Denying capitalism has paved the way for huge benefits to society isn't really what the argument is about. I think it's feasible that capitalism is an essential part of human progress. But I think it's also feasible that we reach a point where capitalism is no longer optimal for the population as a whole.

Wuf, you refer to all criticisms of capitalism stemming from a growing population and a need for resources. That's kinds true. But it doesn't change the fact that at this current point in time resources could be allocated in a different way that would have huge benefits for society over all. Right now the wealth inequality has some people so wealthy they are spending millions to cater for every whim whilst others are starving and dying. Capitalism may well find a way of reducing the numbers of people in extreme poverty and the severity of that poverty for a large number of them, in time. But that doesn't mean it's the best way. Some would say that the mere fact we could improve that many lives so easily and don't, and specifically won't under capitalism, is a major criticism of that system all by itself.

I mean this sums up one of the problems with capitalism quite well. With a huge and growing population and dwindling resources we must sooner or later reach a point where allowing technological advancement, which is needed to solve the problem of population growth and dwindling resources, to be at the whim of the extremely wealthy, no longer adequately addresses the needs of the population which they are so far removed from. It takes someone, some group, government etc to say lets think about the problems of the majority and focus resources on solving those rather than focus on the problems of the minority (the wealthy wanting more) and hoping that we solve the problems of the masses as a byproduct.

Thinking about capitalism more, you could argue that what it actually does is allow those with vast wealth to do the bare minimum. The absolute minimum required to enhance their own fortune. This includes technological progress. They will invest the minimum required to improve technology for themselves.

If we look back at some of the questions posed by Renton in the op, lets consider s similar one.

Rich dude owns factory. He pays the minimum wage (minimum required to get adequate workers, not legal minimum) to his workers and does not offer a profit share. He may invest in research and development to improve efficiency and this has the benefit to society of improving the overall level of technological advancement. If he improves efficiency he can make more profit which is his motivation to do so. He will employ researchers and developers as he deems appropriate. This is capitalism.

Another option. Rather than paying the minimum he pays that figure plus a considerable profit share. If profit increases then everybody benefits. In this instance we have an entire workforce with an incentive to increase efficiency and consider ways of developing technological advancement. Now the factory owner could still hire an r&d team. If he did we would see at least the same level of technological advancement and possibly more as many more minds are focused on improving efficiency. Efficiency as a whole would probably be greater in this example, however profit to the factory owner would not.

So we just found a theoretical alternative to pure capitalism that would increase technological advancement at a greater rate and improve wealth inequality.

Why would our capitalist factory owner do this though? If he wasn't forced to then he wouldn't.

I think the frustration with capitalism is that many who argue for it argue for a truer form of it and that it is the optimal system and even more so in a pure form. People look around at wealth inequality and think surely we could do something about this in a way that the current system is not. I think unfettered capitalism leaves lots of people behind and that a tweaked version has the potential to benefit a greater number at a quicker rate.


As a side note I hate that the only time I have to focus any attention on this thread is when I'm at work which means using my phone which results in really disjointed posts. But meh, it's the best I can muster right now.