Brilliant! “It is a profound lack of systems literacy and a cultural psychology…” is exactly it. Systems literacy is severely lacking everywhere and economics is seen as a black box. Your explanations from a systems perspective are such a relief to read. I just said YES YES YES. Thank you.
If resistance is not primarily intellectual but emotional, then arguing often misses the point. The issue may simply be connection.
Marshall Rosenberg pointed out that most conflicts can be resolved quickly when everyone feels genuinely heard—not just their opinions, but their basic human needs, like safety, respect, choice, or simply being taken seriously. When we focus on these needs instead of who’s “right” or “wrong,” anger and defensiveness fade. This creates space for curiosity, cooperation, and solutions that truly work for everyone.
True. But if you insist on a capitalist economy, you had better hope that regulation keeps it in check, or you end up with a capitalist dictatorship (oligarchy) in no time.
“Prices reflect value.”
It reflects something, but not true value. Prices are not the result of fair trade, but of power that is devided in factor markets and corporate capitalism. Investors decide what has value, and how this value is offered. They focus not on the wellbeing of society, but on things like 'lifetime customer value', and power over markets.
“Government is bad.”
A governement that grows too big is bad for freedom. The reason we have such huge governments, is because the government is (or at least has been) trying to treat the negative symptoms of capitalism with taxation and regulation. You don't need such a big government, unless you are dealing with an economy like capitalism. In other words, the two evils that threaten freedom are two sides of the same coin, and the people are squashed in the middle.
Your thinking on this is too narrow. You think in either-or terms between capitalism and communism. This is a mental prison that keeps people from looking objectively at what is going wrong in our current systems. I won't speak for Peter Joseph's viewpoint, but it is definitely not my way of looking at this, and I wouldn't recommend the either-or view to anyone.
Nope! That is actually racism what you are expressing here. It is true that in our time, the culture that most clearly represents capitalism is the US economy. But just like slavery, capitalism (meaning: factor markets) is of all the ages and it happens and has happened in all countries and all cultures, and the result is always some type of oligarchy. Of course, in our time the scale is tremendous because of technological advances, and a far more crooked financial system that hugely amplify the process of accumulation and concentration of private power. But the process is still the same.
Correct. Power has worn many faces. The important part is the architecture that lets power compound and externalize costs. Change the rails, and you change who can dominate - whatever their identity.
That's right. The trick is to design a system that automatically keeps itself balanced when it comes to the distribution of private wealth and power. Instead we now have two systems, capitalism and government, that try to keep the balance between each other. But because of that, they both increasingly form a threat to our freedom. Once you have self-balancing economy where private wealth and power do not accumulate to dangerous proportions, you don't need a big government anymore to treat these negative symptoms of the economy.
Bla bla bla bla bla... At the end of the day you will see a white man standing on your neck. The white empire will fall! Than we can talk about "the system"
Blablabla means you don't actually want to know or find out anything. You just want to hate. But yes, as I already confirmed in my previous answer, in our time you will most often find "a white man standing on your neck". In other times they would have had a different skin color.
It is not sure yet if the white empire will fall, but it could definitely happen. And if it happens, it could be soon. But not talking about the system, means that after their fall, another empire will take over because the economic system and the empire are linked. Within the economic system, there can be no vacuum of empire like power because the system is made for it, demands it even.
The empire and the economic system are unseperable, which is why China is now the rising star. China is rising WITHIN THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Any current empire, or the one that appears to be taking it over, is going to be based on the economic system that we are involved in worldwide. This economic system is the reason for these empires. Once you understand that, you will not want to separate this discussions about empires and the economy.
Another 'funny' argument in favor of capitalism. In that case, wouldn't it be more logical to seriously restrict the possibility of greed running wild in the economy? Even if they were right about human nature, it would be an argument against capitalism. But people forget that we are also 'naturally group-interested'. Only when we are put under certain pressure, does our survival instinct lower to the level self-interest. Normally, we would operate at the level of the 'social animal' we are.
Capitalism is a fear-based economy. You have to survive it in. There are 'winners' and 'losers', and any apparent cooperation is superficial and opportunistic in nature, valid only until the situation changes. The higher the stakes, the less cooperation really means. These things detach people from the work, and often from their coworkers, but definitely from their bosses, secretly hoping that they can take his place. Not for the type of work, but for the money, of course. This economy leaves little option for anything that is not self-interest, but that does not mean it is human nature. It's part of, but far from the whole story.
