The Moral Quandary of Untrammeled Capitalism
Casting substantive criticisms onto a society's most treasured practices is the sole mechanism by which to preclude their stagnation, or to discern preferable alternatives to them, however infallible they may seem. Hard truths are the only ones worth confronting, and it is no doubt one that the most celebrated economic philosophy in the western world has been a cause of misery for millions. Does that warrant an abnegation of capitalism in its entirety? No. If anything, it's the least catastrophic system that has thus far been devised in the story of the human species. It enriches several, is a guardian of hope and aspiration, and has facilitated economic growth in an unprecedented fashion over the last few centuries. Having said so, one must concede in no curbed measure to the inequities it both encourages and iterates, and whether their sustenance at their current extent is a matter of moral inquiry.
Capitalism, when unfettered, results in income inequality. Most individuals with even a cursory understanding of historical economies would concur with that proposition. Profit motives, when combined with a consumerist mentality in a labor-intensive environment, will ultimately cause the division of socioeconomic domains into capitalist and labor classes. Naturally, profit motives are exclusive to those at the helm of production, meaning that as a greater number of individuals are employed, and enterprises subsume one another - the distributions of employment transition into an asymmetrical state with the majority finding the capitalist class out of their reach. Even in instances wherein this exact sequence is absent, social mobility is ultimately hampered consequent to the Matthew Principle of Accumulated Wealth. Generating any degree of income when one is affluent is a far simpler objective than accomplishing so from beneath the poverty line. In fact, an inability to self-negotiate at this state accelerates the rate at which income inequality grows - a phenomenon complemented by several others with similar outcomes. In any event, it would appear that living in a perfect capitalistic economy, that consecrates values of meritocracy and is incorruptible, is a far more affirming prospect that adopting Marxist ideals.
As an analytical exercise, however, the inequities that are engendered by liberalized and free economies are mainly a consequence of the three concepts described below:
1) Differences in Human Merit
Individuals are not indistinguishable from one another in terms of the talents they possess, either with regards to a profitable field, risk-taking abilities, or foresight. If one were to initiate an adequately large productive domain in a perfectly equitable state to commence with (a Gini coefficient equivalent to 0), its inevitable conclusion would be a Pareto-like distribution. Whether or not there exists a direct causal resonance between the distributions of human merit and Pareto inequities is debatable, since several of the former are in fact statistically normal distributions. Capitalistic inequities may too share, in some form, a relation to human productivity and its patterns - such as Price's Law (the square root of the number of individuals in a productive domain oftentimes generate halve its functional output). Either way, individual differences necessitate unequal outcomes under perfectly meritocratic circumstances.
2) Iterative Income Distributions
Secondly, socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage are both propagated across generations. Familial wealth and affluence are crucial determinants to an individual's success, and vice versa. In fact, one of their repercussions is a quasi-meritocracy: opportunities aren't distributed justly, meaning that any exhibited talents are not representative of a sample's true strength on any economic parameter. Consequently, those excessively encumbered on the socioeconomic scale upon birth, will be similarly encumbered in their lives and careers in a class-based society. Privatizations of education and healthcare, two of the most central sectors of a developing economy, also exacerbate this inequity - by maximizing both educational value and utility for those who can afford it, whilst simultaneously denying it to those who can't.
3) Accumulated Wealth
As described prior, wealth accumulation is an exponential trait in a capitalistic environment. It's far easier to generate wealth once one possesses it. As industries grow and societal upliftment accelerates amongst the lower and middle classes, those yet still ridden by poverty find it nearly impossible to recover from it. Amongst populous countries, this is manifestly adversarial, affecting millions of individuals with miniscule or inexistent degrees of income.
Having these discerned these characteristics, one is impelled to ask: Might there by any reasonable constraints to impose upon a capitalistic economy? In the event that human decency should allow so, there are undoubtedly interventions that can facilitate social mobility. In truth, they aren't interests born solely from a place of human compassion. A society that institutes a legitimate meritocracy will also experience representative social and dominance hierarchies. Any inequities born from such a variant of capitalism will be healthy, and likely far more appreciated than the ones currently abundant.
Will these compromises diminish certain practices inherent to capitalistic frameworks? Denying that proposition would be none other than a falsification. This explication is not an argument in favor of Democratic Socialism. Enterprises can be subjected to constraints that retain the integrity and interests of capitalist classes. Progressive taxation, genuine reforms in education and healthcare, and the infusion of fiscal budgets into economically disadvantaged populations are all functional alternatives. Nonetheless, the matter of moral concern remains. Mightn't one prefer to live in a meritocratic society with functional hierarchies and economic liberty, solely at the cost of indirect and non-pervasive redistributions of income? If the answer lies in the negative, it'll likely have arisen from conservative intransigency, as opposed to any line of tenable reasoning.
