Capitalism is an immoral system

First, I shall point out that in capitalism, hierarchy is basically inevitable. It is something necessary to have for capitalism to exist and do well as an economic system. There has to be someone who owns a business and people who work under that person. One can argue that a person could do all the work themselves, and own the business too, but that is limited to a very, very small business for in order to expand, you need more people to cover different parts of the company. In capitalism, maximizing profit is the primary goal, which in and of itself, may not be wrong. However, to maximize profits, you need people to work under you. I think I've sufficiently described how capitalism is naturally hierarchical. I believe in order for capitalism to be moral, it needs to have only positions of work which are completely necessary, or else there is someone who is taking money from what other people do or could be doing. If my opponent agrees that taking money from other people who work or could be doing their work is immoral, then I have a solid ground for calling capitalism immoral. The workers themselves can own the company, make the decisions of the company through voting, and share in the profit that a business owner would normally take. The business owner is a completely unnecessary and immoral position of power. Cooperatives, which are democratically-run businesses[1], can get the job done just as well as traditionally-owned businesses. Since we defined capitalism as private-ownership of the means of production, a cooperative is inherently not capitalistic since the cooperative is essentially communally owned since all of the workers own it together. My argument for how cooperatives have the potential to do just as well as or better than capitalistic companies, can be seen here: [2] So first, they do better in economic crises[3], last the first harsh 5 years in business at twice the rate of traditional businesses[1], and have the potential to grow to be enormous like Mon dragon corporation has shown. [4] In my view, since the business owner is an unnecessary position, which I believe cooperatives solidly prove, they are essentially taking money away from what could be going to the workers, and this is immoral. In addition, I think capitalism can be compared to the government form of an oligarchy or even a monarchy at the lowest level of a single business, which most agree is an immoral system of government since it doesn't give representation or consent to the rest of the people in society. Capitalism is very much the same way. While one can argue that we choose where we work at, and we don't have to choose to work at a specific company, it is still problematic. For example, suppose every government in the world was an oligarchy. You technically have choices to be in one country over the other, but no matter what, you're in an oligarchy. That's what capitalism is: there is not really any choice but to be in a company that is owned by a few or even a single individual. You could start your own company, but then you become the one who is making other people have no choice, rather than the one who doesn't have a choice. Not everyone can be a business owner in capitalism, or else it wouldn't work, since business owners need someone to work under them. Similarly, not everyone can be an oligarch or a monarch of a nation. If everyone was, there would be no nations since the oligarchs and monarchs are not governing over anyone. However, wouldn't you agree that a republic or a democracy is a moral system of government, more moral than a monarchy or oligarchy? Well, the form that would translate to in the business world, is a democratic business(cooperative), or some company where the workers vote on who to be the business owner(s) and who is on the board of directors. I'm not sure if the latter has a term, but of course a democratic business is known as a cooperative, as I've stated. Finally, under capitalism, the business is generally there to benefit the business owner(s) and the board of directors the most. While workers get some benefit from the company, as they are paid a wage, they are only given that wage in order so that they do not object to the system at hand. You would have strikes, unions form, etc when workers are not properly compensated. So, in capitalism, the business owner will pay the minimum amount to keep the workers quiet and usually not more, so it primarily benefits the business owner(s) and board of directors. Keep in mind that capitalism was once utilizing slavery at a much greater rate than today, as the plantation owners and others would use slave labor, because it was most profitable. Even today, there are some countries with a significant slave population and child labor population such as India and China, and this is why many companies are naturally going to these countries because it is most profitable to do so [5] If the world was a cooperative economy instead of a capitalistic economy, then those workers would be compensated since they would have a say in the business, but as it stands, those workers(slaves) in those countries have no say in the business, and the business owner(s) and board of directors do. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... dragon_Corporation (for some reason, this link never wants to work, as it always hyperlinks only a portion of the link, but you should be able to go to it if you go to wikipedia itself and type in the search bar "mon dragon corporation") [5] http://www.usatoday.com...