This one is funny because many who use this to defend capitalism, don't realize that not all markets were created equal. The free trade of goods and services does not have to cause the problems discussed in this post. Factor markets however, account for most or all of the problems that capitalism causes. You can even see this historicaly. Every single economy that allows the private trade of the means of production, nature, capital, and labor eventually ends up with at least this one major problem: the accumulation and concentration of private wealth and power.
"None of these outcomes arise because people are “greedy,” “immoral,” or “selfish.” They arise because the system rewards behavior that leads to ecological destruction, social decay, and accumulation without limit. Even if every CEO were morally enlightened, the profit mechanism would punish them for acting differently."
Is that really so? The system is also an eco-system (some call it an ego-system) that favors those with fewer moral inhibitions, and this is putting it mildly. The character of the system attracts a certain type of CEO's, for example, namely those who are willing to do what it takes, despite the ecological destruction and social decay. You will not find morally enlightened CEO's, unless their enlightenment happened after they got the job, because normally they would have been filtered out by what the system asks of you when you rise to the top of the pyramid.
Agree. Incentives shape choices AND select people. That’s not a rebuttal to Peter´s mechanism point, it’s the next step. Don’t bank on nicer CEOs - fix the rules so different behavior (and different leaders) win (is how I'm thinking...).
All behaviors are generated, or in other words shoved, by some stimuli, under certain conditions. Peter also talks about the conditions that create "greedy", "selfish" people. It's always scarcity, uncertainty, deprivation. Doesn't have to be material but also intellectual, cognitive, cultural, whatever it is, we have to get rid of the conditions that generate aberrant, unwanted, socially offensive behaviors. When your production line produces broken faulty products, you have to change the manufacturing process or throw it out entirely and replace it with a more appropriate one. You don't punish the faulty goods, they're just victims of their insufficient manufacturing design and / or development. I look at people the same damn way.
And it's about time society starts thinking like this unless they all want to live miserable lives full of blaming others, creating scapegoats and arriving at totally erroneous "answers" that don't progress them and society forward, but are actually causing them setbacks.
I hear your point about conditions shaping behavior. I just want to be careful with how we talk about people inside those conditions. Most of us are doing the best we can with the rails we’re on. For me the move is: name the conditions, keep dignity intact, and change the rules so better choices are easier. My rule of thumb: criticize systems, humanize people. That’s how we get allies, not enemies.
With my comments I am not morally judging people's behaviour. Not just most, but absolutely everybody is doing the best they can with the level of awareness they have at their disposal. People make mistakes out of lack of awareness, knowledge, and tools because we humans depend very heavily on what we are taught early in life, and because our way of raising and educating leaves more than half of our nature uneducated, we are far too easily manipulated, and it leaves us with a range of coping mechanisms that helped us early in life, but tend to harm us later-on in life. That is not our fault, but the sooner we become aware of it, the better because we can still work on this when we are adults. So for me the move is helping people become aware of their true potential. We have to evolve as a species, but this time an inner evolution is needed.
"Market economics (which is capitalism, by the way) operates on a set of invariant mechanisms:
Competition → incentivizes cost-cutting, "
Well we should incentivize cost-cutting we have lots of things that cost and if we don't cut costs we can do less of them. That's a good thing.
"resource exploitation"
Yeah that's what resources are for.
"and externalization of harm"
No human nature does that. It doesn't matter what system you have people are going to want as much of the burden of their actions to fall on other people as possible.
"Profit seeking → prioritizes short-term gains over long-term stability"
Nope, profit seeking prioritizes long term gains almost by definition. Profit can only come from investment which in turn can only come from delaying gratification.
The idea that profits encourage short term behaviour comes from an English major's understanding of the 1980s financial markets. Actually the shananigans were due to systematic problems with incentives created by government action, specifically taxing profits but not interest payments.
"Growth requirement → makes ecological balance mathematically impossible"
Nope, you mistake inventing premises for doing mathematics. And capitalism does not have a "growth requirement". What has a "growth requirement" is people who want there to be more in the future than there is now, and so have invested to make that happen.
"Inequality dynamics → concentrate wealth through compounding advantage"
And is inequality worse in more capitalist or less capitalist countries?
"Monopolistic pressures → eliminate the very “competition” the system claims to depend on"
And are there more monopolies in more capitalist or less capitalist countries? Or industries for that matter?
