Loot_Gingrich
Pro
Capitalism, in its purest forum, isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing when defined in the context of 'voluntary' trade. However, what we have today is more of a neo-fascist/plutocracy than anything else. This ultimately leads to a form of structural violence that most anarchists don't really want to discuss when truly analyzing the 'non-violent' principal.
I think what Iakinta is alluding to is the reality of structural violence, which is an inevitable byproduct of a hierarchical system based on profit incentive. You will fundamentally have interest groups who make decisions based on capital gains, rather than on empowering, educating, and nourishing humans and/or prioritizing the preservation of the earth's biosphere.
The other, more pressing issue is the paradox, or contradiction of capitalism itself. In a technologically advanced society abundance is almost unavoidable. Abundance is anathema to a free market/capitalist system which requires scarcity. In this day and age of recession, manufacturers are scrambling to automate, which in turn will eliminate more jobs, and subsequently eliminate the purchasing power of their consumer base.
There are a lot of variables to consider but I pretty much agree that "capitalism" itself isn't to blame as much as our inability to evolve and adapt alongside technological innovation. A concept such as 'money' is an old world concept which should have waning relevance in a world with increasing abundance. For example, people are suffering in many countries where there is limited access to resources and commodities. Oftentimes, the issue is not whether the resource exists, but whether the country has the necessary capital in order to 'purchase' these resources. We unfortunately still have an obsession with placing artificial boundaries on large groups of human beings in the interest of maintaining an antiquated system of economics.
I think what Iakinta is alluding to is the reality of structural violence, which is an inevitable byproduct of a hierarchical system based on profit incentive. You will fundamentally have interest groups who make decisions based on capital gains, rather than on empowering, educating, and nourishing humans and/or prioritizing the preservation of the earth's biosphere.
The other, more pressing issue is the paradox, or contradiction of capitalism itself. In a technologically advanced society abundance is almost unavoidable. Abundance is anathema to a free market/capitalist system which requires scarcity. In this day and age of recession, manufacturers are scrambling to automate, which in turn will eliminate more jobs, and subsequently eliminate the purchasing power of their consumer base.
There are a lot of variables to consider but I pretty much agree that "capitalism" itself isn't to blame as much as our inability to evolve and adapt alongside technological innovation. A concept such as 'money' is an old world concept which should have waning relevance in a world with increasing abundance. For example, people are suffering in many countries where there is limited access to resources and commodities. Oftentimes, the issue is not whether the resource exists, but whether the country has the necessary capital in order to 'purchase' these resources. We unfortunately still have an obsession with placing artificial boundaries on large groups of human beings in the interest of maintaining an antiquated system of economics.
Not trying to portray the gap as desirable, just questioning if its the gap itself, or the economic condition of those at the bottom that we should be concerned with.