Is Capitalism really the best system we can strive for?

Is Capitalism really the best system we can strive for?

I've been thinking about it for some time and these are some of the major unaddressed issues I have with Capitalism:
>it does not care about pollution and environmental hazards
>it is inefficient and wastes far more natural resources than necessary
>it does not create products meant to last, but instead feeds people's tendency of wanting new stuff just for the sake of it
>it empowers blind hedonism and degeneracy at the cost of culture, traditions and social cohesion
>it produces millions of tons of useless and/or low-quality junk
>makes profit possible at the expense of other people's health or resources (e.g. drugs, unfair competition, pharmaceutical industries, gambling...)
>allows rich and successful people with agendas to easily control other people's lives by manipulating their thoughts and behaviours through product consumption
>makes banks and interest rates possible, thus inevitably driving society into bottomless debt
>it cannot work in a globalized society (outresourcing, offshoring, sweatshops...)
>it prioritizes personal gain over the wellbeing of workers and society (people who have no other choices available are easily exploited)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QNHjl6HkqAw
youtube.com/watch?v=mr2fexY-utY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

America does not have capitalism.

The USA has fascism (definition: the merger of state and corporate power)

There is no excuse for billion dollar elections.

No election should have funding that exceeds the value of after tax income earned by the the person running for the job.

It's major problems is advertising, mixing with politics, and (unreasonable) regulations.

you sound so fucking stupid

A proper government would have regulations in place that acts as a checks and balance. What we have now (and for previous decades) is a group of politicians that sell themselves to NGOs and lobbyists. They act on the behalf of corporate interests and give their power to them for some shekels. It's been out of control for a while.

democracy of 20th century failed hard

lets get back to capitalism of 1800s usa
total gov spend 1% of GDP
thats 130B now
and no regualtion of economy
defense only expenditure
youtube.com/watch?v=QNHjl6HkqAw

The best system we can strive for is Real Communism

Capitalism is the most efficient system, so yes, it is good.

but you have not tried
real fascism
unregulated capitalism
global white monarchy
geoism
yet

and most moral system

remember democracy is communism and based on A robbing B to give unearned to C
destroying the production that makes life comfy

Obvious bait but...

I remember once I shot a man in the back in a mudhole village in Afghanistan. He was running away with a rifle in his hand and I shot him. Hit him right in the small of his back. I went over an hour later and do you know what I found in his shirt? A copy of the Communist Manifesto. No sh*t. It was ancient and written in Cyrillic, probably Russian. It had notes in it in their gay arab script. He had been reading it probably for years.

A good little leftist in a mudhole village in Afghanistan. The only person I shot in my entire tour, pretty sure. He was running away, and when he died he sh*t himself. He had foam on his face, so he probably took a while to die. It was striking to me that he kept a book written by people who tried to conquer his country and murder him, and

That's what Leftists are. Cowards and weaklings who worship an ideology that would murder them in an instant if it could. They run away as soon as they are met with force and they die in agony. AGONY. For nothing. For no reason except that they thought, like you, that GOOD LITTLE LEFTISTS can defeat Right Wing Men.

And good lord, were they wrong. Because Right Wing Men are the only kind of men--there are no Left Wing Men. They don't exist. A Leftist is a craven weakling addicted to victimhood by definition and they are not men, they're animals

>it does not care about pollution and environmental hazards
That's not true, we just have the state protecting corporations from liability for environmental damages

>it is inefficient and wastes far more natural resources than necessary
It is literally the most efficient system ever invented, at least in terms of getting people what they want, when they want it, at a cost they are willing to bear.

>it empowers blind hedonism and degeneracy at the cost of culture, traditions and social cohesion
I would argue the state and democracy has done more to erode those than capitalism ever has.

>it produces millions of tons of useless and/or low-quality junk
Which people want.

>makes banks and interest rates possible, thus inevitably driving society into bottomless debt
The banking system is currently fundamentally broken, but if we got rid of the Federal Reserve this wouldn't be a problem.

