Capitalism is a system of resource distribution. In which resources are owned by individuals, ownership is enforced by physical threat (typically the government), and resources are distributed through a mechanism called Price.
Price is a function of Demand, Supply and Cost of resource production.
P = ( D / S ) * C
Proponents of capitalism praise it for: its simplicity, the natural/intuitiveness of Supply and Demand, its efficiency, and its innovations.
Efficiency of distribution under capitalism comes from new resource suppliers entering markets that have a high demand. This causes price to converge as close as possible to the cost of production.
Innovation comes from the gambles capitalists take with their own resources in order to discover new products, or new manufacturing techniques in order to raise the demand, or lower the cost of their resource supply.
Critiques
Not creative enough.
The common example is the iPhone. Every component of the iphone was invented in a publicly funded military or university laborotory. There are many avenues of research out there for humans to engage in, but most research projects do not result in high demand products. And even some that do aren't immediately obvious to their discoverer. Capitalists are simply too conservative to rely on for funding research projects.
Not good at supplying resources in low demand.
The immediate example in the public mind is health care. There is in general too little demand for resources like cancer treatments or brain surgeries, which you might need once in a lifetime. With such little demand few if any capitalists enter the market and compete to lower the cost. Governments all over the world take it on themselves to subsidise the cost for sellers and consumers to help distribute healthcare more usefully.
Is too abstract to map onto typical human needs.
Things that matter to humans (like having friends and relationships, or raising children) do not have the ability to react to changes in price quickly. If the supply of jobs decreases in your local community and rises in a community across the country you have to make a painful decision to disconnect from your local connections to move to where resources are.
Too easy to corrupt.
This can be argued from the pro or against capitalism sides. If you are pro capitalism then when governments interfere with supply or demand it can cause inefficiencies and unnatural problems in the resource distribution mechanism that work against you. If you are against capitalism then you see capitalists building too much economic power and corrupting governments to interfere in markets in their favour and against the rest of the population.
Just like communism (anticapitalism), capitalism isn't real.
>In which resources are owned by individuals
Laws mostly favor companies, especially large companies. Capitalist systems naturally tend to create monopolies even with whole bunch antimonopoly laws imposed onto their asses.
The only thing individual can do here really is to patent something and either fuck everybody by gaming the system into becoming the exclusive provider of the invention or take reaaaaally nice and fat royalties or maybe sell the rights for a nice price. Other than that, a serf remains a serf.
>its efficiency
Capitalism isn't efficient. Capitalism is abundant, and that might be misinterpreted by someone as being efficient. Efficiency means scarcity, it means literally not producing any surplus whatsoever.
>innovations
That's less to the point, but the contemporary "innovations" stem from properly marketing shit to people who don't need it at all. Now, I wouldn't say science/tech has been stagnant for a century now, because that isn't exactly true, but, again, contemporary "innovations" stem from creating demand for something that is not needed in the first place.
Now, the post wasn't about that, it was about how capitalism actually isn't real.
People like to point out how communism isn't real, which it indeed isn't, it's but a dream, but capitalism is no better.
There is no way supply and demand regulate every possible community out there.
There is no way individuals own anything in this system, as already stated earlier. You can own your yard and your lawnmower at best.
There is no way you follow that system "by the book" and don't get gutted horribly eventually.
And ultimately, there is no real country in the world that actually follows the capitalist model. A lot of systems resemble it somewhat, but, like, US worker unions are not capitalistic, welfare systems in Europe and the US are not capitalistic and list goes on and on and on.
The world is not capitalistic, period. This thread shouldn't even exist as the only reason for people to praise capitalism is the fear of the Red Threat or whatever those feeble middleclassmen fear, IDC.
>>5159 >Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
I don't see a problem with viewing capitalism as real.
private ownership of the means of production: check
operation for profit: check
In the end profit and private property needs to be abolished in order to destroy existence of slaves and slavers; and to bring personal autarky.
>>5158 None that are healthy. Corporations shouldn't be individuals before the law, and the treasury should be the only institution printing money. Any other points to attack capital from?
>>5160 >private ownership of the means of production: check
The very definition of "property" and what can be done with it under capitalism is a rather loaded one.
