Why have those who decry against capitalism not created something better to replace it with?

First things first: barter and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, so the extended discussion of a total barter system doesn’t really help you out at all here. In any case, most of the people who decry capitalism do have something that they propose replacing it with. And I’m sure if you asked them, they’d tell you that they think their proposed replacement is better than the existing system.

You also seem to assume that all arguments against capitalism are predicated on complete and total opposition to all of its principles, but this is plainly false. There are plenty of people who support mixed economy systems as an alternative to laissez-faire capitalism. For them, the problem with capitalism is found not in its basic principles, but in the excesses and abuses that come along for the ride. In fact, Adam Smith—the so-called “father of economics”—was himself skeptical of the laissez-faire approach.

But even if you were correct that the opponents of capitalism had nothing to replace it with, that wouldn’t mean it was pointless for them to point out the problems with the current system. Very few changes of great magnitude are the result of a single individual diagnosing the problem, coming up with a solution, and implementing the new system all on their own. Sometimes you have to get enough people to recognize that there is a problem before you can even start to work on a solution.

^ In any case, most of the people who decry capitalism do have something that they propose replacing it with.
Most of the people I have heard that railed against capitalism were poor or working class. Those I have met that was in the top 25% did not have anything bad to say about capitalism. Of those who are poor or struggling, the system (and I do not know what you would call it short of communism-) they seem to suggest is to take the wealth away from the wealthy and give it to the poor (if they can even quantify who is genuinely poor).

For them, the problem with capitalism is found not in its basic principles, but in the excesses and abuses that come along for the ride.
No system is perfect, especially if you include men into it. There are bad cops and crooked politicians but no one says let us wipe out laws or law enforcement, of dismantle government. No matter what, economics, sports, government, there has always been people who abuse it, will game the system, etc. No one says certain sports should be replaced because of doping, they just figure ways to deal with the doping, with capitalism rather than curing the ”bad apples” by cutting down the tree, maybe they should focus on where to prune.

You can point out flaws in capitalism without wanting to scrap the whole system. One glaring flaw is that under capitalism the wealthy few tend to become ever more wealthy and powerful and the impoverished many tend to increase in number and become ever more powerless and impoverished. There is a tendency for society to return to the evils of Victorian society.

Capitalism should therefore be checked and regulated by government and where democracy flourishes we should see this happening but in America for example in recent times we have not seen much evidence of this.

^ One glaring flaw is that under capitalism the wealthy few tend to become ever more wealthy and powerful and the impoverished many tend to increase in number and become ever more powerless and impoverished.
I cannot see how that is a flaw. To count those who worked it and achieved great profits as a flaw, it would be the same as if someone said the flaw in horse racing is that the horse cannot move larger people who want to be jockeys as quick as smallish people who want to be jockeys. Capitalism is not barred from the poor and working class, they might not have had the leg up the wealthy had if they come from ”old money”, it means maybe they have to work together more or make more sacrifices. If they don’t care to make the extra effort to get ahead, is that the fault of those with money?

If you don’t see this as a flaw then the argument stops there but there are many who do see it as a flaw and there are many on minimum wage or working two jobs to get by who would consider your comments about “sacrifice” and “extra effort” offensive.

Personally,j I am opposed to unfettered capitalism. Capitalism is OK, as long as one understands that they’re a pack of liars and thieves and must never be let out into society without minders.

^^ [.. and there are many on minimum wage or working two jobs to get by who would consider your comments about “sacrifice” and “extra effort” offensive.
Because they do not want to acknowledge that they have to tell themselves ”no” to somethings they feel they should have because they have so little to start? Sometimes way more effort and creativity need be employed to escape being poor. If three friends working the same dead-end job want to escape, they can work together and have a better chance working together than alone. If one had a van, the other had skills in refinishing, and the other was good with people, they could get old furniture, refurbish it, take it to the swap meet and the people person of the group can run point on selling the items. If they gained the furniture on the cheap but made a good profit eventually they would have enough money to venture onto other areas and money streams, but to get there they might have to give up some weekends, some sweat, some movies, maybe settling for less ”stuff” for a time.

That might work for some in some circumstances and I am all for it. This is the acceptable face of capitalism and I would wish the three friends every success. I don’t think it resolves the problems of capitalism however and it can lead to blaming the poor for their poverty.

