My Beef With Capitalism
On this page I will sometimes use examples to explain the points I am making. I decided not to use any existing brand names, because capitalism is so used to being criticized at this point, that mentioning brand names can be a trigger for readers to go out and consume their products anyway.
Introduction
The IMF has the following definition of capitalism:
“Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.”
What Is Capitalism? (imf.org)
It is the profit motive that in my opinion creates most of the problems that we are facing today. I am not against an economic system where people produce certain goods based on demand in order to make a living for themselves. How could I be? There is nothing inherently wrong about a farmer producing vegetables, a baker baking bread or a tailor making clothes. There is nothing wrong with people specializing in a certain trade, because people are communal creatures. We thrive living in a community so it seems only natural that within that community people specialize themselves in certain professions, because it is a more efficient way to divide labor. Plus, people are different. Some are better at farming, others are better at tailoring. I also believe that the motive to make money is not inherently wrong, as long as it is in proportion to what one needs to make a living. Someone running a successful restaurant because they serve delicious food and making profit because of that, is not a capitalist. Someone who decides to open multiple branches of their restaurant because they want to lower production costs so that they can outperform their competition, is a capitalist.
With that in mind we can move on to the reasons I think capitalism ultimately doesn't work.
Introduction
The IMF has the following definition of capitalism:
“Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.”
What Is Capitalism? (imf.org)
It is the profit motive that in my opinion creates most of the problems that we are facing today. I am not against an economic system where people produce certain goods based on demand in order to make a living for themselves. How could I be? There is nothing inherently wrong about a farmer producing vegetables, a baker baking bread or a tailor making clothes. There is nothing wrong with people specializing in a certain trade, because people are communal creatures. We thrive living in a community so it seems only natural that within that community people specialize themselves in certain professions, because it is a more efficient way to divide labor. Plus, people are different. Some are better at farming, others are better at tailoring. I also believe that the motive to make money is not inherently wrong, as long as it is in proportion to what one needs to make a living. Someone running a successful restaurant because they serve delicious food and making profit because of that, is not a capitalist. Someone who decides to open multiple branches of their restaurant because they want to lower production costs so that they can outperform their competition, is a capitalist.
With that in mind we can move on to the reasons I think capitalism ultimately doesn't work.
Capitalism = exploitation
The example of the restaurant opening multiple branches is the essence of why I think capitalism ultimately doesn’t work and makes the world a worse place to live. Once you start thinking beyond a single store, you are looking for ways beyond the quality of your product to outcompete the competition. Cutting production fees is problematic, because it incentivizes your competitors to the same, resulting in a race to the bottom. Suppliers are confronted with restaurant owners looking for a good deal. But when they depend on the restaurant for business, they will be forced to cut down their own costs. When a farmer is dependent on the business of a restaurant chain with hundreds of branches, they will see no other option than to comply. A chicken farmer could do that by increasing the amount of chickens living on a single farm, reducing quality of life for chickens. They can also cut costs by paying their staff lower wages. This results in a vicious cycle where each player in the production chain exploits the next in order to protect their own profits.
The way I see it, exploitation is inherent to capitalism. Capitalism has had a huge influence on the development of the colonial age, where a few Western European countries essentially competed with each other over people and resources. In fact it can be argued that the beginning of capitalism coincided with the triangle trade between Europe, Africa and America. And since there were no higher authorities to regulate them, the rest of the world was exploited by these countries for centuries. They took a position of extreme wealth and power that they hold on to until this very day and it’s become extremely difficult for new ‘players’ (developing countries) to reach similar levels of wealth.
The example of the restaurant opening multiple branches is the essence of why I think capitalism ultimately doesn’t work and makes the world a worse place to live. Once you start thinking beyond a single store, you are looking for ways beyond the quality of your product to outcompete the competition. Cutting production fees is problematic, because it incentivizes your competitors to the same, resulting in a race to the bottom. Suppliers are confronted with restaurant owners looking for a good deal. But when they depend on the restaurant for business, they will be forced to cut down their own costs. When a farmer is dependent on the business of a restaurant chain with hundreds of branches, they will see no other option than to comply. A chicken farmer could do that by increasing the amount of chickens living on a single farm, reducing quality of life for chickens. They can also cut costs by paying their staff lower wages. This results in a vicious cycle where each player in the production chain exploits the next in order to protect their own profits.