But in short - not if your company is some shareholders' business, which is probably the most companies out there, the big companies anyway. And I'm not even sure if a regular Ltd. company is something "owned" by you. You own only your individual entrepreneurship if you have one.
If we go strictly by public/private and not by individual/communal, we still have all those publicly traded companies who have to really care about public opinion.
>operation for profit: check
As already stated, there are a lot of things out there happening not for profit, in a seemingly "capitalist" countries.
Capitalism ain't real.
>In the end profit and private property needs to be abolished in order to destroy existence of slaves and slavers; and to bring personal autarky.
What is this anarcho-communist shit I'm hearing here kid? Get outta here.
>>5164 That's extending the definition of "profit" way too far already.
Look, it's not the 19th century anymore with 18-hour shifts, evil capitalists actually owning the land and the factories down to the last bolt or whatever. Contemporary system is a sophisticated compromise between capital owners and workers, and the distinction between the two may very well fade sometimes.
Not that I would imply it's "fair" or something, it's still shit. It's just capitalists are not exactly in power.
The NanoChanian peoples do not like /pol/ and have fears about it that it will consume them, as if it were a cross between Ebola and flesh eating bacteria.
Some fears are justified, in that rational discussion could go out the window, but this here thread seems to not be so, so in a sense they turn it into irrationality (of their fear, SAGE!), sooner than it would consume them.
>>5162 >kid
I wish one could dismantle nietzsche with "kid". What a fun world would that be.
>>5167 >tankies
stalinists
>>5168 No, it does bear no fruit discussing with apologetists of society based solely on slavery and endless consumption of goods and services. Same trash as marxists. Oversocialized fucks.
>rational
Rational as presented in this thread is for people who have no philosophy, no beliefs, no dreams, nothing but this vague belief in "reality", money and carrots. Because of "rationality" we live in this in the first place.
>rage in the cage
You consume the philosophy of this society, partake of its comforts and entertainment such as air-conditioning and internet, respectively. Yet you piss on it all as if that is some grand gesture, never going as far as to dismantle the system you so despise, starting by removing its cancerous growths from your own spiritual body.
You are the same human trash as everyone else, and your socialization here shows that you seek validation. You really should read more philosophy than Nietzsche.
>>5169 >I wish one could dismantle nietzsche with "kid". What a fun world would that be.
Nietzsche is for kids though.
And for radicals.
Like, the uncompromising people.
Not that it's good or bad, it's just Nitzschean thought seems to be rather personal, among other things. The Superman is a dream.
>stalinists
Why would you care about Stalin? Are you a fucking Russian? If not, get the FUCK out of here.
> No, it does bear no fruit discussing with apologetists of society based solely on slavery and endless consumption of goods and services
This "discussion" isn't "fruitful" mainly because I don't associate the vague "system" which is defined as "based on private property" and "driven by profit" and then gives me a ton of comments about how public company or a labor union or whatever is also a "private property" and "aimed for profit". This shit is just ridiculous. Why socialism isn't "private" and "profit driven" then? Planned economy could be also capitalist, where is that capital accumulation thing now? Look at how many "definitions of capitalism" there are! Just call it a "human culture" then or whatever. Fucking ridiculous.
And, like, 3 basic assumptions of neoclassical economics aren't even a thing!
Well, enough of that shit. I suppose it's just in naming and what I wanted to say is that the wide "socialization" of capitalism has been going on for like decades. It still could go either way, but whatever.
>Rational as presented in this thread is for people who have no philosophy, no beliefs, no dreams, nothing but this vague belief in "reality", money and carrots. Because of "rationality" we live in this in the first place.
You picked the wrong thread for complaining about some transcendental shit though. Economy, socialist or capitalist, is about trade, labor, value and other materialist shit. OK, fine, value or whatever isn't that materialist, but once your desired shit enters the market, it's your semi-rational choice that determines some (arbitrary in your case) price for whatever priceless shit you wanna buy. The system shouldn't care much about some individual cases though, unless they become a trend.
>>5170 Not him, but next time try to to actually target the one who you are attacking rather than yourself. One of the many reasons you /pol/tards are not welcomed here. Self-defeating garbage-spouting retards.