Most of us don’t have a problem with capitalism as a concept. It is capitalism that is completely unrestrained without checks and balances that we have a problem with. It’s a system that rewards greed and if left unchecked eats the most vulnerable among us for a buck

There is no pure capitalism. What we have is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

There are several areas that are particularly ill suited to capitalism. Shared benefits is one. Building highways, providing an educated work force and providing health care benefits for workers benefits everyone. Monitoring hidden social costs are another area best suited for government. The public benefits from having pollution limits and safety requirements for industry.

The degree of socialism varies from one country to another. The Scandinavian countries have a high degree of socialism. They also have a very high standard of living.

If three friends working the same dead-end job want to escape, they can work together and have a better chance working together than alone And yet any attempt to unionize is crushed by the ruling elite and their control of the media ensures that any mention of unions are only given from a negative perspective.

One thing I have noted is that any talk of increased income for workers, such as higher minimum wages, (which would be one method of trying to spread the wealth) is always followed by discussions/dire warnings of how it would be inflationary and therefor bad for the economy and yet increased incomes attained through stocks, bonds, business ownership and other sources of capital gains (and not actual labor) never generate the same fears. Why?

Why would a select few receiving a given sum of money not cause the same problems a providing a the same amount as a modest increase in income to much larger number of people?

Because Trickle-Down? Please, that doesn’t happen and has been proven to be a false premise over and over again.

Because the rich use there gains to provide more employment opportunities? If that were true there would be more jobs generated in this country over the last 20 years than there are people who want them. It is just another version of the trickle-down scam. And besides people who depend upon their own labor selfishly spend the additional money on themselves and their family but when you think about it, buying more means you need more to buy so they are actually making the need for increased products and services.

First of all, a barter system is inefficient, but it is not unfair. It is more fair than most, because each transaction is negotiated so that both parties agree. But that has nothing to do with capitalism, that is merely a discussion on money and a medium of exchange.

Capitalism as a system works well to a point. But it does not work well for meeting basic human needs, nor in providing access to natural monopolies, such as water. In those cases, society needs to install a method of access.

Among the items that do not do well under a capitalist structure is health care. To the extent that health care is conducted as a for-profit business, it is inherently inefficient, because people in need of health care are not in a position to act as economic agents and comparison shop.

One fault of libertarian capitalism is a resistance to paying for the externalities of certain economic activity, such as pollution or liability for poor product design. If society forced capitalists to internalize the cost of external activity, capitalism would not be decried as much.

In a related structural issue, corporatism is an agreed upon economic structure in which corporations have not held up their side of the bargain. Corporations are created to protect owners from liability for actions of the corporation. But society agreed to limit liability in return for corporations acting as good citizens. To the extent that corporations are not good citizens, society should be able to remove limitations on legal liability.

And, a tenet of Capitalism is absolute protection of private property. But private property does not arise naturally, but only through acquisition by society, or transferred with the oversight of society, or through actions of violence (i.e., war or police actions). And the idea of private property runs counter to the concept of The Commons. Since society holds certain resources in trust for the good of society, society may collectively determine how those resources are used. Since those assets are shared, no one may privatize them or otherwise monopolize them unless society as a whole agrees and is compensated.

It is the exploitive nature of capitalism that is its great flaw. Indeed there is nothing evil in HC’s depiction of the horse race favoring the skinny jockey. But that little analogy neglects the great truth deliberately suppressed in favor of the rosier tale so eagerly espoused in this question. The question itself just serves to demonstrate that the bulk of us have accepted the winners’ explanation on the workings of capitalism, and more importantly, why those winners have no culpability in the privations afflicting the rest of us. There is the additional bonus in the spinning of this explanation that “everyone has a shot at being rich”, and this being the case, the setup is therefore inherently fair.

The winners prevail in their presentation with the answer to the question: “How is wealth created?” The standard answer is of course: “through investment!” So we all know better than the 10 commandments, the multiplication tables or the lyrics to “Happy Birthday”, that “it takes money to make money” And that in effect is IT. Capitalism in a nutshell. End of story. THAT is what we all walk around with. I can rattle on forever about this, but ask yourself what happens if you substitute the word “labor” for “investment”, because at bottom that is what EVERY investment boils down to——somewhere or somehow it’s gonna be about SOMEBODY“S labor. And it is with labor that exploitation is irresistible.