The way I see it, exploitation is inherent to capitalism. Capitalism has had a huge influence on the development of the colonial age, where a few Western European countries essentially competed with each other over people and resources. In fact it can be argued that the beginning of capitalism coincided with the triangle trade between Europe, Africa and America. And since there were no higher authorities to regulate them, the rest of the world was exploited by these countries for centuries. They took a position of extreme wealth and power that they hold on to until this very day and it’s become extremely difficult for new ‘players’ (developing countries) to reach similar levels of wealth.
Capitalism turns everything into a resource
Once you turn on the profit motive switch, you see the world differently. You look at a chicken and start to wonder how many eggs it can lay in a year, and how much money you can make selling them. You look at the shore of a beach and wonder how many resort hotels you could fit on there and how many rooms you could build in each hotel and how much you could charge each guest for staying. We even turn people into resources. A factory owner looks at their staff and calculates how many products they should be able to assemble in an eight hour workday. Heck, we even do this to ourselves. Capitalism is like a filter we put over the world where everything and everyone loses their natural quality, their beauty and are only judged by how much money they can make. This view is somewhat similar to that of philosopher Heidegger (yes I know he is controversial but his views on technology remain relevant nonetheless) on the dangers of technology. Although Heidegger argued that both capitalism and communism suffered from this same flaw.
Further Reading: Understanding Heidegger on Technology — The New Atlantis
Once you turn on the profit motive switch, you see the world differently. You look at a chicken and start to wonder how many eggs it can lay in a year, and how much money you can make selling them. You look at the shore of a beach and wonder how many resort hotels you could fit on there and how many rooms you could build in each hotel and how much you could charge each guest for staying. We even turn people into resources. A factory owner looks at their staff and calculates how many products they should be able to assemble in an eight hour workday. Heck, we even do this to ourselves. Capitalism is like a filter we put over the world where everything and everyone loses their natural quality, their beauty and are only judged by how much money they can make. This view is somewhat similar to that of philosopher Heidegger (yes I know he is controversial but his views on technology remain relevant nonetheless) on the dangers of technology. Although Heidegger argued that both capitalism and communism suffered from this same flaw.
Further Reading: Understanding Heidegger on Technology — The New Atlantis
Capitalism drives innovation, until it doesn’t
Supporters of capitalism point out that capitalist economies drive innovation, as opposed to socialist or communist economies. While this is true in emerging markets, most markets develop into an end stage where a few big players dominate the market, also known as an oligopoly. Sometimes these players become more powerful than governments, but at the very least they become influential through lobbyism. There is room for innovative startups but as soon as they become sizable enough to be considered a threat, they become prey for the big players who buy them out in order to hold on to their own marketshare and keep up the appearance of being innovative. In these oligopolies corporations become increasingly afraid to take risks and tend to rely on what their customers already know. The film industry is a great example of this. As you may know I’m a big fan of movies, but Hollywood nowadays is largely controlled by five big studios. These studios used to innovate and won their market share by releasing great films, but now they’re mostly avoiding financial risks, relying on known IP, resulting in safe, bland, mediocre films that make you say: “Meh, it was alright.” This is just one example but there are many other market where similar developments are taking place.
Further reading: But there would be no innovation without capitalism | by Isaac ray | Medium
Supporters of capitalism point out that capitalist economies drive innovation, as opposed to socialist or communist economies. While this is true in emerging markets, most markets develop into an end stage where a few big players dominate the market, also known as an oligopoly. Sometimes these players become more powerful than governments, but at the very least they become influential through lobbyism. There is room for innovative startups but as soon as they become sizable enough to be considered a threat, they become prey for the big players who buy them out in order to hold on to their own marketshare and keep up the appearance of being innovative. In these oligopolies corporations become increasingly afraid to take risks and tend to rely on what their customers already know. The film industry is a great example of this. As you may know I’m a big fan of movies, but Hollywood nowadays is largely controlled by five big studios. These studios used to innovate and won their market share by releasing great films, but now they’re mostly avoiding financial risks, relying on known IP, resulting in safe, bland, mediocre films that make you say: “Meh, it was alright.” This is just one example but there are many other market where similar developments are taking place.
Further reading: But there would be no innovation without capitalism | by Isaac ray | Medium
Capitalism is not sustainable
Capitalism is fundamentally not a system that promotes sustainability. Recently I was looking for a rug for our new house. We didn’t like that rugs are generally very difficult to wash and we asked a clerk at a carpet shop why it’s so hard to find washable rugs. The clerk straight up told me that there’s no business model there. In other words, rug manufacturers have incentive to make it difficult to wash rugs, so that the consumer will become unsatisfied with the hygiene of their rug and become motivated to buy a new one. We did finally find a washable rug though, but your options in this market are very limited. Another example is rechargeable batteries. They exist and have existed since I was a child, but they are underrepresented in every shop or electronics store because it is not in the interest of battery companies to have a majority of their customers buying rechargeable batteries that often last for years compared to single use batteries. As such we are creating ridiculous amounts of waste producing disposable goods even though durable alternatives exist.
In late stage-capitalism, Big corporations are looking for ever more ways to make us spend money, coming up with products that are essentially useless, but stimulate us to spend more money nonetheless. Fun shopping was not really a thing in the past, but nowadays every country has a few chains of stores like these, filled with products that the would could have easily done without, using resources that could have been spared, or used in more thoughtful ways.
Further reading: The elephant in the room: Capitalism is not sustainable — Circular Triangle
Capitalism is fundamentally not a system that promotes sustainability. Recently I was looking for a rug for our new house. We didn’t like that rugs are generally very difficult to wash and we asked a clerk at a carpet shop why it’s so hard to find washable rugs. The clerk straight up told me that there’s no business model there. In other words, rug manufacturers have incentive to make it difficult to wash rugs, so that the consumer will become unsatisfied with the hygiene of their rug and become motivated to buy a new one. We did finally find a washable rug though, but your options in this market are very limited. Another example is rechargeable batteries. They exist and have existed since I was a child, but they are underrepresented in every shop or electronics store because it is not in the interest of battery companies to have a majority of their customers buying rechargeable batteries that often last for years compared to single use batteries. As such we are creating ridiculous amounts of waste producing disposable goods even though durable alternatives exist.
In late stage-capitalism, Big corporations are looking for ever more ways to make us spend money, coming up with products that are essentially useless, but stimulate us to spend more money nonetheless. Fun shopping was not really a thing in the past, but nowadays every country has a few chains of stores like these, filled with products that the would could have easily done without, using resources that could have been spared, or used in more thoughtful ways.
Further reading: The elephant in the room: Capitalism is not sustainable — Circular Triangle
Capitalism leads to overstimulation
Capitalism overstimulates us, blames us for being overindulgent and then offers us solutions (for which we have to pay) to the problems they have created. 50 years ago going to the gym was not a mainstream thing. But as the percentage of overweight people increase (thanks to the abundance of cheap, unhealthy, processed foods available on the market) people are urged to lose weight by going to the gym. Now, don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be physically fit and strong, but the majority of gym members are casual users who have been persuaded by marketing that they need to lose weight. People who might not feel the need to work out at all if they were at a healthy weight.
In recent years we are seeing the same thing happening with mental overstimulation. The attention economy has created a situation where we are perpetually exposed to screens, lots of working people (myself included) spend their working days sitting behind a computer screen. On the way home from work you check your smartphone on the train instead of reading a book. At home you listen to a podcast while cooking. After cooking you watch a couple of shows on Netflix until you almost fall asleep on the couch. Dare you go to bed without bringing your phone along? Plenty of people nowadays spend the last minutes of their day browsing social media until they can no longer keep their eyes open. This perpetual overstimulation causes people to feel tired, depressed, anxious, tense. People resort to meditation because they want to escape the constant stimulation, to organize their thoughts and live in the moment more. Once again, the concept of meditation is good and can be a wonderful way improve your mental wellbeing, but the current meditation hype to me seems like another capitalistic solution for a problem the system created, which leads me to my next point.