>it cannot work in a globalized society (outresourcing, offshoring, sweatshops...)
It works even better in a globalized society. Those sweatshops that people always complain about are always in the over-regulated countries, where big government has driven out all the competition and so the people are left with nothing and are willing to work for pennies just to survive.

>it prioritizes personal gain over the wellbeing of workers and society
It allows every man to work for his own personal gain. You aren't held responsible for billions of other people you've never met, you only need to work for your own prosperity, and by cooperating with other people who are looking out for their own self-interest you both stand to prosper from your work, despite not particularly caring about each other.

>the intellectually superior rule over the inferior
whats not to like

Every system created by man will eventually fail.
Capitalism is modern slavery.

>working by choice is slavery

No. The only slave master controlling you is your stomach.

How so? You mean people establishing successful corporations and having less well-paid people work for them that are less educated and less trained?

Probably not, but it's the best system we have. There don't seem to be any better solutions popping up right now.

Economic systems are ad-hoc. We've allowed ourselves to become beholden to material systems, like capitalism or communism, without the greater philosophical and social thought, which economics ought to reinforce and serve. We've become beholden to materialism.

>It is literally the most efficient system ever invented, at least in terms of getting people what they want, when they want it
>Which people want
>You aren't held responsible for billions of other people you've never met
See, you haven't considered one simple thing: maybe most people aren't smart enough to know what is good for them and others, and always letting them do whatever they want in the moment will eventually get everyone killed.
You live in a society, not on an isolated asteroid floating through space. You ARE responsible for other people.

>>it is inefficient and wastes far more natural resources than necessary

Whoever wants to make profit usually try to minimize waste as much as they can to increase profits.

>it prioritizes personal gain over the wellbeing of workers and society (people who have no other choices available are easily exploited)

It prioritizes personal gain, sure. But how do they gain? They gain by providing services and products that other people want.

If you put a system that prioritizes someone else's objective rather than your own, you end up with some sort of dictatorship that takes away your freedom to do what you want

No, capitalism is by no means perfect but elements of capitalism and socialism can be combined to build a successful and prosperous system that will last a long time. Thinly regulated capitalism with anti-monopoly/anti-trust legislation is optimal in my opinion.
Money is power and in a purely capitalistic society a significant portion of money can easily get into the wrong hands and this is exactly what has happened in western society, the jews and their banking tycoon have accumulated enough wealth that manipulate politics in our countries and do so with bad intentions. A system that brings them and people like them to heel is necessary because if not for them, someone else would be doing the same thing. Therefore a system that destroys trusts and monopolies while preserving personal economic freedom is most desirable and certainly better than the purest form of other capitalism or socialism.

Im talking about third world countries.
Rich countries/companies can do whatever they like to the small ones.
Example, after the Yugo wars, German companies bought everything of value here, and the entire profit goes to Germany, and nobody can do anything about it. Madlene Albright is owner of the 90% coal mines in Kosovo.
Im talking about the bigger picture here, not the individual ones, who has the bigger paycheck.

democracy in 20th century shows how war and shit follow messing with capitalism

back to 1800s unregulated capitalism
total gov spending 1% of GDP
ended slavery
no regulations
USA went from woods to no1 in world

how did that happen?

no regulation!! thats how

The only that lifts people out of poverty and the only one that may lead to post-scarcity society. Even Marx near the end of his life seemed to realize its merits but he thought that it will evolve into this creepy cult-like society. It didn't. Enjoy capitalism because there's nothing else.

Environmentalism in particular is an nth-order good.
Once people are rich enough they want to buy tons of environmentalism.
Until then, they don't want to buy any environmentalism, they have higher priority goods to acquire first.
A truly capitalist society is likely to go through occasional spasms of ecological devastation interspersed with long stretches of excellent stewardship.
That's before you consider the possibility of bringing back absolute property at a level that allows you to sue polluters for lowering your land value.
Such a stricture would relegate polluting industrial places to the most isolated environments, where they can get consensus from all affected property owners.
Such a situation might force the need for space elevators just to have somewhere to put noxious industries where they won't bring down hell from angry neighbors.

