top of page

How To Fix Capitalism

In order to examine the cons of capitalism, we must first discuss the exploitation of workers. Workers all over the globe are exploited via a bourgeois-proletariat relationship. In this relationship, a passive-aggressive leader pretends to care about the worker instead of the product. The boss-worker relationship is artificial in nature, as each party in the relationship is only worried about their own ends.

A boss worries about status and financial well-being. A worker worries about receiving a very small fraction of the profit. Any worker genuinely concerned about a corporations well-being is being artificial. A leaders primary worry is profit and not the worker’s needs. Now that we have exposed the true nature of the bourgeois-proletariat relationship and useless human resources departments, we must look at possible solutions to this problem.

Workers do repetitive, undesirable work. With retail and factory jobs, workers are trapped in a slave like relationship where they have little time for leisure and the pursuit of happiness. Workers do undesirable work for little pay.

The solution to these problems is to automate repetitive jobs that take no creative or intellectual thinking to do. It is notable that both parties can benefit from automation. Workers can avoid unsafe, tedious and mundane work. Companies can use automation to minimize costs and maximize productivity without exploiting others.

The rise of automation is already taking many jobs and will continue to do so in the future. The best remedy for this problem is a universal basic income. This universal basic income will serve the purpose of providing basic needs such as food, goods and shelter.

A universal basic income serves as an equal starting point for all, and those who want to flourish beyond it still can. Those content with a simple life now have financial security. A universal basic income will allow people to fulfill their creative and artistic passions.

Those who are uninterested in doing creative work will have alternatives via government agencies that will provide work within a community. Such work would involve helping the elderly and those with disabilities, cleaning up roads and other humanitarian and environmental initiatives. A universal basic income gives one autonomy to pick their own purpose in life.

Setting a universal basic income gives an equal starting point for all citizens to flourish in a free market economy. The state’s role is strictly to provide a basic income for all citizens to ensure minimal financial well-being.

The governments only function will be to provide a universal basic income, avoiding clunky big budget bureaucracy and the tyrannical planned economies of the 20th century. To that end, the state is providing equal opportunity for all to flourish while minimizing its role in the free market, allowing for technological and cultural entrepreneurship.

When discussing the shortcomings of capitalism, one must analyze factors such as luck. It is undeniable that some of us are born more fortunate than others. For instance, some citizens are born into impoverished environments while others are born into luxurious environments. One’s environment is a great indicator of ones future success.

Wealthier families live in safer environments and have more resources to attend better schools. Low or medium income families, however, have little resources for flourishing in capitalist societies. As a result of this, many youth turn to violence and drugs, since they feel like climbing social ranks is improbable.

There are brilliant outliers that work diligently and receive scholarships, but the grand majority of low and middle income citizens don’t have the skills or aptitude to overcome social barriers. A big bulk of citizens are born with an average I.Q, therefore, many are uninterested in climbing social hierarchies.

One’s home environment is a great indicator of educational and economic success. A positive home environment where the guardian pushes the kid to cultivate their interests will lead to flourishing.

Toxic home environments will lead to the opposite. The purpose of a Universal Basic Income would be to make up for income disparities caused by factors such as differences in environments and intelligence.

I would like to discuss the shortcomings of arguments made by those in political right-wing and leftist spheres. To do this, one must first examine the role of competence hierarchies.

Many income differences are based on competence hierarchies, for the reason that some citizens excel in their specific field over others. This fact is simply undeniable and can be caused by a range of factors such as differences in intelligence and aptitude.

Both the political right and left seem to falter when addressing this paradigm. Basically, the right claims ones economic status is simply a personal choice or “just the way things are”. This narrow view disregards factors such as genetic intelligence, our lack of free will and our luck. This is a lazy approach that is uninterested in facilitating social change that can benefit our species.

Many on the left falsely claim that those with vast amounts of wealth have an obligation to give away vast amounts of their wealth to those who are in need. This approach infringes on principles of democracy and autonomy, since it is disincentivizing those who exceed in intelligence and creativity.

This is not to say that the state should not impose taxes, since in a strong democratic state a citizen must contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the state, but taxation should be fair.

Right wingers disregard the idea that a government has a moral obligation to provide for all its citizens by distributing its resources to benefit all. In my view, personal responsibility is important, but the purpose of a government is to maximize economic flourishing for all its citizens no matter what the circumstance.

Why would we have governments with Gross Domestic Products if they can’t distribute the resources of a nation fairly? With the minimal resources a government can provide, a citizen should take control of economic matters.

A government must at least try to guarantee citizens some form of help via its resources. Nations that disregard the economic flourishing of citizens are primarily corrupt and lack political accountability.

There seems to be radical factions on both sides that are denouncing the global capitalist order as a whole. It is true that International Monetary Fund policies may disfavor the poor in developing nations and that E.U migrant polices may disfavor native populations of European nations.

Despite this, it is undeniable that the global capitalist order has brought unprecedented growth in developed and underdeveloped nations. In countries like China and India, the free market has caused miraculous job growth.

In developed nations, free trade agreements have brought about tremendous economic growth. Moreover, globalism has brought about an extraordinary exchange of ideas and culture.
To maintain globalism, we must create a framework of accountability for IMF debtors, politicians and elites, while also helping ordinary citizens adjust to shifting markets.  

One could contrast the approaches of Marx and Locke when discussing the incompleteness of left and right wing approaches to economics. When contrasting these approaches, one realizes that there is a reasonable middle ground between the best elements of enlightenment and Marxist ideas.

The Marxist approach of seizing all private property to compensate for the exploitation of the proletariat class is tyrannical, since infringes on a citizens autonomy to obtain private property.

Locke’s approach in demanding equal opportunity to obtain private property is desirable. This approach could lead to inequalities based on one’s luck. Those who are born with vast amounts of luck and bequeath property may begin to exploit those who are not so lucky.

The main framework for enlightenment ideas is personal autonomy. Our economic policies should be based on this. Capitalism has been framed to be the only approach that allows for personal autonomy. This view is questionable since one doesn’t choose the social class they are born in, making it hard for people of average IQ and aptitude to flourish via a capitalist system.

I don’t see any autonomy for those who work degrading, repetitive and dangerous work for little pay. Through a framework of a Universal Basic Income, the typical growth and autonomy that come from a capitalist system will remain, and now citizens can choose their purpose in society.
The approach here is to outlaw undesirable jobs while also keeping the ones of value. A Universal Basic Income is the best alternative to maximal capitalism and tyrannical planned socialist economies that don’t work.  


bottom of page