Why have those who decry against capitalism not created something better to replace it with?
Because the contest in capitalism was won long ago. The giant international networks of banks and giant corporations uses its ownership and control/influence over most sectors of society (but note banks and politicians and corporate leadership and media) to have people concerned with false conflicts while it entrenches its power with laws, resource acquisition, patents, market domination, wealth accumulation, crises, etc.

Attempts to ”[create] something better to replace it with” tend to get watched and dealt with in many/most cases.

It’s the way people in general seem to be. Bitch endlessly about something but never offer a possiblely viable solution.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Those I have met that was in the top 25% did not have anything bad to say about capitalism.”

Most plantation owners didn’t have anything bad to say about slavery, either.

“Of those who are poor or struggling, the system (and I do not know what you would call it short of communism-) they seem to suggest is to take the wealth away from the wealthy and give it to the poor (if they can even quantify who is genuinely poor).”

There are plenty of systems that redistribute wealth without resorting to full blown communism, so I would recommend expanding your vocabulary if you truly don’t know what else to call it. One of the most popular non-communist alternatives is that proposed by political philosopher John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice.

Any communist worth his salt would also probably want me to point out here that communism, at least as Marx conceived of it, did not involve a state (and thus no official redistributive authority). The practices of the PRC and the former USSR are best understood as state socialism—or perhaps even state capitalism. And both of those are wildly at odds with the alternative proposed by our own @SmashTheState, which is called mutualism.

In any case, it seems that you are now admitting that the people you’ve spoken to do have an alternative to propose (and one that they probably think is better to the current system). The problem, then, seems to be that you either do not like or do not understand what they are proposing.

“No system is perfect, especially if you include men into it.”

Of course not—especially no pure system. That’s why people propose various patches to the system to curb the problems with it. All the things you mentioned (e.g., finding ways to deal with doping instead of just replacing the sport) fit neatly in to what those who support mixed economy alternatives propose. So you aren’t really objecting to them so much as agreeing with them without realizing it.

@kritiper “It’s the way people in general seem to be. Bitch endlessly about something but never offer a possibly viable solution.”

Have you even bothered to read the thread? If so, you’ll see that there are plenty of alternatives on offer. Furthermore, you’ll see that @Hypocrisy_Central already admitted that the people he talks to actually do have an alternative proposal that they believe is a viable solution.

@rojo Because the rich use there gains to provide more employment opportunities? If that were true there would be more jobs generated in this country over the last 20 years than there are people who want them.
Many years ago on Nightline, or something to that affect, about factories, goods, and what was actually still made in the USA, what was said was something on these lines, goods and jobs go overseas because putting together a circuit board is cheaper in Asia or Mexico than it is in Scottsdale Arizona. If it were made in Scottsdale it might be as good or even slightly better, but it will cost a lot more, then some (I will say many) citizens will not want to buy it because the widget the board is in. That would set up quire a conundrum, the factory will not sell enough to cover payroll, and materials, etc. and workers will lose their jobs because it is easier to cut off the payroll than the electric bill. Or the company will retain all of the workers and go belly up, then all of the workers will lose their jobs. They can raise the price but then they won’t make sales as Larry Lunchmeat doesn’t care where it is made he wants to get the widget for as cheap as he can get it, so he has money left over to buy other widgets. The riddle is how do you get the US worker a paycheck that is robust and commodious while keeping the product near dirt cheap in price but not also in quality.

@stanleybmanly The standard answer is of course: “through investment!” So we all know better than the 10 commandments, the multiplication tables or the lyrics to “Happy Birthday”, that “it takes money to make money” And that in effect is IT.
Investments is a catalyst for making more money easier but some instances a great amount of money can be produced without a large expenditure. If one developed a widget, or happened on one that solved a problem most people have, and that widget did not cost much to make, all one would have to do is get a patent, and that is not beyond the reach of many, even though some would have to work harder to apply for one. That patent can be sold, leased, or whatever generating royalties to its owner and thus creating them wealth without investing anything more than time really.

