Capitalism Is a Just Economic System

Private Property and AlternativesUnfortunately it has become clear that your argument is not only made on the assumption that the only alternative to capitalism is authoritarian control, but in fact almost completely dependent on it. Everywhere we find that capitalism is defended as ‘freedom’ – so how can you hope to establish it as just if it is not the freest system?It is my understanding that the socialism to which you refer, or ‘non-voluntary, coerced association’ is associated with socialism only because certain individuals, such as Lenin, believe that socialism can only be achieved through ‘state capitalism’.“Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries)” – Lenin [1]That is an extract from a pamphlet in which Lenin advocates ‘state capitalism’. He makes huge mistakes: capitalism does not nourish genius, authoritarian control of industry is brutal and inefficient, and there is no such thing as a ‘critical value’ at which the wealth and productivity of society suddenly allows for socialism. Why would worker self-management require a certain level of productivity? It is insanity. I can only assume that ‘keeping millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard’ is what you refer to when you assert that capitalism, the alternative, is what allows for moral behaviour. Apparently I am not allowed to address your final round but I simply must for the sake of keeping this debate sane – if you read the Wikipedia page for ‘Socialism’ you will see that it is explicitly outlined that “"Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these”.[2] I cannot help but feel that, upon realising that your entire argument was predicated upon the idea that the only alternative to capitalism is ‘state ownership’ that you dishonestly sought to find a source which would legitimise your ridiculous argument.If sufficient numbers of the population understand that all people are political equals and that private property is immoral, then there is no reason to think that libertarian socialist societies would be ‘unfeasible’, just as laws against rape would be unfeasible if everyone desperately loved the idea. To argue that since not everyone will understand moral concepts that therefore they are theoretically flawed are the most disgusting fallacy. What you are saying is that cooperation necessarily requires that individuals have the right to dominate things. You seem to be so caught up in your economic religion that the absurdity of this is somehow obscured. Very well; if you are stranded along with your father on an island, would it be required that you each owned various parts of the island in order to cooperate? Evidently not, and as societies exist as on a continuum, to declare that at some point they need capitalism would be completely indefensible. Strangely, your argument that ‘socialism naturally becomes capitalism’ is dependent on a ‘state capitalist’ system. Fantastic…Visions of a Free Society‘Income’ does not have to exist. Let us imagine a society where you work to provide the ‘necessities’ for your life, and the rest of your life is leisure. Those who dedicate leisure time to accumulating shiny trinkets or hot tubs will have them, and their ability and dedication will directly benefit this pursuit, naturally! Similarly, those who dedicate their leisure to writing poetry will have poems (we hope), and again, their ability and dedication will directly benefit this pursuit. It is my understanding that you misconceive ‘equality’ (a typically anti-capitalist principle) as some kind of relentless homogeniser, taking from the strong and hard-working and giving to the weak and lazy in order to ‘equalise’ them. This is absolute nonsense. I feel no need to covertly drug the strongest people at the gym with catabolic steroids, or secretly give the weakest anabolic steroids in order to ‘equalise society’. What I am attempting to explain here is that socialist societies need not divide society into the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’, merely those who choose to accumulate material wealth and those who choose other pleasures. This, to me, constitutes the greatest ‘control over one’s destiny’ that an economic system could produce.The EnvironmentAgain, “people have a bigger say in a capitalistic society” assumes that the only alternative to capitalism is a Leninist dictatorship. If we imagine, again, that expropriation has occurred, how would a group of individuals be able to destroy the environment, seeing as the environment is the property of all? The fact of the matter is that in a capitalist society, protecting the environment is a personal choice which is only effectual to the extent that you command industry. If the industrialists and sufficient numbers of consumers do not care about the environment, they are perfectly entitled to destroy it under capitalism. Under certain alternatives to capitalism, it would be seen as obviously impermissible to destroy what all are entitled to. Furthermore, I would make the rather educated guess that poorer countries are less likely to care about the environment due to necessity and lack of education, while they are also more likely to have industry-centric economies, rather than service-centric economies, and lawyers seem to produce less carbon dioxide than steelworkers. I apologise for the lack of sourcing but I’m lazy and this seems apparent enough.Advertisements The statement “advertising can never succeed in supplanting better or cheaper goods available and offered for sale” makes me wonder if you inhabit the same world as I do. I will guess that you have heard of Red Bull, but not Emerge. Why is this, considering that they taste practically identical and Emerge is significantly cheaper (30p vs £1.19)?[3] Branding! Examine Coca-Cola’s advertisement, arguably the most successful marketer of all time, and you will see that the ‘idiom’ they speak is that of happiness – but entirely irrelevant to their product![4] Advertising portrays attractive, happy people, romantic, comic, artistic scenes, rarely the quality of the product itself. In this way advertising often makes the consumer feel inadequate in order to sell products.[5] The waste of advertisement - $500 billion globally![6] Could any reasonable person believe that this money is spent simply informing the consumer? No, rather, it is invested as a means to generate profit by creating a ‘brand’. In Conclusion… this scattered section of argument has arisen because my opponent does not have an understanding of political philosophy beyond a ridiculous binary opposition. His arguments have consisted of attempting to illustrate that capitalism is superior to authoritarian control of the economy by a centralised group, for which I care not, and the argument that this is the only form of ‘socialism’, which he has supported with a dictionary and an analysis of state-controlled ‘socialism’, thereby making his entire argument nonsense. Have we seen a justification of private property without reference to despots? No. Is capitalism free, according to his argument? Only in reference to despots. Unless you ignore the burden of proof and assume that the only alternative to capitalism is authoritarian control, then you must vote in my favour.[1] http://marxistsfr.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk...