43. CAPITALISM IS NOT BETTER, JUST EASIER - A Student Considers The Lazy Appeal of a Flawed Economic System
While in one of my regular arguments over politics with my conservative uncle about the best way to run a society, I found myself listening to the same arguments defending capitalism again and again:
1. People deserve to earn what they work for and it is immoral to take away their “hard earned money”.
2. It allows for competition and prevents monopolies dominating industries.
3. It is very efficient in providing goods as firms have incentive to keep up with the market.
4. It promotes freedom as the lack of government intervention allows for “flourishing business”.
And all of these arguments are constantly reiterated in the same fashion. To me, however, while analysing the true reason why many people favour capitalism, I came to one clear conclusion – capitalism is easy. Before I show the logic that lead me to this conclusion, I must first collapse the 4 core arguments defending capitalism above as only once they are shown to be lacking substance can I then defend my argument. This will of course take some time, and I have been advised to shorten it down to be easier to digest, but then I would be accepting the capitalist way of accepting something because it is easier and not better and so it will be as long as I deem necessary!
THE MORAL CAPITALISTS ARGUMENT
Let us begin with what I call the “moral capitalists” argument. This argument is the first on one the list and usually follows this line of logic, based on these two assumptions that capitalists accept:
1. People should work and when they do, they should earn money.
2. That money is their money.
If we accept 1 & 2 then;
3. If people have worked for their money and it is their money, then it would be immoral to take away the money that they worked for.
This is because;
4. Money that they earned is theirs and we have no right to the money that they earned as to take it would be similar to stealing one’s property which is immoral.
To tackle this argument, I will be focusing on two points that they made:
a) The assumption that people should work and when they do, they should earn money.
b) That taking away one’s money in the form of equal distribution would be similar to stealing which is immoral.
Firstly, the assumption that people should work for their money, and that they should earn it, implies that money is a chief end and that once you have it you have achieved your desired goal. However, in reality, money is a means to education, clothing, housing, better healthcare and in most cases fun activities (e.g. concerts or sporting event tickets) and therefore the assertion that people should work and in turn earn money is essentially the same as stating that one should have to work hard in order to gain access to many basic human rights (healthcare, education) or be allowed to involve themselves in activities. The fundamental assertion is that many capitalists believe that we should have to work hard to access these materials (I will refer to the earlier ends as materials from now on for ease of writing) when there is no justification for why hard work = money = access to materials. Moreover, the problem with capitalism even if we agree with the assumption hard work = money, is that hard work is not an empirical figure that can be calculated, and a set amount of money given equal to the hard work done cannot be given.
Take for example a CEO of a billion dollar company. They receive massive amounts of money for sending emails and deciding which third world company to exploit next so that they can earn more money in the next quarter for investors who earn even more for attending meetings where they can suggest third world companies to exploit in comparison to the single mother who has to look after 3 children in a dangerous area while juggling 2 jobs and the school schedule to only earn enough to barely make rent. Hard work is clearly not rewarded, as, if it were, the mother of 3 who is clearly having to work harder and under more duress would be earning more that the billionaires who have much easier lives. That is the underlying problem here with capitalism as hard work is not rewarded but work that creates more money is rewarded, but because those who make the most money need people working for them so that they can earn even more money they tell their employees that if they work hard that they will one day be on the same financial level as them. This is really where the “moral capitalists” are exposed as hypocrites as the people who work hard do not gain more access to these materials but those who work to make the most money have access to these materials and by their own logic this exploitation is immoral as hard working people earn less money in reality.
Capitalism becomes a game of who can exploit the hard work of others in the most efficient way not who can work the hardest (physically or mentally). This need for the exploitation of others to gain capital and access to material is the fundamental reason that I cannot accept capitalists ever using the “moral capitalists” argument as it is blatantly hypocritical.
COMPETITION AND EFFICIENCY
Now that we have shown capitalism to be the hypocritical, unfair mess that it is we must attack another fundamental claim that capitalists make – the competition of the free market is beneficial to all. The argument follows a logic like this:
1. The lack of government intervention in the free market creates competition between businesses
2. This competition in turn leads to companies innovating and creating the best new products to attract consumers.
Which entails;
3. Consumers are then given the best products as companies want their money.
Moreover;
4. The free market and competition also prevents monopolies that dominate the system as anyone can join the free market and invest, create or consume.
5. Therefore, the free market and competition helps businesses make money and consumers get the best products, so everyone wins.
Here again I will focus on three points that once defeated collapse the rest of the argument:
a) This competition in turn leads to companies innovating and creating the best new products to attract consumers
b) Consumers are then given the best products as companies want their money
c) The free market and competition also prevents monopolies that dominate the system as anyone can join the free market and invest, create or consume.
