as much as capitalism has it’s flaws, it is easier to explain than most other systems because it is just the natural extension of “I aquired this fur pelt and will defend it” just with a mandatory insurance scheme (government police/laws/military) and more distributed wealth (fractional ownership).
Obviously it is far from the best system, but the core idea is simple: I OWN objects, the object can be any size or value irrespective of it’s usefulness to others. It is a system that benefits those with resources at the expense of those that can hardly afford to revolt.
Now explaining the overreach of the government from a capitalist perspperspective is an actually difficult task.
it is easier to explain than most other systems because it is just the natural extension of “I aquired this fur pelt and will defend it” just with a mandatory insurance scheme (government police/laws/military) and more distributed wealth (fractional ownership).
Any system can be easily explained when you just ignore loads of details, emergent behaviors, the goals of the system, and the efficacy of those goals.
Communism is just the natural extension of “we are communal creatures, and community ownership protects us all”.
Most anarchists are going to see your comment as one defending capitalism, so it might attract downvotes here.
I suppose I was, specifically because “hard to explain” isn’t one of it’s weaknesses. It has legitimate problems, such as concentrating wealth, destroying the environment (even economic textbooks admit this) and worsening mental health. Some of the issues with capitalism go away if you didn’t need* to interact with it to survive in countries where it is in use.
The main problem I have with most of the alternatives is that they increase reliance on the government and rarely allow for “industrial” tools (family heirlooms) to be enjoyed and modified by descendents. I guess a better way of phrasing my complaint would be that non capitalist societies can exists within a capitalist system in at least one area however doing the opposite is generally impossible.
Should we be downvoting just because we disagree with a commenter? They are contributing to the conversation in good faith it seems, so I don’t understand the downvotes.
Well as long as you’re aware.