"None of these outcomes arise because people are “greedy,” “immoral,” or “selfish.” "
Well all of them arise because people are "selfish". If they were not they would gladly pay to save the rainforest rather than have cheaper hamburgers.
"This is the core systemic truth:
Market systems create results that no one personally chooses but everyone collectively suffers."
And yet these results are disproportionately present in non-capitalist systems and where they are present it is in industries that are heavily government regulated.
"Every one of these claims collapses under scrutiny. "
And yet you give none of them scrutiny.
"Fear of alternatives
The system has destroyed or undermined viable alternatives for centuries, leaving people with no conceptual language to imagine anything else."
No the "viable" alternatives destroyed themselves for centuries.
"Those who succeed materially become evangelists for the system—even if their success is functionally accidental."
Actually it's pretty rare for the successful to actually boost capitalism. Capitalism is the only system where winners insist the system should become less like what it was when it made them winners.
"Market ideology is built on the myth that individual choices aggregate into intelligent collective outcomes. "
But they do.
"Complex systems do not sum intention; they amplify feedback."
No they absolutely sum intention, that's what the economic calculation problem is about. If lots of people want hamburgers then the system will tell you to make hamburgers.
"No one intends to destroy the rainforest, yet it disappears at an accelerating rate."
And is that because it is owned by capitalists or by the State?
"No one intends global inequality to spiral, yet it mathematically must under competitive accumulation."
Again, simply assuming premises is not doing maths.
"No one intends mass poverty in a world of abundance, yet it persists."
Yes, it does, in the least capitalists parts of the world.
"No one intends endless war, yet militarism is a profitable industry."
Lots of people intend endless war. But this is a fundamentally dishonest claim. Militarism is not a "profitable industry" it has lost money predictably for over a century. Even invading Iraq, which should have been the ideal target for profitable looting (lots of oil, pathetic and demoralized military etc) cost trillions. The only reason that militarism survives is because it is NOT subject to the market and everyone knows it. Everyone knows that nobody could get a war off the ground without people being forced to pay for it whether they wanted it or not.
"No one intends environmental collapse, yet markets treat nature as an external cost."
And so do all the alternatives to markets. What you have is not a problem with capitalism it's a problem with people not valuing what you think should be valued.
"We live inside a structural machine whose outputs are predetermined by its design."
No they're not. The outcomes depend on what people actually value.
"Myth 1: “The market rewards efficiency.”
Reality: It rewards cost externalization—pushing harm onto society and the environment."
Again, all systems reward cost externalisation and the idea that the market doesn't reward efficiency at all is blatant cope from a supporter of a failed system.
The fact is that market actually have a way to AVOID cost externaliaztion, it's called "owning property" and "sueing people who damage it".
"Myth 2: “Competition drives innovation.”
Reality: Competition drives redundancy and secrecy. Cooperation is the real driver of innovation."
And yet we see no innovation where there is no competition. Yes, competition can cause redundancy, but the rewards of actually making a better products far outweigh what you imagine to be a horrendous cost. Competition gave us you still being alive because farmers completed to make cheaper, meaning there was enough to feed 8 billion people.
"Myth 3: “Prices reflect value.”
Reality: Prices reflect scarcity, profit margins, and power—not social benefit or ecological cost.
If the price didn't reflect value why the fuck would anyone pay it you fucking retard. As for "social benefit" who defines that? Nobody.
"Myth 4: “Capitalism lifted people out of poverty.”
Reality: Industrial technology and scientific progress improved living standards;"
Yes and that happened solely became of capitalism.
" capitalism commodified the results."
No the results were always commodities. Things don't stop being commodities just because you don't have a stock exchange.
" Capitalism also created new forms of poverty through structural inequality and the invention of relative deprivation."
Yeah the new form of poverty is the form where you have enough to eat and an iPhone.
"Myth 5: “Free markets prevent monopolies.”
Reality: Market incentives create monopolies; they are the logical endgame of competitive accumulation."
Name one time it happens like that you lying piece of shit loser.
"Myth 6: “There is no alternative.”
Reality: There are many alternatives. The system simply suppresses them or keeps them marginal."
You're right there are many alternatives. They all lead to mass starvation, war and/or human degradation but they do exist.
"The system cannot regulate itself, because:
Profit demands externalization of costs"
Which can be avoided by actually having property rights, preventing the externalization. Simply assuming that other systems don't have this problem or have a solution as good as capitalism's for it is just you pretending not to know things.