All you need to do to understand why unregulated capitalism doesn't work too well is study the industrial revolution. Back when every member of a family had to work 12 hours a day (including the children) to barely get by.
And war isn't caused by messing with capitalism, the US has been at war with someone somewhere for the vast majority of its history. War just happens, it's a necessary evil.

You just descibed our current state and its a fyckin disaster. Take your socialism and die

you misunderstand

capitalsim worked wonderfully

environemtn is good due to industry

air conditioning and heating

capitalsim is why billions are alive

democracy ruined everything with huge failure in 20th century

youtube alex epstein center for industrial progress on environment

capitalism is best for environment

government are biggest polluters

democracy of 20th century endless war debt and skimpy engineering progress

remember engineer not science is important

capitalsim ended child labor and salvery

vast majority were raised up out of grinding poverty of socialism/democracy

>implying it hasnt

>the jews and their banking tycoon have accumulated enough wealth that manipulate politics in our countries and do so with bad intentions.
We have a lack of transparency in government, business, and banking. Once we fix that I believe it'll make it a stronger system and address the corruption.

capitalism also destroys nature, replaces white people and puts everything under kike control

That's quite the premisse you got there.
The price system is the one that allows people to make good choices about what they consume. It's decentralized information, basically, as it is impossible to know everything about the market, scarcity and demand.
This is why your argument is bullshit, you would have to say that you somehow know how to make better use of the money than the members of an ever changing chaotic system.
And believe, government have been trying to take upon this task since the last century through central banking. They failed miserably ever since, causing crashes, inflation and distortion of the price system, and thus, of the best way people are able to make decision for themselves regarding comsuption.
youtube.com/watch?v=mr2fexY-utY

>maybe most people aren't smart enough to know what is good for them and others, and always letting them do whatever they want in the moment will eventually get everyone killed

See above, also you would have to argue that people are capable to act against themselves and not improve their lifes. I will already warn you, though, that trying to do so will be a perfomatic contradiction.

>maybe most people aren't smart enough to know what is good for them and others, and always letting them do whatever they want in the moment will eventually get everyone killed.
So far all attempts to have the government decide what people are allowed to have has resulted in massive suffering. I believe in letting people make their own decisions towards improving their welfare, and if they make the wrong decision, so be it, I shouldn't be punished for the poor decisions of others.

no thats socialism aka democracy

it is the best system, humankind was poor as shit until industrial revolution. As a whole we've never been better. Yes you commie there's still poor people but that doesn't mean we should go full Venezuela.

ya'll are some dumb motherfuckers

you still pissed off about Vietnam, old man?

your argument falls apart when you realize that state is controlled by capitalists

>1800s
>ended slavery

no, slavery wasn't "ended" until after a civil war and then after that there were white racists that captured africans and forced them to work to death in alabama gulag mines
then, after that, people still lived in poverty in all the urban centers of the country

>USA when to no1 in world
>no regulations

you mean exploitation

>spewing industrial grade bullshit

>capitalism ended child labor and slavery

NOPE. you're thinking of abolitionists and socialists

BAIT THREAD BAIT THREAD
You know the drill folks. Sage, redpill, and leave.

I judge systems by quality of life alone. And so far even the poorest people in America live like kangz compared the lowest class under any other system. And yes communism has classes.

The state is controlled by capitalists because we've increased the power of the state, and thus have made it profitable for capitalists to bribe and collude with the government to increase regulations which cut down competition.

>>it does not care about pollution and environmental hazards
>That's not true, we just have the state protecting corporations from liability for environmental damage

I thought you capitalist retards are anti-regulation?