Further reading: The Attention Economy Is Eating Our Brains | by Dorian Peters | Medium
Capitalism overstimulates us, blames us for being overindulgent and then offers us solutions (for which we have to pay) to the problems they have created. 50 years ago going to the gym was not a mainstream thing. But as the percentage of overweight people increase (thanks to the abundance of cheap, unhealthy, processed foods available on the market) people are urged to lose weight by going to the gym. Now, don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be physically fit and strong, but the majority of gym members are casual users who have been persuaded by marketing that they need to lose weight. People who might not feel the need to work out at all if they were at a healthy weight.
In recent years we are seeing the same thing happening with mental overstimulation. The attention economy has created a situation where we are perpetually exposed to screens, lots of working people (myself included) spend their working days sitting behind a computer screen. On the way home from work you check your smartphone on the train instead of reading a book. At home you listen to a podcast while cooking. After cooking you watch a couple of shows on Netflix until you almost fall asleep on the couch. Dare you go to bed without bringing your phone along? Plenty of people nowadays spend the last minutes of their day browsing social media until they can no longer keep their eyes open. This perpetual overstimulation causes people to feel tired, depressed, anxious, tense. People resort to meditation because they want to escape the constant stimulation, to organize their thoughts and live in the moment more. Once again, the concept of meditation is good and can be a wonderful way improve your mental wellbeing, but the current meditation hype to me seems like another capitalistic solution for a problem the system created, which leads me to my next point.
Further reading: The Attention Economy Is Eating Our Brains | by Dorian Peters | Medium
Capitalism doesn’t take responsibility
Capitalism without regulation leads to band-aid solutions instead of trying to solve the system itself. If unhealthy foods cause people to be overweight, shouldn’t we try to demotivate people to eat unhealthy foods? We can raise the VAT on fast-food, we can launch awareness campaigns about the long term health effects of eating too much fast-food, but instead we're offered a band-aid solutions like going to the gym. Band-aid solutions often go hand in hand with a tendency of capitalism to point out the individuals own responsibility. Beverage companies will argue that people should be free to enjoy a soda once in a while and that as long as they practice self-control there will be no problem. Meanwhile those same beverage companies spend millions on research to engineer the most addictive version of their soda, with the perfect amount of sugar, bubbles etcetera to keep you drinking and buying it. Then they spend some more millions on marketing to persuade people to drink soda. There is a severely uneven playing field here, where single consumers cannot individually protect themselves against the aggression of big corporations. And yes, nowadays a lot of Big Food players do release healthier versions of their products, which I guess is a good thing, but they are often motivated either by government regulation or public pressure. Corporations rarely make these decisions by their own initiative. This behavior is related to my last point in Chapter VIII.
Further reading: Big Food’s Ambivalence: Seeking Profit and Responsibility for Health - PMC (nih.gov)
Capitalism without regulation leads to band-aid solutions instead of trying to solve the system itself. If unhealthy foods cause people to be overweight, shouldn’t we try to demotivate people to eat unhealthy foods? We can raise the VAT on fast-food, we can launch awareness campaigns about the long term health effects of eating too much fast-food, but instead we're offered a band-aid solutions like going to the gym. Band-aid solutions often go hand in hand with a tendency of capitalism to point out the individuals own responsibility. Beverage companies will argue that people should be free to enjoy a soda once in a while and that as long as they practice self-control there will be no problem. Meanwhile those same beverage companies spend millions on research to engineer the most addictive version of their soda, with the perfect amount of sugar, bubbles etcetera to keep you drinking and buying it. Then they spend some more millions on marketing to persuade people to drink soda. There is a severely uneven playing field here, where single consumers cannot individually protect themselves against the aggression of big corporations. And yes, nowadays a lot of Big Food players do release healthier versions of their products, which I guess is a good thing, but they are often motivated either by government regulation or public pressure. Corporations rarely make these decisions by their own initiative. This behavior is related to my last point in Chapter VIII.
