" - both that statement and yours are equally false.
> systems like democracy were not designed to deal with external influence that is then used to consolidate itself
"Democracy" is meaningless. You have to pick out a specific implementation of it - like the US, whose political system is designed to deal with external influences. The fact that it fails is because of corruption of individuals elected in office by the people - not because "democracy" somehow can't handle existing in a free-market system.
[1] The Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, various agencies in the Department of Agriculture, basically everything in the Department of Commerce, the Secret Service, large swaths of the Department of Justice (especially the antitrust division) and the Department of Labor, the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs in the Department of State, parts of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communication Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and many, many more. The claim that "the power that goes unchecked is capital" is objectively. Wrong.
> free market systems are the only feasible economic system
Free market systems are not feasible, and capitalism (a system defined around description of a real, at the time existing, system) is not a “free market” system (an infeasible abstraction invented as a post-hoc rationalization for capitalism.)
We may have a terminological difference. When I said "free market", I don't mean a lasseiz faire market/capitalist system - I mean something similar to what the US has now, where money is a Thing and producers sell to consumers, but the government steps in to regulate around negative externalities, prevent harm to consumers, and keep the economy stable.
What are your definitions of "free market systems" and "capitalism"?
> I hesitate to reply to people that hide behind throwaway accounts
My account is three and a half years old, has more karma than your account, and has an equal amount of personal information (zero). Calling it a "throwaway" is inaccurate, saying that I'm "hiding" is manipulative, and your further statement
> but sure, I'll bite
...is further evidence of emotional manipulation instead of reason and intellect.
> The very few attempts that we had in modern times were ultimately sabotaged by capitalism
Given the many non-free-market states (almost all of which were communist, but the point generalizes), every single one of which has failed, the overwhelmingly most likely cause is simply that they don't work. Any claims otherwise require a massive amount of evidence.
> Capitalism did sprout innovation, but that does not mean it's the best way to do so. Ignoring the inherent flaws around the profit motive doesn't help anyone.
Nobody, including in this thread, is "ignoring" anything. Sane people look at the free market system, realize that it needs some amount of regulation to remain stable, and apply that. Insane people suggest that communism is a plausible alternative to free markets - and nobody has been able to come up with another system other than those two.
> I don't think so, honestly.
You're incorrect, then. The point that you made was "[Capitalism] actually pushes innovation towards profits, not pure innovation" - and nobody claimed that capitalism incentivizes "pure innovation", so that's the very definition of a strawman argument.
> The reality is that a lot of research is done with the question of "how can we make money solving this problem?", rather than "how can we solve this problem?"
Again, nobody claimed otherwise - if you had read the comment you're responding to, you would have also seen:
>> the "side effect" of innovation happening as a result of chasing profits is literally how "capitalism" is designed to work
> Regulators that are corrupted in search of capital. It's a circular system.
This is both incorrect and irrelevant. Incorrect, because regulators are corrupted in search of money and power, not because of capital. Irrelevant, because those factors are present in every other alternate system. Free market systems are not unique in this matter, and so this is an irrelevant point to bring up because no alternative system will change this.
> Many do believe that democratically elect people should have more power than private institutions with zero transparency or checks. Not sure exactly how that "decreases the quality of human life". Where did that come from?
Again - you should read comments before you respond to them:
>> corrupt regulators that anti-capitalists would happily put into greater positions of power and give more power to meaningfully decrease the quality of human life
Putting corrupt regulators into greater positions of power is what "decreases the quality of human life".
>Even aside from the overwhelming historical evidence soundly disproving your point
That has basically nothing to compare against it. The very few attempts that we had in modern times were ultimately sabotaged by capitalism. Maybe those attempts would not succeed even without the sabotage but regardless, of course it's better than feudalism and its predecessors. The key question for me is: is that the best we can do?
Capitalism did sprout innovation, but that does not mean it's the best way to do so. Ignoring the inherent flaws around the profit motive doesn't help anyone.
>Strawman argument
I don't think so, honestly. The reality is that a lot of research is done with the question of "how can we make money solving this problem?", rather than "how can we solve this problem?". You can't deny that.
Maybe categorizing that as pure/non-pure innovation is not a good way to put it, but the incentives of research do change with profit seeking. It's undeniable.
>corrupt regulators that anti-capitalists would happily put into greater positions of power and give more power to meaningfully decrease the quality of human life.
Regulators that are corrupted in search of capital. It's a circular system.
Many do believe that democratically elect people should have more power than private institutions with zero transparency or checks. Not sure exactly how that "decreases the quality of human life". Where did that come from?