And it is with labor that exploitation is irresistible
Labor is inevitable. There will always be people who do not want to be accountable, or in charge, they just want to go to work, do their assignment and take their pay and go, they do not care to be bothered by making decisions or having to go to meeting to steer the business this way or that, and surly don’t want to do it as a sole proprietor.

@SavoirFaire The problem, then, seems to be that you either do not like or do not understand what they are proposing.
I can’t really see an alternative in a nebulous ”Let’s take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor”, with no specifics short of what looks like Robin Hoodism, it seems like punish the wealthy for being successful as if they cheated their way to the wealth. To suggest everyone trade for things, sounds good, but no one I have talked with came up with the issue of certain goods being more skilled than others and how to equal the payout.

@SavoirFaire

“Most plantation owners didn’t have anything bad to say about slavery, either.”

That was a good one, that cracked me up.

@SavoirFaire I used the term “seem to” to indicate a general reference. The majority of people seem to do as I described. If everybody had viable options to project then you would be correct.

@Hypocrisy_Central “I can’t really see an alternative in a nebulous ‘Let’s take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor,’ with no specifics short of what looks like Robin Hoodism, it seems like punish the wealthy for being successful as if they cheated their way to the wealth.”

A lot of people think they did cheat their way to wealth. Are you assuming that every wealthy person got where they are legally? And are you assuming that everything legal is moral? Because if either of those things are false, then there’s a large opening for a case to be made that the wealthy do not always deserve what they have.

In any case, I think you are expecting too much of people. Not everyone is in a position to do all of the work that goes into creating a fully developed alternative. The idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to have opinions or objections just because they don’t have a perfect solution to the problem is both fallacious and censorious. Sometimes, it’s someone going “wait… that doesn’t seem fair” that starts the important conversation. And the conversation has to be started before it can be completed.

“To suggest everyone trade for things, sounds good, but no one I have talked with came up with the issue of certain goods being more skilled than others and how to equal the payout.”

I’m not sure why you’re so focused on bartering as if its the only alternative (or even an alternative at all given that barter and capitalism are not mutually exclusive).

@kritiper But as has already been pointed out, it’s not the general preference. Most people do have some sort of alternative to propose, even if it’s not always fully developed.

And it is fallacious for you to suggest that you only need a majority to assert a generality, while I somehow need universality.

Capitalism is a funny thing.
I am in the process of trying to rent out a house. We invested a lot of money in this house. I am promoting it in a lot of places including the Facebook marketplace. I had someone who accused me of (GASP!) trying to make money off of housing.
I am the queen of fair housing. I actually believe that fair housing is good business. I am a minority in my industry in that I lean politically left and believe that society has a responsibility to lift those who live at the margins or who have fallen on hard times.
That doesn’t mean that I am in the charity business when it comes to our real estate assets. Of course I’m trying to make money! This is what I do for a living! Otherwise I’d have taken what it cost me to build this house and gone on an around the world six month vacation!

@SavoirFaire I disagree that most people have some idea of a solution. My experience with people and the media tells me than most people don’t. Like 90%ish. And I see it all the time.

@kritiper And my experience tells me the opposite. It’s almost like anecdotal evidence is of limited dialectical usefulness or something! Also, I have severe doubts that you are interpreting your experiences correctly. Most people don’t ask the right questions to figure out whether or not someone has an alternative in mind, and most media outlets don’t give guests enough time to actually lay out more than a few sound bites.

@SavoirFaire Maybe it depends on where you are, what types of people one associates with, what education level those people have attained. (Remember the old story about the 7 blind men and the elephant??) My experience is not localized to this one location, or any one international/national source.
When I was just out of high school, I worked graveyard shift at a gas station in Las Vegas. People were fairly nice but a bit greedy. A couple of years later I was working at a gas station in Denver, Colo. People there were VERY nice/polite.
But here in Boise, ID., people are not that nice. They are VERY self serving, self righteous, greedy, and some are extremely rude. Go figure! (I have heard some people remark about how nice everyone here is and I have to stare at them incredulously. Because if people here are so nice, people must be REAL a$$holes where they’re from!!)
Newspaper’s editorial letters give adequate room to expound on supposed problems and possible corrections, if television/radio media do not, as do personal face-to-face encounters with people of all types.