>>5171 >Nietzsche is for kids though
I translated a nice poem by Machar for you, although only very, very roughly and in poor english:
It was uproar about the name of his! Bigoted erudites march in full armor, and hot-headed defenders are swarming, to protect their lord and master.
He, looking only forward, hurried - where? Even for him hard to answer, as his Tommorow was always murderer of Today, god of yesterday - idol was today, who's diminished.
Like woman vacillant, like woman subtle, saw mortal fight of negligible age: of power of life he dreamt, of ubermensch, of sun, which'll penetrate all darks and shadows.
Even in his soul horrible fight was fought: darkness light defending itself wanted to cover, cried for help, his soul trembled - but light he wasn't able to save.
His heritage is sea of sand, in which thousands of golden grains are lying, and goldwanters come from near and far equally, hundred brains can live of it.
Point is that everybody finds something in Nietzsche(which is enough to defeat your kiddy meme argument) and his omnipresent theme is rather simple: radiant desire, individual, pure life, sheer liveliness, reaching heights human forgot to dream of. Far from being "for kids" and much more being for humans who live for life itself; he's desperate cry to shake down the shackles.
Case in point, byronist poet greater than byron can be called being "for kids" only by inanimate, stale and rotten neuters. It's like saying life, joy and light is "for kids". And even if you are inanimate neuter, he has value, and if not as philosopher, then very big as poet. You are kid. Now gtfo, /pol/tard.
>Not him
Sure.
>but next time try to to actually target the one who you are attacking rather than yourself.
<no u
Had to break out the thesaurus for that lively come back, eh?
>/pol/tards
Wrong again, lad.
>Self-defeating garbage-spouting retards.
<he's desperate cry to shake down the shackles.
So, just whinging. Sounds like a typical german.
>>5181 > Not him, but next time try to to actually target the one who you are attacking rather than yourself.
Not him, but he has a point.
If you'd rather spend time on the Internet forum convincing others how cool you are and not actually doing shit you want to do, something is really wrong with your attitude, reasoning and whatever. Use different words, like hypocrisy, stupidity, whatever, it doesn't matter.
> Point is that everybody finds something in Nietzsche(which is enough to defeat your kiddy meme argument)
No it isn't LMAO?
Poetry is the weaving of images that have a plethora of meanings. That fact doesn't "prove" anything.
Anyway I said also "for radicals". Maybe it's not entirely true, but radicals sure love that shit. Not that I dislike radicals though. I actually AM a radical thinker, more than anything.
>radiant desire, individual, pure life, sheer liveliness, reaching heights human forgot to dream of
He is inconsistent and whiny. That's why I called him childish.
>for humans who live for life itself
That's rather vague. "Life" means a lot of things. It's also circular, "living to live". Might as well don't raise or don't answer this question at all. I already live for life, and nothing's gonna change that.
>It's like saying life, joy and light is "for kids".
Of course.
Adults in addition to that acquire experience of staring into the eyes of the Reaper and start to cast a huge Shadow. I hope my poetry is common enough for you. Philosophy of balance LOL
>he has value, and if not as philosopher
He definitely has value as both. He is very smart and talented. It's just I don't think his philosophy wasn't some "How I Want Things To Be" bullshit, which isn't exactly what you want to see from a work that isn't some utopia or something.
Let's say I have more respect for the Stoics.
>>5192 You must have even poorer english than me, because I looked up only "vacillant", as none I knew captured notion of "nestálý" completely and "unstable" is rather cheap, and "neuter", because I didn't know english term.
>>5198 >hypocrisy, stupidity, whatever, it doesn't matter
My point was that he's baselessly assuming who the other is, how he lives etc. I don't even know on what grounds he attacked him. Posting on bangladeshi knitting forum is hardly proof that he has air-condition like him or that he consumes "philosophy of this society". Baseless accusations, but enlighten me if there's something I missed.
>>5200 >Baseless accusations, but enlighten me if there's something I missed.
It's simple, really.
You don't derail the thread (I believe criticism of capitalism should be from the context of economy; what he does is criticising the economy itself as a field of knowledge and human activity) while simultaneously claiming moral or whatever superiority over others. If anything, it shows that you want to claim that superiority for whatever reason when nobody really asked you.