Let us first focus on point A and point B. Here they are defending competition by arguing that it leads to the best materials being created due to the innovation that the competition spurs, which logically entails that consumers are then given the best products as companies want their money. Again, this sounds great in the abstract and yet again in the real world this logic does not have any practical application. To anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of the market and advertising they know that the companies who have the best advertising and marketing are the ones who gain the most capital not the ones who have the best products. This is why a company like Apple dominates the market and is the number one company in the world. Not because it has the best technology, but because it has the best marketing strategies. In fact, Apple is notorious for making products that look the exact same but changing a few parts and presenting it as a totally new product via conferences, commercials or billboards and advertising. They even go as far as making their older products slower in updates to make the newer ones more enticing and so that they can label them as faster and more efficient within their commercials and trailers. For many companies it’s not about building a better product at all its about making money and therefore many companies focus much more on marketing and social media presence than innovating new ideas that benefit the consumers. So, point B also collapses as consumers are not given the best product but the best marketed product.
Now onto point C, this idea that monopolies are prevented due to the ability for anyone to access a stake into the market and create a business with their idea or product. This is only another great abstract concept that capitalists hold onto to defend their “free and accessible market” from the terrors of a government that would control everything. To these capitalists I’d point them straight to Amazon. Amazon, for those who have never felt the wonder of paying £7.99 extra on a delivery so that they can get it a day earlier, is the online retailer that distributes companies’ products for a cut of the products price. Now many flatterers of Amazon have argued that Amazon is great as it provides an easier digital platform for the manufacturer, however, platforms like Amazon have led to shutting down of many high street companies and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. In the race for more capital Amazon has zero regard for the consequences of its platform and its effect onto the other corporations in this “competition”. Amazon and many platforms similar to it will even take the products of the manufacturers on its website and slightly alter them to avoid copyright laws and then sell them at a lower, “more competitive” price in order to gain more capital. Competition may have been part of capitalism in the very initial days but in this modern digital age companies like Amazon can dominate over 50% of the market share at the detriment of others but it is totally fine because it’s not a monopoly that dominates 100%.
Moreover, the access to this free market is most definitely not open to all. The barriers are massive and include prohibitive financial deposits and losses that the average person simply cannot afford to be involved in. They are forced to be consumers and be at the hands of the marketing of the companies. It is ironic to even call the free market a free market as it is possibly the most expensive market one can involve themselves in.
Leading on to efficiency, it is not a convoluted argument but simply that capitalism is very efficient as companies have to keep up with this pseudo-competition in the (not very free) free market. Simply this is a terrible argument. How is something better because it is faster? The ecological damage we have caused because of our race for the most convenient delivery times or efficient products easily counter any defence they could have. That isn’t even taking in the exploitation of child labour and third world countries that many companies partake in to be more efficient. This argument for efficiency doesn’t deserve much attention as it is pure nonsense that can be avoided and defeated very easily.
Overall, the arguments stemming from competition are clearly misguided and false in their entailments. As I’ve shown the free market doesn’t allow for competition between everybody as not everyone can afford to profit from it and in fact even those who can are dominated by larger corporations who do not allow for other smaller businesses to flourish as they either act as gatekeepers to the market through their mass amount of advertising or simply take the ideas of the company and rebrand them to capitalise on the market and make a quick profit. Furthermore, the blatant disregard for the consequences of an “efficient” system on the environment and for our human rights leave that argument wanting. Efficiency at the expense of all else is not an efficiency worth having.
CAPITALISM PROMOTES FREEDOM
One of the key arguments that capitalists seem to use to defend their ideology is that it promotes freedom as anyone can access this system and benefit from it. Their arguments usually follow along the lines of:
1. The free market allows for anyone to get involved and gain capital
2. If the government intervened, it would stop people from earning as much as they possibly could.
3. This intervention mean that people are being limited and if one is being limited, they are not free.
4. Since the free market does not limit the wealth that one can amass it promotes individual freedom.
We will not talk much on the first assumption as I have already previously described how the (not so free) free market is accessible to everyone. I will focus more on this underlying assumption that is made about the free market:
· Government intervention is wrong.
This idea that government intervention is wrong is an underlying assumption that many people have and even in places like America they don’t agree with government intervention in healthcare as, they argue, it will cause less choice and worse healthcare because doctors will earn less. Now let’s not entertain these silly arguments as the main reason that people are against government intervention is because they don’t want their profits to be affected. In a system where profit and only profit is the determining factor in the success of a company, any change or threat to profit will always be labelled as wrong. In reality, a government that is not corrupt and can ethically intervene in the market protects the rights of workers and individual freedoms. Cases of bank tellers being forced to commit fraud so that they can keep their jobs is a consequence of the free market and is clearly not a portrayal of freedom. A government’s role is to protect the freedoms of its workers and citizens and not allow them to be exploited by major banks and corporations, however, in a free market the exploitation of workers is inevitable.