Further reading: Big Food’s Ambivalence: Seeking Profit and Responsibility for Health - PMC (nih.gov)
Capitalism makes us lonely
Capitalism stimulates isolation in multiple ways. People are convinced to leave their families to work abroad if they can make more money doing the same job elsewhere. This leads to unnatural situations where families are torn apart, children grow up with grandparents, often not seeing their parents for years. It stimulates isolation because people who work in some countries need to make 60 hour workweeks just to make ends meet. These workers hardly have the time or energy to spend with their loved ones, who are often just as busy grinding through their days to make enough money. They perform jobs on a production chain where they don’t learn any specific skills that they can use in other places in life, often disconnected from coworkers or discouraged to interact with them.
Further reading: Capitalism is What’s Destroying our Collective Mental Health (madinamerica.com)
Capitalism also discourages the existence of third places. Capitalists need people to spend money in their free time, so places where people usually gather after work or on weekends tend to be places where one is required to spend money. Shopping malls, coffee places, restaurants, theme parks, the list of places where one can spend their money is endless. The amount of free third places is however much more limited. The library is the best example and one of the few non-capitalist victories that has fortunately stood the test of time. Schools can be considered third places, but only for the students who go there. Museums are sometimes free, but often only for children or seniors. The world needs more neighborhood centers, where people can gather without the obligation to spend money, and cultural centers where people can develop their artistic sides. Third places don’t have to be free by the way. An independently owned bar or restaurant can be a great third place, as long as it’s designed to make people spend longer amounts of time there. Most commercial businesses are designed to accomplish the opposite, brightly lighted spaces with seats that are not comfortable so that you want to leave there as soon as you finish your meal. They are designed for maximum efficiency, thinking only about the goal of maximizing profit and not thinking about the possible desire or the customer to want to hang out with their friend for a bit after finishing their drink or meal.
Further reading: Many people feel lonely in the city, but perhaps ‘third places’ can help with that (theconversation.com)
Finally capitalism in recent years isolates us by trying to make us spend more time on electronic devices. I already mentioned the attention economy before but in addition to overstimulating us, they also contribute to feelings of loneliness, depression and anxiety. Online interactions are often parasocial (obviously not always) and give people a fake sense of community. I noticed that when I'm watching movies, especially when they take place in the nineties or earlier, I get this feeling of envy because the people just seem to be living in the moment so much more than we are today. The lack of a smartphone attached to our arms makes a huge difference in how we interact and engage with eachother in public. Now, I don’t want to romanticize this too much, but I still remember the time when the mobile phone did not exist. There was more interaction between people in public places for sure. If only because people had to rely more on each other for information. People asking directions, asking for the time, asking whether the bus or train is delayed. In public transportation people would have a chat with random strangers more often than now. Smartphones give us all the information in the world so that we don’t have to rely on other people anymore, but I wonder if this is desirable at all. Capitalism constantly pushes us into this direction where we are promised convenience, personal entertainment and information, but it’s a trade off where we lose our social cohesion and become increasingly isolated.
Further reading: Why have we stopped talking to strangers? | Life and style | The Guardian
Capitalism stimulates isolation in multiple ways. People are convinced to leave their families to work abroad if they can make more money doing the same job elsewhere. This leads to unnatural situations where families are torn apart, children grow up with grandparents, often not seeing their parents for years. It stimulates isolation because people who work in some countries need to make 60 hour workweeks just to make ends meet. These workers hardly have the time or energy to spend with their loved ones, who are often just as busy grinding through their days to make enough money. They perform jobs on a production chain where they don’t learn any specific skills that they can use in other places in life, often disconnected from coworkers or discouraged to interact with them.
Further reading: Capitalism is What’s Destroying our Collective Mental Health (madinamerica.com)
Capitalism also discourages the existence of third places. Capitalists need people to spend money in their free time, so places where people usually gather after work or on weekends tend to be places where one is required to spend money. Shopping malls, coffee places, restaurants, theme parks, the list of places where one can spend their money is endless. The amount of free third places is however much more limited. The library is the best example and one of the few non-capitalist victories that has fortunately stood the test of time. Schools can be considered third places, but only for the students who go there. Museums are sometimes free, but often only for children or seniors. The world needs more neighborhood centers, where people can gather without the obligation to spend money, and cultural centers where people can develop their artistic sides. Third places don’t have to be free by the way. An independently owned bar or restaurant can be a great third place, as long as it’s designed to make people spend longer amounts of time there. Most commercial businesses are designed to accomplish the opposite, brightly lighted spaces with seats that are not comfortable so that you want to leave there as soon as you finish your meal. They are designed for maximum efficiency, thinking only about the goal of maximizing profit and not thinking about the possible desire or the customer to want to hang out with their friend for a bit after finishing their drink or meal.