Recently I've been thinking about the perspective of 'Capitalism has done it's job and it's time to move on.' I don't need a better phone or a faster car, I would much rather have a population of more conscious people. Is it possible to make that trade-off by just investing more in education and teaching people how to raise a kid? All while encouraging critical thinking, no bullshit ideologies attached. Maybe it's an oversimplification but I think with capitalism humans kind of built themselves a world they can't sustain for very long and we should make changes before it's too late.

>the people born at the top rule over the people born at the bottom
Here i fixed it for you

The system to replace our current one will be composed of elements from every political ideology and some elements we cannot see right now.

You're confusing liability for regulation. If a factory fills the air on my property with smog, or pollutes my water source with their refuse, I should be able to sue that business for harming me and my property. However, so often these businesses are granted protection by the state through laws that limit the liability they have.

>war just happens
War happens in a capitalistic society because there is a profit motive for war.

Defense contractors pour billions into our politicians to get them to support every act of military intervention/regime change so that they can make more money.
Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, GE, all they see is dollar signs when we send our naive young men overseas.

I'm starting to believe in this more every day. Democracy? In the 21st century... What a joke, honestly. For someone in the right position it would be ridiculously easy (because of technology and the very divided and dumb population) to have their way with people/laws/cash flow. Fucking insane the state of things right now.

There has always been a ruling elite and a subservient underclass since pre-history.
Think back to the 1200s: we had kings, queens, aristocracy, and the serfs. The impoverished masses who lived to work in the fields so that the aristocracy could sit on their ass and enjoy their luxury.
Please explain to me how our system today is any different.

>If a factory fills the air on my property with smog, or pollutes my water source with their refuse, I should be able to sue that business for harming me and my property
This is not a functional and sustainable system. What happens if some people pollute their own lands and damage them irreparably to cut on costs, use that extra profit to buy more land over the competition and repeat the cycle again and again, until there are close to no inhabitable lands left and the environmental hazards keep spreading? "Suing" them won't solve shit at that point.

Yet our current administration is working to repeal the clean water/clean air acts because HURR IT HURTS INDUSTRY TO RESPONSIBLY EXPEL WASTE.

Also dirty water and smog doesnt adhere to property lines lmfao

>What happens if some people pollute their own lands and damage them irreparably to cut on costs
They would have a very difficult time doing so without polluting others property. They'd have to avoid polluting the air or water, since it would be near impossible to contain the pollution to within only their property. Deforestation and improper garbage disposal within their own property could be possible, albeit short sighted. Of course, they can't buy other property to exploit if those people aren't willing to sell.

>dirty water and smog doesnt adhere to property lines
Exactly, so good luck keeping it out of other people's property.

Great job, you've highlighted some of the flaws of Capitalism. It's still the best system come up with so far. It is literally millions of years ahead of any other economic system in terms of basic quality of life and opportunity for the most common of men.

>because we've increased the power of the state

capitalists did that. lol if the state was empowered to protect poor people, we'd be in a different fucking economy. holy shit you're stupid

>it's still the best system

it literally isn't

Because governments are known for not wasting resources.

I really do wish anti-capitalists would practice what they preach and actually research then boycott companies that abuse the system, rather than buying their products and bitching about companies.

So we are in agreement? We need to decrease the power of the state, yes?

>There is no excuse for billion dollar elections.

You realize Trump was the first candidate in years to have the smallest number of donations, especially with inflation. Most money came from outside supporters, Trump ran pretty much on his own.

Also, DNC and RNC have nothing to do with the government.

And every other system failed to let people live, so i'd rather live in a not too good of a world and not starve to death

That sounds like something a normie would say.

lol, this

Well obviously if a political ideology is completely one sided it wont do well, that's why the healthiest government type is a mix of (mostly) capitalism with some socialist aspects. For example, restrictions on how much pollution a company creates.

Hasn't this exact thread with OP's exact pic been posted before?

>y'all
Post your ebony tits you fat, disgusting BBW.