Moreover, post-recession, we can see how financially locked we are based on our incomes. Not to repeat a lot of the arguments I have said but materials are only bought via money; making money a necessity to materials and without money one is not free to have access to those materials. Capitalism most definitely does not promote the freedom of individuals, in fact, by its innate design a fundamental aspect of capitalism is that some people are at the top while others are left stuck working for them at the bottom. They mask this with schemes about team work and friendly bosses who act like your friends but just tell you what to do but they of course would never take a pay cut for more equal pay because they’re the manager and have “worked harder” so must get paid more – but don’t worry you’re still just as important as they are and are a complete equal to them (insert eye roll here). People are locked into certain lifestyles and qualities of life simply because they do not have financial freedom which is much different to true freedom. Financial freedom adds an extra entity to freedom (money) which entirely undermines the concept of freedom itself.
Even those at the top are not entirely free. Yes, they have the financial freedoms to explore the world and give up luxuries but at what cost. Many of them had to lose relationships and parts of their personalities to get to the top all for the gain of capital. Simply, whether you are at the top or the bottom – everyone is locked to the shackles of profit.
CAPITALISM IS JUST EASY
Now that I have disputed the four core defences of capitalism, I will detail how capitalism is not more ethical or better than any other economic system, but it is in fact just easier. To understand this, we must accept this one indisputable assumption:
· It is always easier to look after the individual self than to look after the collective whole.
This is the fundamental foundation of capitalism. It is not the ‘freedom’ of the (not so free) free market or the liberality you get from a government or the ethical right to keep what is yours – it is the simplicity in caring for oneself. Prominent capitalist Ayn Rand has always been praised (by capitalists) for her advocation of the looking out for one’s self and their own selfish needs. This idea is common in many entrepreneurs and anyone graduating from a business school will tell you how at the end of the day it’s all about earning for themselves. Why do you think that businesses would much rather deal with protests and public scrutiny than make more ethical processes in their work environments? It’s because it’s much easier to carry on not caring about the environment or workers than to help them and provide for others – especially when it impacts one’s own lifestyle. Simply paying a fine will maybe mean that they have to wait until the next year to get that new Lamborghini but changing their system entirely so that everyone is paid fairly in an ethical manner will mean that they don’t get the new car at all. Higher taxes are hated because it means that the wealth is more evenly distributed and put into other sectors that may not directly help themselves and if they can’t see the direct help that they get then they will of course be against it as it is harder to give in to something you don’t directly get out of. One only has to look at charitable giving, when it is purely give and there is no element of receiving something back involved, raise far less than cake sales or charitable events where the giver receives something back for their donation.
Other economic systems are also frowned upon not because of their 20th century failures (because capitalism has failed multiple times and will continue to do so) but because they are much harder to sustain and build and this difficulty will sway away many people from supporting them. For example, a state where the government ensures that they look after the consumers and the citizens and makes sure that the businesses also act in the favour of the consumer and do not exploit their workers and employees in the meantime is a much harder system to sustain than the free market, all for one capitalist system we live in. That’s why when people like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, who are democratic socialists, that aren’t even against capitalism but against its injustices and what to make it more equal advocate for very simple ideas like free healthcare for all or making broadband internet a free public utility are called radical. They aren’t radical because they’re crazy ideas but they’re radical because we would have to have significant changes to our current system that would be more initially difficult than just sticking to our corrupt ways. Indeed, as the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has proven – when the political will is there to enact such changes, they can occur literally overnight. This is because, due to emergency, the benefits of changing a system don’t need to be strenuously explained to people and the citizenry convinced; their self-evidence makes such changes easy, for better (as with government intervention to pay the wages of those forced to stay home during the pandemic) or for worse (such as the far-reaching governmental and police powers which may remain in the legislation long after this crisis is over).
Ultimately, I could continue to show instances where capitalism is not better than social democracy, socialism or communism based on its main defences, but that is unnecessary and not what we set out to do. Capitalism is easier because one must only care about themselves and their own pocket over the welfare of others. The individual always comes first in capitalism and I personally totally believe that this prioritisation of the self over the whole has led to the injustice and inequality we see in the modern world. And as the minority continue to put their personal economic gain over the health and wellbeing of the majority, we will continue to see the reality of capitalism play out – easy success for some at the cost of continuing suffering for the many.
Author: Mohammed Hassan, Student at King Edward VI Aston