"Competition demands escalating extraction"
No, people wanting stuff demands escalating extraction. Your beef is with people wanting stuff. Competition actually reduces the "extraction" needed for a given amount of goods.
"Growth demands expanding consumption"
Exactly backwards.
"Debt-based money demands perpetual expansion"
No it doesn't and debt-based money is not capitalism.
"Power concentrates through mathematical compounding"
Stop pretending that your premises are mathematics you fucking loser.
"Ecological limits cannot be commodified in any honest way"
Well not by you because you're dishonest. But you haven't shown it's even HARD to commodify them.
"What other causal explanation do you propose for the clearly observable global trends of inequality, environmental degradation, and structural instability?"
People like you being in charge of governments.
"Market apologists will scramble to blame “government interference,” “socialism,” or plead for “better regulation.” But the moment you ask them to describe the actual system dynamics that would resolve these issues within market logic, they falter. They cannot provide such detail because it doesn’t exist."
Friedman provided such details repeatedly. So did many others.
"Never argue morality. Argue mechanics.
“What people intend” is irrelevant. Focus on structural incentives and system behavior."
Great, show me a system with better incentives. Real incentives not the shit you pretend people would do if your magic system were in place.
"Market fundamentalism will not collapse through debate."
Name two market fundamentalists in power you lying piece of shit. There's Millei and who else?
Excellent article, thank you so much—as a physical science teacher I can make a lot of connections with this article, its presentations of arguments and rebuttals, and especially focus on systems literacy.
Myth #26. “ThAt’s nOt rEaL CaPiTaLiSm!”
I swear to god one dummy here said exactly that when I pointed out the endless bailing of the corporations and banks
The capitalist big lie about human nature -
https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/the-capitalist-big-lie-about-human-2a4
Brilliant! “It is a profound lack of systems literacy and a cultural psychology…” is exactly it. Systems literacy is severely lacking everywhere and economics is seen as a black box. Your explanations from a systems perspective are such a relief to read. I just said YES YES YES. Thank you.
This article is extremely valuable. Thank you PJ for writing this in such a comprehensive and accessible way!
If resistance is not primarily intellectual but emotional, then arguing often misses the point. The issue may simply be connection.
Marshall Rosenberg pointed out that most conflicts can be resolved quickly when everyone feels genuinely heard—not just their opinions, but their basic human needs, like safety, respect, choice, or simply being taken seriously. When we focus on these needs instead of who’s “right” or “wrong,” anger and defensiveness fade. This creates space for curiosity, cooperation, and solutions that truly work for everyone.
“Regulation destroys freedom.”
True. But if you insist on a capitalist economy, you had better hope that regulation keeps it in check, or you end up with a capitalist dictatorship (oligarchy) in no time.
“Prices reflect value.”
It reflects something, but not true value. Prices are not the result of fair trade, but of power that is devided in factor markets and corporate capitalism. Investors decide what has value, and how this value is offered. They focus not on the wellbeing of society, but on things like 'lifetime customer value', and power over markets.
“Government is bad.”
A governement that grows too big is bad for freedom. The reason we have such huge governments, is because the government is (or at least has been) trying to treat the negative symptoms of capitalism with taxation and regulation. You don't need such a big government, unless you are dealing with an economy like capitalism. In other words, the two evils that threaten freedom are two sides of the same coin, and the people are squashed in the middle.
Your thinking on this is too narrow. You think in either-or terms between capitalism and communism. This is a mental prison that keeps people from looking objectively at what is going wrong in our current systems. I won't speak for Peter Joseph's viewpoint, but it is definitely not my way of looking at this, and I wouldn't recommend the either-or view to anyone.
it's not the system. it's the white man.
Nope! That is actually racism what you are expressing here. It is true that in our time, the culture that most clearly represents capitalism is the US economy. But just like slavery, capitalism (meaning: factor markets) is of all the ages and it happens and has happened in all countries and all cultures, and the result is always some type of oligarchy. Of course, in our time the scale is tremendous because of technological advances, and a far more crooked financial system that hugely amplify the process of accumulation and concentration of private power. But the process is still the same.
Correct. Power has worn many faces. The important part is the architecture that lets power compound and externalize costs. Change the rails, and you change who can dominate - whatever their identity.
