Capitalism Is a Just Economic System

Freedom and Self-InterestBakunin: “liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice… socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality”.[1] I gather this concept is new to you, because your notion of ‘non-capitalist society’ seems to necessarily involve some kind of authority imposed upon the individual; it does not. Kropotkin discusses the ‘needs’ of humanity; however, as the needs of humanity are but the conglomeration of each individual’s desires, we must strive to satisfy not only what is “necessary to material life”, but “all manifestations of the mind” too.[3] The society these men dream of is not the annihilation of the individual, but one of the greatest liberty. You choose to associate with whichever democratic community you wish, if none satisfy you, then you are free to create your own, even if it is composed solely of yourself, and interact with other communities on equal standing. I don’t mean to make this about anarcho-communism – it merely illustrates a model of society where people are not subject the injustice of private property and other forms of authoritarianism. Supply and DemandKropotkin defines his ‘economic science’: “The Study of the Needs of Humanity, and of the Economic Means to satisfy them”.[3] How infinitely more just than ‘profit’, as we shall see.There is great demand for food in the world, even in the United Kingdom half a million rely on charity to feed their families.[4] Are we unable to produce enough? No. Americans waste 40% of all the food they produce.[5] Similarly, what must the homeless and the crowded think of the fact that there are 330,000 houses in the UK which have not been lived in for over six months?[6] What ‘demand’ does capitalism meet then? That of profit alone, the satisfaction of any other demand is incidental. Any sane society would structure its economy around meeting the needs of its citizens, not letting houses remain empty and food rot, not wasting labour producing junk items (e.g. penis pills) which the producer knows will not work, all in the interest of capital.Competitive Markets and InnovationThat quote from the Federal Trade Commission establishes only the benefit of a competitive market to a monopoly, and cannot hope to touch the efficiency and bounty of an economy structured around meeting needs, for profit is obviously nothing but a distraction or an unnecessary middleman in comparison. I believe it is correct to say that you wrongly conflate every ‘non-capitalist’ society with a ‘state monopoly’. State monopolies, absolute in their power, are easily corrupted, and centralised power is very ineffective indeed, as well as being an obvious imposition upon liberty. Let us hear from Lenin: “State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic… It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism”.[7] This is the arrogance of the ‘socialists’ who believe not that capitalism is wrong, but that they should be in control of every aspect of production.As I stated in my first argument, capital and intellectual property are nothing but a hindrance to progress. The free exchange of ideas simply cannot fail to lead to a greater rate of innovation, and the stranglehold of capital is costing us dearly, certainly in medicine, and almost certainly other sciences too. Furthermore, I believe that the evidence against competition, as I showed previously, is repudiates the claim that producers or inventors work best when pitted against each other. I find it the most insane arrogance of the highest order to declare that capitalism, not the ingenuity, passion, and ambition of multitudes of individuals, has brought us up from the dirt.Private Propert and CooperationThe right to private property is not the right to satisfy your needs, it is the right to dominate an item, an area, an idea, etc. so that all must submit themselves to you in order to access it. The concept that the ability to do this is the ‘basis of cooperation’ is complete nonsense. Familial households, groups of friends, and volunteer communities cooperate perfectly well without each of them claiming to own things. Presumably we don’t need to consider the needs of a community composed of people who do not want to work with each other.Concluding Remarks of a General NatureI would characterise Subutai’s argument as that of ignorance, for the most part - abolishing capitalism does not mean bowing down to a Stalin. Private Property is not what we should describe as a ‘basic human right’ as it is an imposition of authority, and one he primarily justifies through the rejection of a ‘state authority figure’ who would steal his produce. Again, this authoritarian exploiter of gigantic proportion is hardly a necessary constituent of a society without capitalism. Another source of fear for my opponent is the ‘oppressive, demanding community’ which would restrict his freedom and take from him all that he produces. A ‘non-voluntary’ community is not necessitated by a society without capitalism either. I think it is quite apparent that his first round has been mostly dedicated to dismantling authoritarian alternatives to capitalism, but I don’t see that as particularly fruitful as libertarian socialism / social anarchism are perfectly legitimate alternatives to capitalism which do not require a Dictator or a tyrannical community. The ‘benefits’ of capitalism are for the most part the benefits of technology, which would only count in its favour if capitalism could be shown to promote technological advance – yet empirical evidence seems to disconfirm this hypothesis. [1] http://www.marxists.org...[2] P. Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p.93[3] P. Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p.43[4] http://www.theguardian.com...#[5] http://www.emagazine.com...[6] http://www.emptyhomes.com...[7] http://www.marxists.org...