Further reading: Many people feel lonely in the city, but perhaps ‘third places’ can help with that (theconversation.com)
Finally capitalism in recent years isolates us by trying to make us spend more time on electronic devices. I already mentioned the attention economy before but in addition to overstimulating us, they also contribute to feelings of loneliness, depression and anxiety. Online interactions are often parasocial (obviously not always) and give people a fake sense of community. I noticed that when I'm watching movies, especially when they take place in the nineties or earlier, I get this feeling of envy because the people just seem to be living in the moment so much more than we are today. The lack of a smartphone attached to our arms makes a huge difference in how we interact and engage with eachother in public. Now, I don’t want to romanticize this too much, but I still remember the time when the mobile phone did not exist. There was more interaction between people in public places for sure. If only because people had to rely more on each other for information. People asking directions, asking for the time, asking whether the bus or train is delayed. In public transportation people would have a chat with random strangers more often than now. Smartphones give us all the information in the world so that we don’t have to rely on other people anymore, but I wonder if this is desirable at all. Capitalism constantly pushes us into this direction where we are promised convenience, personal entertainment and information, but it’s a trade off where we lose our social cohesion and become increasingly isolated.
Further reading: Why have we stopped talking to strangers? | Life and style | The Guardian
Capitalism is empty
This will be my final point. I could go on but I think these pages sum up my main frustrations. If capitalism is so bad for us, then why don’t we do more to fight against it? Actually, criticizing capitalism is extremely common. There are lots of mainstream outlets, late night shows, TV shows, films, books, magazines, that openly discuss the flaws of the system. Yet I hardly see any changes in how we live now versus 30 years ago. Sure, we have become more conscious of the environment. The EU, where I live, introduced laws banning disposable plastics for example, which is great! But I feel like the awareness of people about the flaws of capitalism is not at all in proportion to the amount of resistance that is being shown against it. Although there are several reasons why capitalism seems to be untouchable I want to discuss one here that I think is overlooked.
Capitalism is an empty ideology with no purpose beyond the maximization of profit. It has the tendency to wear it’s criticism like a wolf wearing sheep clothes. Capitalists will tell you whatever you want to hear if you keep buying their products. Most corporations don’t give a shit about the environment, but if the general sentiment among consumers is that the environment is in danger and something needs to change, companies will shoot expensive commercials saying they agree with that and somehow connecting that message to buying their products. Some people will tell you that this tendency to internalize criticism in order to maximize profit, is a good thing because this is where the consumer can put pressure capitalists to make changes. This is called “voting with your wallet”. This is true to an extent. But companies will only go as far as they need to go to keep up the appearance that they give a crap. Realizing meaningful change through this means is therefore an extremely time consuming effort that can be done much faster by strong, socialistic governments that regulate markets and prevent corporations from becoming too powerful.
Further Reading: Global Social Challenges | The Friendly Face of Capitalism? Performative Activism, Climate Change and Black Lives Matter (manchester.ac.uk)
Performative Activism: Is It Helpful or Just Derogatory to the Actual Cause? — Unpublished (unpublishedzine.com)
This will be my final point. I could go on but I think these pages sum up my main frustrations. If capitalism is so bad for us, then why don’t we do more to fight against it? Actually, criticizing capitalism is extremely common. There are lots of mainstream outlets, late night shows, TV shows, films, books, magazines, that openly discuss the flaws of the system. Yet I hardly see any changes in how we live now versus 30 years ago. Sure, we have become more conscious of the environment. The EU, where I live, introduced laws banning disposable plastics for example, which is great! But I feel like the awareness of people about the flaws of capitalism is not at all in proportion to the amount of resistance that is being shown against it. Although there are several reasons why capitalism seems to be untouchable I want to discuss one here that I think is overlooked.