That's right. The trick is to design a system that automatically keeps itself balanced when it comes to the distribution of private wealth and power. Instead we now have two systems, capitalism and government, that try to keep the balance between each other. But because of that, they both increasingly form a threat to our freedom. Once you have self-balancing economy where private wealth and power do not accumulate to dangerous proportions, you don't need a big government anymore to treat these negative symptoms of the economy.
Bla bla bla bla bla... At the end of the day you will see a white man standing on your neck. The white empire will fall! Than we can talk about "the system"
Blablabla means you don't actually want to know or find out anything. You just want to hate. But yes, as I already confirmed in my previous answer, in our time you will most often find "a white man standing on your neck". In other times they would have had a different skin color.
It is not sure yet if the white empire will fall, but it could definitely happen. And if it happens, it could be soon. But not talking about the system, means that after their fall, another empire will take over because the economic system and the empire are linked. Within the economic system, there can be no vacuum of empire like power because the system is made for it, demands it even.
The empire and the economic system are unseperable, which is why China is now the rising star. China is rising WITHIN THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Any current empire, or the one that appears to be taking it over, is going to be based on the economic system that we are involved in worldwide. This economic system is the reason for these empires. Once you understand that, you will not want to separate this discussions about empires and the economy.
I've been thinking about how to have these discussions a lot lately. Thank you!
"People are naturally self-interested.”
Another 'funny' argument in favor of capitalism. In that case, wouldn't it be more logical to seriously restrict the possibility of greed running wild in the economy? Even if they were right about human nature, it would be an argument against capitalism. But people forget that we are also 'naturally group-interested'. Only when we are put under certain pressure, does our survival instinct lower to the level self-interest. Normally, we would operate at the level of the 'social animal' we are.
Capitalism is a fear-based economy. You have to survive it in. There are 'winners' and 'losers', and any apparent cooperation is superficial and opportunistic in nature, valid only until the situation changes. The higher the stakes, the less cooperation really means. These things detach people from the work, and often from their coworkers, but definitely from their bosses, secretly hoping that they can take his place. Not for the type of work, but for the money, of course. This economy leaves little option for anything that is not self-interest, but that does not mean it is human nature. It's part of, but far from the whole story.
"The market knows best."
This one is funny because many who use this to defend capitalism, don't realize that not all markets were created equal. The free trade of goods and services does not have to cause the problems discussed in this post. Factor markets however, account for most or all of the problems that capitalism causes. You can even see this historicaly. Every single economy that allows the private trade of the means of production, nature, capital, and labor eventually ends up with at least this one major problem: the accumulation and concentration of private wealth and power.
Great distinction.
"None of these outcomes arise because people are “greedy,” “immoral,” or “selfish.” They arise because the system rewards behavior that leads to ecological destruction, social decay, and accumulation without limit. Even if every CEO were morally enlightened, the profit mechanism would punish them for acting differently."
Is that really so? The system is also an eco-system (some call it an ego-system) that favors those with fewer moral inhibitions, and this is putting it mildly. The character of the system attracts a certain type of CEO's, for example, namely those who are willing to do what it takes, despite the ecological destruction and social decay. You will not find morally enlightened CEO's, unless their enlightenment happened after they got the job, because normally they would have been filtered out by what the system asks of you when you rise to the top of the pyramid.
Agree. Incentives shape choices AND select people. That’s not a rebuttal to Peter´s mechanism point, it’s the next step. Don’t bank on nicer CEOs - fix the rules so different behavior (and different leaders) win (is how I'm thinking...).
All behaviors are generated, or in other words shoved, by some stimuli, under certain conditions. Peter also talks about the conditions that create "greedy", "selfish" people. It's always scarcity, uncertainty, deprivation. Doesn't have to be material but also intellectual, cognitive, cultural, whatever it is, we have to get rid of the conditions that generate aberrant, unwanted, socially offensive behaviors. When your production line produces broken faulty products, you have to change the manufacturing process or throw it out entirely and replace it with a more appropriate one. You don't punish the faulty goods, they're just victims of their insufficient manufacturing design and / or development. I look at people the same damn way.
And it's about time society starts thinking like this unless they all want to live miserable lives full of blaming others, creating scapegoats and arriving at totally erroneous "answers" that don't progress them and society forward, but are actually causing them setbacks.
"we have to get rid of the conditions that generate aberrant, unwanted, socially offensive behaviors"
Yes.
"And it's about time society starts thinking like this unless they all want to live miserable lives full of blaming others"
True. They blame others because they don't understand the actual cause of their misery.