It would be surprising, since I wrote everything by hand... Unless you consider anyone who displays different opinions on Sup Forums a shill.

>Please explain to me how our system today is any different.
Social mobility and higher HDI.

Meritocracy, or the allowance for smart/talented people to rise to the top of society and acquire capital (power, resources), creates an efficient system where the smartest/most determined decide how resources are spent.

Gommunism is flawed in that it gives power to the retarded plebeian masses, who often don't have much ambition (or they would be capitalist entrepreneurs themselves), and only care about getting basic gibs. This is why gommunist countries are often shit-tier. Now, combine gommunism with a high population of niggers, and you have a recipe for disaster (see: Zimbabwe).

>>>it is inefficient and wastes far more natural resources than necessary
>it does not create products meant to last, but instead feeds people's tendency of wanting new stuff just for the sake of it
>it produces millions of tons of useless and/or low-quality junk
>makes profit possible at the expense of other people's health or resources (e.g. drugs, unfair competition, pharmaceutical industries, gambling...)
All systems does this capitalism does it less. Some people mistake success capitalism with is waste. i.e. has gross dometsic product to waste, same percentage of waste from larger GDP of bigger pile of waste, easy to see. Only way to not produce waste is to produce 0 (zero) GDP.

Literally all of these are merely a reflection of the current societal enlightenment level. The beauty of Capitalism is that any and all of these can and will change as consumers demand it. We're seeing the shift already with demands of cleaner and more humane and environmentally friendly foods and textiles, minimalism culture, etc.

The only exception is banking, which is the separate issue of using a private central bank issued fiat currency, which is obviously not desirable. Escaping this system was actually the prime motivation for the American revolution... but Jews are sneaky and we've been swindled back into it since 1913. And we all saw what happened to JFK when he challenged this system. Capitalism's not to blame.

Her Marx said you need a few states:

1. Rule of the aristocracy - creates a nation, defines borders, unites the people.
2. Rule of the merchants - creates wealth, builds factories, dams, roads, universities.
3. Rule of the workers - distribute the wealth created by merchants among the nation created by the aristocrats.

If you believe him, capitalism is meant to happen before socialism/communism.
This is a convenient way to explain why Russia/China/etc failed, they skipped step 2.
It can also be used to explain why modern governments increase taxes and social programs and so on, because we are moving from stage 2 to stage 3 in a perverted way.

China and Russia don't have factories?

China and Russia went from rule of aristocracy to rule of workers, without a capitalist phase, so they had to do turbo-capitalism and build a lot of wealth under the Communist Party totalitarian rule.

It sucked.

Makes sense. If you want to live by robbing people, the people you rob must have something of value to steal in the first place.

>it does not care about pollution and environmental hazards
This is one of the faults of the freemarket. It does not take into account the negative cost of pollution. One of the few, proper roles from government in the economy

>it is inefficient and wastes far more natural resources than necessary
False. The freemarket is the most efficient way to distribute scarce resources

>it does not create products meant to last, but instead feeds people's tendency of wanting new stuff just for the sake of it
Again, this is false. Many brands become known for their quality. One of the issues here is that technology evolves so rapidly, that it may not make sense to make something that lasts a long time which will become obsolete.

>it empowers blind hedonism and degeneracy at the cost of culture, traditions and social cohesion
Going to need a source on that

>it produces millions of tons of useless and/or low-quality junk
Low-quality? So what? In some cases that makes sense. Useless products are not created, at least not for long. If the items were truly useless, the companies would go out of business.

>makes profit possible at the expense of other people's health or resources (e.g. drugs, unfair competition, pharmaceutical industries, gambling...)
Unfair competition is not created by the free market. All of those issues you are referring to created by government interfering with the free market. Gambling is not solely at the expense of other people. It is merely a form of entertainment. The free market creates the most wealth as it is the most efficient way to distribute scare resources.

