It is not as clear as supporters of capitalism make out that capitalism has been the largest driver of wealth. It is far more an ideological statement than they seem to realise, or admit to. Various factual weakness in the argument can be made. For example, that state funding from the US restarted both Europe and Japan after WW11, not private capitalism.
There is also the point that wealth is not of much use if it is not used well, spread out. Huge wealth in an increasingly smaller number of hands does not help the world much. And that is what has been happening in the UK, USA, etc - factually, according to official statistics. Look at stats for middle class incomes in the US over the last 40 years and we can clearly see the comparative decrease.
There is also the point that even if capitalism has created a lot of wealth (which it clearly has, in some ways), that it is also true that it has caused a lot of damage to the environment and to people IN the process. Therefore the question becomes: even if it has been pretty good so far, should we keep to this system for the future? Clearly not. But to lessen the damage to a degree that will really make a difference, as the recent efforts at sustainability seems to aim for, means adjusting capitalism to such a degree that it will no longer be capitalism.
And that is the point. We need a new and better system, going forward. No amount of saying 'ah look at how bad the other alternative were in the past' (setting aside the hopeless weaknesses in most of those arguments for the moment) can deflect from that point. The large push for sustainability nowadays is a sign that many people are beginning to see that capitalism is not good enough. The hope should be that the focus on sustainability changes capitalism enough for it to lose its central polluting characteristics. But, as i say, in order for it to really be enough, it will have to change so much that it wont be capitalism anymore. It will be a new and better system.
That is the side we should be on. Defending capitalism is defending a bad system that is not good enough for the future.
There is also the point that wealth is not of much use if it is not used well, spread out. Huge wealth in an increasingly smaller number of hands does not help the world much. And that is what has been happening in the UK, USA, etc - factually, according to official statistics. Look at stats for middle class incomes in the US over the last 40 years and we can clearly see the comparative decrease.
There is also the point that even if capitalism has created a lot of wealth (which it clearly has, in some ways), that it is also true that it has caused a lot of damage to the environment and to people IN the process. Therefore the question becomes: even if it has been pretty good so far, should we keep to this system for the future? Clearly not. But to lessen the damage to a degree that will really make a difference, as the recent efforts at sustainability seems to aim for, means adjusting capitalism to such a degree that it will no longer be capitalism.
And that is the point. We need a new and better system, going forward. No amount of saying 'ah look at how bad the other alternative were in the past' (setting aside the hopeless weaknesses in most of those arguments for the moment) can deflect from that point. The large push for sustainability nowadays is a sign that many people are beginning to see that capitalism is not good enough. The hope should be that the focus on sustainability changes capitalism enough for it to lose its central polluting characteristics. But, as i say, in order for it to really be enough, it will have to change so much that it wont be capitalism anymore. It will be a new and better system.
That is the side we should be on. Defending capitalism is defending a bad system that is not good enough for the future.