"True. They blame others because they don't understand the actual cause of their misery." - spot on.
exactly what "who" does...?
I hear your point about conditions shaping behavior. I just want to be careful with how we talk about people inside those conditions. Most of us are doing the best we can with the rails we’re on. For me the move is: name the conditions, keep dignity intact, and change the rules so better choices are easier. My rule of thumb: criticize systems, humanize people. That’s how we get allies, not enemies.
With my comments I am not morally judging people's behaviour. Not just most, but absolutely everybody is doing the best they can with the level of awareness they have at their disposal. People make mistakes out of lack of awareness, knowledge, and tools because we humans depend very heavily on what we are taught early in life, and because our way of raising and educating leaves more than half of our nature uneducated, we are far too easily manipulated, and it leaves us with a range of coping mechanisms that helped us early in life, but tend to harm us later-on in life. That is not our fault, but the sooner we become aware of it, the better because we can still work on this when we are adults. So for me the move is helping people become aware of their true potential. We have to evolve as a species, but this time an inner evolution is needed.
Excellent read, Peter! Clear and thorough.
Preach!! You said everything!!!
"Market economics (which is capitalism, by the way) operates on a set of invariant mechanisms:
Competition → incentivizes cost-cutting, "
Well we should incentivize cost-cutting we have lots of things that cost and if we don't cut costs we can do less of them. That's a good thing.
"resource exploitation"
Yeah that's what resources are for.
"and externalization of harm"
No human nature does that. It doesn't matter what system you have people are going to want as much of the burden of their actions to fall on other people as possible.
"Profit seeking → prioritizes short-term gains over long-term stability"
Nope, profit seeking prioritizes long term gains almost by definition. Profit can only come from investment which in turn can only come from delaying gratification.
The idea that profits encourage short term behaviour comes from an English major's understanding of the 1980s financial markets. Actually the shananigans were due to systematic problems with incentives created by government action, specifically taxing profits but not interest payments.
"Growth requirement → makes ecological balance mathematically impossible"
Nope, you mistake inventing premises for doing mathematics. And capitalism does not have a "growth requirement". What has a "growth requirement" is people who want there to be more in the future than there is now, and so have invested to make that happen.
"Inequality dynamics → concentrate wealth through compounding advantage"
And is inequality worse in more capitalist or less capitalist countries?
"Monopolistic pressures → eliminate the very “competition” the system claims to depend on"
And are there more monopolies in more capitalist or less capitalist countries? Or industries for that matter?
"None of these outcomes arise because people are “greedy,” “immoral,” or “selfish.” "
Well all of them arise because people are "selfish". If they were not they would gladly pay to save the rainforest rather than have cheaper hamburgers.
"This is the core systemic truth:
Market systems create results that no one personally chooses but everyone collectively suffers."
And yet these results are disproportionately present in non-capitalist systems and where they are present it is in industries that are heavily government regulated.
"Every one of these claims collapses under scrutiny. "
And yet you give none of them scrutiny.
"Fear of alternatives
The system has destroyed or undermined viable alternatives for centuries, leaving people with no conceptual language to imagine anything else."
No the "viable" alternatives destroyed themselves for centuries.
"Those who succeed materially become evangelists for the system—even if their success is functionally accidental."
Actually it's pretty rare for the successful to actually boost capitalism. Capitalism is the only system where winners insist the system should become less like what it was when it made them winners.
"Market ideology is built on the myth that individual choices aggregate into intelligent collective outcomes. "
But they do.
"Complex systems do not sum intention; they amplify feedback."
No they absolutely sum intention, that's what the economic calculation problem is about. If lots of people want hamburgers then the system will tell you to make hamburgers.
"No one intends to destroy the rainforest, yet it disappears at an accelerating rate."
And is that because it is owned by capitalists or by the State?
"No one intends global inequality to spiral, yet it mathematically must under competitive accumulation."
Again, simply assuming premises is not doing maths.
"No one intends mass poverty in a world of abundance, yet it persists."
Yes, it does, in the least capitalists parts of the world.
"No one intends endless war, yet militarism is a profitable industry."
Lots of people intend endless war. But this is a fundamentally dishonest claim. Militarism is not a "profitable industry" it has lost money predictably for over a century. Even invading Iraq, which should have been the ideal target for profitable looting (lots of oil, pathetic and demoralized military etc) cost trillions. The only reason that militarism survives is because it is NOT subject to the market and everyone knows it. Everyone knows that nobody could get a war off the ground without people being forced to pay for it whether they wanted it or not.
