Is Capitalism Really Worth It? Essay Example

The criticisms of capitalism have recently been growing at an alarming rate. Molded by the disposition of the times, this criticism may be diffuse, unnecessarily complicated at times, and in a few regards even inflationary Dada Mahashvarananda argues. All things considered, there are justification aspects for this growth in criticism of capitalism as an economic strategy. At the same time what is truly the issue with capitalism? It is safe to say that it is wrong, unreasonable, silly, or outright bad? Is it accurate to say that it is underhanded or is it simply not living up to expectations? Simply put: On what premise is capitalism open to critique?

Capitalism is “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state”(Taeusch, 1935). It was created in Europe as it split from the feudal order toward the end of the Middle Ages, and which, with a high technological level associated with a considerable convergence of capital, got to be overwhelming across the world as industrial capitalism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

At the time of a very young age, people all have been programmed to believe that capitalism is the best and sometimes the only economic system. Capitalism is essentially synonymous with “democracy” and with nearly every notion of what makes up America (Gordon, 2012). It is the American way and it carries out the guarantee to common people, that in the event that they put forth a concentrated effort, they also can get to be rich.Thus, there should not be any astonishment when there is a concern regarding how our financial framework is composed and at whom it really serves because it may seem discriminatory. Regardless, it is still seen as un-American to critique the foundation of capitalism despite its flaws and its lack of ability to fully satisfy the entire populace.

Wherever there is poverty, people are programmed to assume it is created by individual absence of activity and effort, or by social issues like sexual or racial prejudice, or by a bad upbringing. However, people refuse to blame the financial framework itself. Michael Schluterargues this perspective is rehashed in classrooms and places of worship, and woven into and promoted by advertisements and the media. College courses teaching economics expect private enterprise and capitalism as a given, and the corporate possessed media almost never often questions capitalisms effectiveness. Indeed the individuals who call themselves progressive or liberal fully support capitalism as well. Everyoneis taught that this framework is better in light of the fact that anybody has a chance to make it, and on the off chance that you don’t make it, it is your own fault. “Making it” is characterized as profiting and owning material objects that accompany it. The various intangibles that make life worth living are not tied into the equation whatsoeveraccording to Schluter.

Public discussions regarding poverty, albeit very little, is quite often about the individual. Liberals feel the need to assist the individual, to bring them up with publicly funded programs, until they can get on their feet and get back into the capitalistic economic system (Van Parijs, 1984). Conservatives, indicating the disappointing failures of government projects like welfare and food stamps to aid individuals out of poverty, want to get rid of these projects stating they cause apathy and reliance (Van Parijs, 1984). Both liberals and conservatives abstain from taking a closer look at the economic system itself as an essential driver of poverty.

Individual effort is indeed essential in ensuring the level of socioeconomic success desired, but it is important to note that everyone in society participates in the capitalistic system equally. Excluding the system from certain policies to favor some while excluding others is far from the intention of the system itself. While capitalism is not the worst economic system out there, it sure needs a lot of revamping for it to be the best. This is because of its solid institutional grounding that makes it versatile. An institutional grounding is key. For instance it would be difficult for a Marxist economic model to strive in a democracy where the people have such a big say in the workings of the economy. A capitalistic approach would dwindle in a totalitarian government where a leader or dictator could easily reap the benefits of those beneath him and force the working class to continue being exploited. However, the power of the people does leave this option as a possibility, while it is nearly and impossibility for Marxism to strive in a state that currently practices Capitalism.

References

Baumol , William J, et al (2007) Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics Growth and Prosperity (London: Yale University Press), pp 60-92.

Gordon, Robert (2012) ‘Is US Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds’, nber Working Paper 18315

Jackson, Tim (2009) Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a finite planet (London: Earthscan), p 198.

Mahashvarananda, Dada. “Global Capitalism’s Four Fatal Flaws.” Prout Globe.  http://proutglobe.org/2012/10/global-capitalisms-four-fatal-flaws/

Schluter, Michael. “Is Capitalism Morally Bankrupt.” The Jubilee Centre. http://www.jubilee-centre.org/is-capitalism-morally-bankrupt-five-moral- flaws-and-their-social-consequences-by-michael-schluter/

Taeusch, C.F. (1935) International Journal of EthicsVol. 45, No. 2 (Jan., 1935), pp. 221-234

Van Parijs, Philippe (1984): “What (if anything) is intrinsically wrong with Capitalism?” in: Philosophica 34, (2) pp. 85-102.