>Russia/China/etc failed,
From marxist point of view they failed because it was not real communism. No dictatorship for proletariat (only in propaganda leaflets). Pol Pot could have success but entire wold decided to shut down true communism fearing its success.
From capitalist POV they failed because Marx was wrong with his theories starting from teh core, labor theory of value.

continued

>allows rich and successful people with agendas to easily control other people's lives by manipulating their thoughts and behaviours through product consumption
Not really. You are over estimating the power of advertising

>makes banks and interest rates possible, thus inevitably driving society into bottomless debt
Part of the problem is the government intervening with banks. Without government bailouts and interventions, banks would be forced to only loan to people on aggregate that would pay back their debts. Otherwise they would go out of business.

>it cannot work in a globalized society (outresourcing, offshoring, sweatshops...)
That's completely false. All of those things produce more wealth for all people in the world than what would happen without them. Look at comparative advantage, etc.

>it prioritizes personal gain over the wellbeing of workers and society (people who have no other choices available are easily exploited)
Exploited is a meaningless, Marxist buzzword. The free market generates the largest amount of wealth which in turn has led to the highest standards of leaving for countries with freer markets.

You need to read a book you stupid bastard.

>Is Capitalism really the best system we can strive for?
Capitalism is nature. Nothing beats nature. SO fuck yeah.

Capitalism is not nature. It took millenia to create systems of laws to allow for the free market to flourish (ie property rights, etc.)

>From marxist point of view they failed because it was not real communism.

And from a Marxist point of view it wasn't real communism, because they needed to simulate 200 years of capitalism that never happened in Russia.
They chose to do so under the dictatorship of the proletariat rule, with the state being the only capitalist.
Thats why USSR backed regimes in Africa or South America (and Asia partially) managed to build so much infrastructure and replace mud huts with commie blocks - they were getting millions of Russian money to simulate capitalism so they can theoretically move to communism later.
But then communism is horrible for army/defense, and NATO was sharpening the knives, so they stayed at the dictatorship stage until the project failed.

tl;dr Marx specifically said not to start shit in Russia, its too backwards, and that socialists should take Germany or France instead. They tried, and failed, in both states.

>Capitalism is nature.

wut
Mob Rule is nature, and Might is Right is nature.
Capitalism isn't, private property enforced by the state is super unnatural. Normally private property is only enforced by natural might, which is why lions end up eating the cheetah's kill.

>nazi flag
>defends capitalism
>You need to read a book you stupid bastard
Wew.

Don't blame him, nazis burned his books so he couldn't read.

>it does not care
>it is inefficient
>it does not create
>it empowers
>it produces
"It" doesn't do anything - people do things. What do you even mean by Captialism? What is the difference between Capitalism and a free market?

>Mob Rule is nature, and Might is Right is nature.
State is pinnacle of mob rule.

Marx invented Capitalism to refer to a system where you need to have money in order to make money, thus the only people who can make money are those who had money left to them by their fathers, and they had by their fathers, etc, until you reach a point where money was seized with violence.
That is, the only way to make money is to have money, and the only way to originally come into money is violence. Such a system is Capitalism (via Marx).

Today Capitalism just means that private companies are the big business, rather than state companies.
So if private companies build bridges, sell planes, run universities and hospitals, you are in a "capitalist" country according to the modern colloquial use.

Not really, for example Germany today is accepting more immigrants than it would if it were mob rule.
And if the USA were mob rule, it would elect Clinton to be their warlord, since she got more individual YES votes than Trump.

Majority rule, or mob rule, doesn't exist in its clean form anywhere, its always part of some big sluggish state that has mechanisms to tell idiots that they don't really want what they say they want.