"No one intends environmental collapse, yet markets treat nature as an external cost."
And so do all the alternatives to markets. What you have is not a problem with capitalism it's a problem with people not valuing what you think should be valued.
"We live inside a structural machine whose outputs are predetermined by its design."
No they're not. The outcomes depend on what people actually value.
"Myth 1: “The market rewards efficiency.”
Reality: It rewards cost externalization—pushing harm onto society and the environment."
Again, all systems reward cost externalisation and the idea that the market doesn't reward efficiency at all is blatant cope from a supporter of a failed system.
The fact is that market actually have a way to AVOID cost externaliaztion, it's called "owning property" and "sueing people who damage it".
"Myth 2: “Competition drives innovation.”
Reality: Competition drives redundancy and secrecy. Cooperation is the real driver of innovation."
And yet we see no innovation where there is no competition. Yes, competition can cause redundancy, but the rewards of actually making a better products far outweigh what you imagine to be a horrendous cost. Competition gave us you still being alive because farmers completed to make cheaper, meaning there was enough to feed 8 billion people.
"Myth 3: “Prices reflect value.”
Reality: Prices reflect scarcity, profit margins, and power—not social benefit or ecological cost.
If the price didn't reflect value why the fuck would anyone pay it you fucking retard. As for "social benefit" who defines that? Nobody.
"Myth 4: “Capitalism lifted people out of poverty.”
Reality: Industrial technology and scientific progress improved living standards;"
Yes and that happened solely became of capitalism.
" capitalism commodified the results."
No the results were always commodities. Things don't stop being commodities just because you don't have a stock exchange.
" Capitalism also created new forms of poverty through structural inequality and the invention of relative deprivation."
Yeah the new form of poverty is the form where you have enough to eat and an iPhone.
"Myth 5: “Free markets prevent monopolies.”
Reality: Market incentives create monopolies; they are the logical endgame of competitive accumulation."
Name one time it happens like that you lying piece of shit loser.
"Myth 6: “There is no alternative.”
Reality: There are many alternatives. The system simply suppresses them or keeps them marginal."
You're right there are many alternatives. They all lead to mass starvation, war and/or human degradation but they do exist.
"The system cannot regulate itself, because:
Profit demands externalization of costs"
Which can be avoided by actually having property rights, preventing the externalization. Simply assuming that other systems don't have this problem or have a solution as good as capitalism's for it is just you pretending not to know things.
"Competition demands escalating extraction"
No, people wanting stuff demands escalating extraction. Your beef is with people wanting stuff. Competition actually reduces the "extraction" needed for a given amount of goods.
"Growth demands expanding consumption"
Exactly backwards.
"Debt-based money demands perpetual expansion"
No it doesn't and debt-based money is not capitalism.
"Power concentrates through mathematical compounding"
Stop pretending that your premises are mathematics you fucking loser.
"Ecological limits cannot be commodified in any honest way"
Well not by you because you're dishonest. But you haven't shown it's even HARD to commodify them.
"What other causal explanation do you propose for the clearly observable global trends of inequality, environmental degradation, and structural instability?"
People like you being in charge of governments.
"Market apologists will scramble to blame “government interference,” “socialism,” or plead for “better regulation.” But the moment you ask them to describe the actual system dynamics that would resolve these issues within market logic, they falter. They cannot provide such detail because it doesn’t exist."
Friedman provided such details repeatedly. So did many others.
"Never argue morality. Argue mechanics.
“What people intend” is irrelevant. Focus on structural incentives and system behavior."
Great, show me a system with better incentives. Real incentives not the shit you pretend people would do if your magic system were in place.
"Market fundamentalism will not collapse through debate."
Name two market fundamentalists in power you lying piece of shit. There's Millei and who else?
Well, aren't you full of yourself?
That's a whole lot of words for, "I never did the reading."
You are the stupid we are told to not even bother engaging with. For good reason. You are a waste of air.
Make an argument or fuck off.
Excellent article, thank you so much—as a physical science teacher I can make a lot of connections with this article, its presentations of arguments and rebuttals, and especially focus on systems literacy.
Thank you for this phenomenal post. It offers amazing tools for debate. Thank you. (I already know someone to use them with this holiday season 🤭)