Capitalism is an empty ideology with no purpose beyond the maximization of profit. It has the tendency to wear it’s criticism like a wolf wearing sheep clothes. Capitalists will tell you whatever you want to hear if you keep buying their products. Most corporations don’t give a shit about the environment, but if the general sentiment among consumers is that the environment is in danger and something needs to change, companies will shoot expensive commercials saying they agree with that and somehow connecting that message to buying their products. Some people will tell you that this tendency to internalize criticism in order to maximize profit, is a good thing because this is where the consumer can put pressure capitalists to make changes. This is called “voting with your wallet”. This is true to an extent. But companies will only go as far as they need to go to keep up the appearance that they give a crap. Realizing meaningful change through this means is therefore an extremely time consuming effort that can be done much faster by strong, socialistic governments that regulate markets and prevent corporations from becoming too powerful.
Further Reading: Global Social Challenges | The Friendly Face of Capitalism? Performative Activism, Climate Change and Black Lives Matter (manchester.ac.uk)
Performative Activism: Is It Helpful or Just Derogatory to the Actual Cause? — Unpublished (unpublishedzine.com)
So what now?
So how do we go about creating a less capitalist world? Is a more regulated version of the current system enough to save the planet and humanity? I don’t think so. Do we need to move towards a communist system? I’m not sure. I do believe a strong socialist government is essential to making meaningful change. We need to severely decrease the influence lobbyists can exert on politicians. Corporations don’t vote, but they seem to always have a say in the matter when big decisions need to be made. In the EU for example we claim to be serious about the climate crisis, but we still subsidize the dairy industry with billions of euros. We say we want trains to compete with airplanes because trains are better for the environment, yet kerosine is still VAT free. Marketing and advertising also need to be controlled more because they manipulate people into internalizing the capitalist talking points, which leads to more right leaning voting behavior. The capitalists allow people their puny criticism, because ultimately they are so powerful that through marketing and lobbyism they can hold on to their power.
It’s a cliché, but it all starts with people caring, being aware. I believe I am aware, yet I still regularly fall into the capitalist traps. Sometimes because I was unaware, sometimes because I didn't see any alternatives. For what it’s worth I made a button that you can put on your website. "Capitalism = Exploitation" may not be much, but it can be a good starting point for anyone to open their eyes to the dangers of the system. I’m considering to dive deeper in this journey in future articles about how I struggle to make meaningful change within my own sphere of influence, and how we might envision a non-capitalist future.
For now definitely check out this fellow Neocities site for further reading:
Let's Crush Capitalism - Learn about Marxism and Socialism (neocities.org)
So how do we go about creating a less capitalist world? Is a more regulated version of the current system enough to save the planet and humanity? I don’t think so. Do we need to move towards a communist system? I’m not sure. I do believe a strong socialist government is essential to making meaningful change. We need to severely decrease the influence lobbyists can exert on politicians. Corporations don’t vote, but they seem to always have a say in the matter when big decisions need to be made. In the EU for example we claim to be serious about the climate crisis, but we still subsidize the dairy industry with billions of euros. We say we want trains to compete with airplanes because trains are better for the environment, yet kerosine is still VAT free. Marketing and advertising also need to be controlled more because they manipulate people into internalizing the capitalist talking points, which leads to more right leaning voting behavior. The capitalists allow people their puny criticism, because ultimately they are so powerful that through marketing and lobbyism they can hold on to their power.
It’s a cliché, but it all starts with people caring, being aware. I believe I am aware, yet I still regularly fall into the capitalist traps. Sometimes because I was unaware, sometimes because I didn't see any alternatives. For what it’s worth I made a button that you can put on your website. "Capitalism = Exploitation" may not be much, but it can be a good starting point for anyone to open their eyes to the dangers of the system. I’m considering to dive deeper in this journey in future articles about how I struggle to make meaningful change within my own sphere of influence, and how we might envision a non-capitalist future.
For now definitely check out this fellow Neocities site for further reading:
Let's Crush Capitalism - Learn about Marxism and Socialism (neocities.org)