>>it does not care about pollution and environmental hazards
Implement some regulatory laws
>>it is inefficient and wastes far more natural resources than necessary
no
>>it does not create products meant to last, but instead feeds people's tendency of wanting new stuff just for the sake of it
not necessarily
>>it empowers blind hedonism and degeneracy at the cost of culture, traditions and social cohesion
not necessarily
>>it produces millions of tons of useless and/or low-quality junk
No
>>makes profit possible at the expense of other people's health or resources (e.g. drugs, unfair competition, pharmaceutical industries, gambling...)
that is called eugenics
>>allows rich and successful people with agendas to easily control other people's lives by manipulating their thoughts and behaviours through product consumption
so?
>>makes banks and interest rates possible, thus inevitably driving society into bottomless debt
no
>>it cannot work in a globalized society (outresourcing, offshoring, sweatshops...)
maybe
>>it prioritizes personal gain over the wellbeing of workers and society (people who have no other choices available are easily exploited)
start a union

Exactly right. In reality there is no real difference between "Capitalism" and a free market. The term was created in order to divide the populace and pit them against each other. Just like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie".

what the fuck are you talking about?

>it does not care about pollution and environmental hazards

What are you even talking about. I stopped reading right there. If you have environmental issues, then that's where the government steps in, or you use the court system to file a lawsuit. How does that have anything to do with capitalism? Do you think the commies that turned one of the biggest lakes in the world(Aral Sea) into a fucking puddle cared more about the environment than those evil capitalists?

>it does not care about pollution and environmental hazards

Waah, the environment changes all the time, animals and plants that are resistant to pollution will replace them and we can get on with it.

>it is inefficient and wastes far more natural resources than necessary

I'm sure a business doesn't make money off of unneeded waste.

>it does not create products meant to last, but instead feeds people's tendency of wanting new stuff just for the sake of it

Buy the products that cost more then, instead of buying a bamboo cutting board for $5, get the granite slab for $30. No one is stopping you.

>it empowers blind hedonism and degeneracy at the cost of culture, traditions and social cohesion

>hedomism

seeking pleasure is bad?

>degeneracy

get a tattoo on your forehead and go ask your boss for a raise

>culture, traditions

your boss is making you renounce your heritage?

>social cohesion

being an antisocial faggot does not make a good employee

>it produces millions of tons of useless and/or low-quality junk

(1/2)

Natural competition and survival of the fittest. It's a thing. The free market simulates it.

don't buy the junk and it won't get made

>makes profit possible at the expense of other people's health or resources (e.g. drugs, unfair competition, pharmaceutical industries, gambling...)

It gives people more incentive to be healthy to avoid fucked up medical bills, and a lot of those expensive cures wouldn't even be around without a profit motive.

>gambling

don't go to a casino then, let the people who want to gamble gamble

>allows rich and successful people with agendas to easily control other people's lives by manipulating their thoughts and behaviours through product consumption

What? If you don't like adds, don't watch television and use ad block when surfing the web. No one is forcing products down your throat.

>makes banks and interest rates possible, thus inevitably driving society into bottomless debt

Don't get a credit card, spend within your means. No one is forcing you to get a loan.

>it cannot work in a globalized society (outresourcing, offshoring, sweatshops...)

Cheap labor is not new, if you can be replaced by a 6 year old in China, you need better skills.

>it prioritizes personal gain over the wellbeing of workers and society (people who have no other choices available are easily exploited)

They would be exploited worse under other systems.

(2/2)

Capital was already a term, capitalist was a person with capital, capitalism became the rule of people with capital.
So its not like he was a devil with a strategy to divide people, he just used common words to describe an idea.
Like if you said Idiocracy - rule of idiots.

Anyways, the "class war" was already a thing when Marx wrote, because of syndicalists and worker unions and so on. Workers were already getting shot at by the police for protesting in the UK when Marx started campaigning. He just invented the word, not the idea of class division.

That may be so, but calling an entire system "Capitalist" makes no sense. We have a free market. You can choose to run your business however you want. You can even choose to be non-profit. How exactly would that be considered "Capitalist"?

not an argument, and he's right

Actually what we have is a lot closer to 'super-captialism'. Pic related.