Hi, I am probably one of the few right-libertarian capitalists on Lemmy (I love FOSS!). I’m also a former employee of the Foundation for Economic Education, one of the oldest libertarian institutions dedicated to explaining capitalism. I will do my best to give a big picture answer to your question, but it’s such a huge topic so feel encouraged to ask follow ups (in good faith please).
First of all, different people define capitalism different ways. When it’s proponents defend it, what we mean is a system of free markets and free enterprise based on a system of property rights. An essential part of this is the allocation of capital through investment, with profit and loss signals directing this capital. We don’t mean rich people trampling on the property rights of poor people; we would call this “corporatism” or “crony capitalist.” The current United States economy has capitalism in some areas, but corporatism in many others.
We believe that capitalism leads to the best possible outcomes for the most people. This doesn’t mean that its outcomes are perfect, or that there are zero people who get left behind (there certainly are), but that compared to all other existing possible systems, it is the best on a relative basis. Yes the rich get richer, but the poor also get richer relative to where they were in generations past (and, on average, over the course of their own individual lifespan). We also believe that capitalism is the most moral system in that it respects individual rights, or which a core part of this are their property rights. Systems that initiate force against peaceful people to take from some and redistribute to others violate people’s individual rights. This doesn’t mean that we oppose charity or don’t want to help people, we very much do, but that we see the initiation of force as a moral wrong in that pursuit.
We believe that capitalism is the only system that can lead to a consistent and rising quality of life for the masses for many reasons, but perhaps the biggest is the free price system. Prices being allowed to move through supply and demand, rather than being set by central planners, are necessary for the efficient allocation of scarce resources to their most needed ends. Without this, economic dysfunction is inevitable. (This is known as the Economic Calculation Problem or the Knowledge Problem, and the landmark essays in the history of economics that discuss it are Ludwig Von Mises’s “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” and F.A. Hayek’s “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”)
We know this to be true on a theoretical basis, but empirically looking historically and cross-culturally, we see that societies with more capitalism consistently outperform those with less capitalism. We see China’s economy dramatically advance by switching to an overwhelmingly capitalist mode of production, and economies that switch to socialist/communist mode of production stagnate and induce starvation and suffering. We don’t see the authoritarianism of communist nations as merely an accident of history, but as the necessary result of trying to force an impossible economic system to continue through its failure.
Capitalism, as we see it, requires a legal order that protects property rights (whether this legal order must come from government or not distinguishes “anarcho-capitalists” from “minarchists” who believe a small limited government is necessary). We do not believe that companies should be allowed to pollute other people’s property or cause damages to them, yet in a proper legal order we do not believe regulation is necessary to achieve this either. Instead, a system of common law and torts require damages to be paid to those whose rights are violated, with these damages to outweigh the benfits to corporations from taking such actions, thus incentivizing them not to engage in the rights violations to begin with. In our current system, corporations work with governments to regulate themselves out of such liability (this is called “regulatory capture”), which we oppose.
I’ve written a lot but only just touched the surface. With more narrow questions, I can provide more specific answers.
Hi. It is hard to give too much of a response to this, because you have ignored the definition of capitalism that I stated and instead responded based on a different one. If you wanted to argue that the definition of capitalism I stated inherently leads to imperialism, cronyism, and all the rest of what you’ve posited, so be it, but you have not actually made an argument for why it does so, and I certainly wouldn’t agree that it does.
A couple points though:
My argument presumes a moral position that individuals have rights that should be respected, a position that can be argued on either deontological or consequentialist grounds. It also presumes that society getting more prosperous is a good thing. I think 99% of people agree with both these claims. I can suggest many philosophers who have made the argument that there is something “inherently good” about this perspective at length, all with differing justifications. You can look at Michael Huemer (The Problem of Political Authority), Hayek (Law, Liberty & Legislation, and Consitution of Liberty), Murray Rothbard (Ethics of Liberty), Ayn Rand (many books), Robert Nozick (Anarchy, Statt, & Utopia), and there are many more.
The entire Marxist argument falls apart for me as soon as you say “Surplus Value.” There is no such thing. The concepts assumes both the false Labor Theory of Value, which is accepted by virtually no modern economists, and also assumes that there is no value provided via entrepreneurship and capital allocation, which is false. Entrepreneurship and capital allocation are both vital to a prosperous functioning economy in which all classes of people gain wealth, and are economically rewarded as such.
Imperialism is directly at odds with capitalism how I have defined it, which is how advocates of capitalism see it (when I say “advocates,” I don’t mean some random Republican politician or voter trying to make things that don’t fit together fit, but serious economists and philosophers who understand and support capitalism). It is inherently a violation of property rights, which is essential to have a system that can be called capitalist. If it is imperialist, it is by definition not capitalism.
Neither China or the United States is purely capitalist/socialist or centralized/decentralized, both are mixed economies, but China is drastically more capitalist and decentralized then it was a few decades ago, a period of time in which the nation moved from famine to prosperity. See Ronald Coase’s book How China Became Capitalist which discusses the specific capitalist reforms China undertook and how those directly caused increased standards of living for Chinese people.
I believe you are simply wrong about the ability of planned economies to function. Please see Ludwig Von Mises’s Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth for the canonical argument on this. It’s a short easy read, and available for free from the Mises Institute. Yes the Soviet Union had a period of industrialization which led to a strong increase in wealth, but this period did not last, and to the extent that period succeeded it required the ability to piggyback off the prices set in the West in free economies. Without that, any functioning central economic planning at all would have been impossible.