Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Renton]

Are there scales where certain socioeconomic systems provide advantages?
Within most households / businesses, there is a whole lot of sharing and community property going on. Within small neighborhoods, there is a similar feeling of shared goals and economic same-ness that spurns a less capitalistic pattern of trade within the group.




How does a state-level capitalistic system intersect with these smaller socialisms?


Are these consequences good for the growth of said economic sectors?

There's a very simple reason why those social constructs work well and the state works poorly. It has nothing to do with scale, and everything to do with consent. They're all voluntary contracts. That said, there is a such thing as a dis-economy of scale that larger states suffer from more than smaller states and communities do. It also can exist with large corporations.

To say that those constructs are "less-capitalistic" betrays a basic misunderstanding of capitalism. Collaboration is an essential aspect of capitalism, and people who are part of a coalition have a big competitive advantage over lone wolves.

What causes poorness?

Is it a personal choice?
Are there any extenuating circumstances whereby a 'great person' could find themselves destitute?
Are there any extenuating circumstances whereby a 'worthless person' could find themselves wealthy?

Is it fair to have a society with punishments and rewards based on factors which are beyond the control of its members?

This is the question that hung me up the most when I was a liberal. I thought that distributive policy was necessary to smooth out the variance of being born into any of a range of wealth states. I thought that the state afforded greater social mobility to the poor. I also benefitted from some of these programs personally, going to a decent public school and having much of my tuition paid for by a state scholarship program.

My general opinion now is that the social programs put in place to help poor people are framing a dichotomy that isn't entirely true. That it's either the way things are, or poor people have no opportunity to advance in our society. The truth is that the very existence of the public institutions preclude private alternatives from existing. Better private schools. Cheaper private healthcare. A more efficient transportation system. Cleaner, more abundant energy. The state is likely to slow or outright prevent all of these advances. Sometimes in the name of social justice, other times for no good reason at all.

Capitalism is all about leveraging resources into larger and larger gains. There's this myth that capitalism "needs" destitute people to exploit to benefit the rich. It actually needs valuable people. The system needs highly-trained competent people who produce at ever-increasing levels to continue to grow the economy. This simply doesn't square with the notion of 1% of people having all of the stuff and the remaining 99% being uneducated malnourished peasants.