Maybe that >>5170 guy didn't hit all the buttons right, but he did hit some and, most importantly, he's right in spirit. See the "seek validation" part.
>>5200 I did not baselessly attack anyone. He preached his hate for the current status quo of society, and accused all others who do not hate it as being of the "Same trash [...]".
As for all the rest, including the part you omitted, it was safe to assume that he has air-conditioning since he has internet access and a clear grasp of the English language. One can make assumptions and generalizations about privilege and comfort without them being "Baseless accusations".
Thirdly, Nietzsche is of this society, he was no superman and he did not exist or come to exist in a vacuum. This society that >>5169 hates so much gave birth to the philosopher whose consumed work gives him so much angst.
I could have been less polemic, but I was responding in kind and not taking a higher path.
>>5206 >"How I Want Things To Be" bullshit
I don't see it connecting much with anything posted at all about nietzsche or what he posted earlier, but >>>/l/5582, I think he made himself pretty clear there, post 5637, he says he already does what he can irl. Whether you believe him or not is another matter.
Now, based on that and >>>/l/8863 post 13183, if I "feel" into him, what he wants is "society of individuals" and not being standalone, singled out in "society of slaves" which works against his vision of "individuality" and therefore against him too. Like most anarchists he desires societal revolution and I think he's not isolationist, more like temporary seclusionist, based on that he's here and " plebs talk trash all the time; you can't really escape the news' scythe", he likes people, polemics and discussions, but in this thread he proved he's not willing to discuss with everybody, in his opinion "within box" or "mediocrity". I'm not sure if he lives in america or europe. Unlike here, in europe it's harder to break free for multiple reasons, imo mostly because there are no vast, unfrequented woods excluding russia, and socialist states. Probably european vagrant or squatter, he can be french too, >>>/pol/4040 post 5123. Posted jehan rictus who isn't known outside his country, so he's either well-read or french.
Conclusion: european, probably french from the part where is no immigration, vagrant from rich family, dropout of faculty of arts or humanities. Conclusion based on unverifiable sources and circumstantial evidence.
>air-conditioning since he has internet access and a clear grasp of the English language
I don't have air-conditioning and have last two. He can have last two without the first too. Case in point, having internet access is not a privilege. There's so many hotspots and unsecured or badly secured wifi's. Imo he thinks "exitus ācta probat" or it's just fun for him.
>gave birth to the philosopher whose consumed work gives him so much angst
I read philosophy to confront what I already thought of with reasonably more nuanced, written on paper in definite form, views. I don't think material for inner dialogue is consuming and consuming implies no questioning or conscious, everlasting effect on spirit. It's selective assimilation to make lingustic distinction.
Following this, nietzsche takes clear, in his opinion natural anti-slavery stance and if there was "pacifist, freedomful society not denying individuality", he would be their first singer. Nietzsche doesn't confirm his existence in oppoistion to society, but, as in the machar's poem, by being indifferent, overlooking towards society in his writings, he was seclusionist too, society did not define him in his writings imo.
>he was no superman
He wasn't.
>>5204 >See the "seek validation" part.
He replied "lol" on post accusing him of what he probably isn't. What validation, of differently thinking people? Who would he want that, what's in it? Following that, he himself talks about "live for itself". Imho he doesn't seek validation. He's exhibitionist, >>5169.
>>5170 Read Homer and Aristophanes, if you want to be a man. Read philosophers if you want to be an ungodly, navel-gazing, multiplier of useless words.
>>5218 NOW NOW YOUNG'UN, DON'T YOU BE GETTING ALL PERSNICKETY WITH ME! WHEN IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY, ONE MUST ALWAYS FACE THE THREAT HEAD ON IS WHAT MY FATHER SAID - AND HE FOUGHT IN THE GREAT WAR, SO HE KNOWS WHAT'S UP. WHEN YOU SEE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE HUMAN RACE, YOU NEED TO ACT CALMLY AND SWIFTLY, BUCKO. DAMN KIDS THESE DAYS DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO SOLVE PROBLEMS QUICKLY AND CALMLY! NOW BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, EVERY MAN WAS EXPECTED TO BE A RATIONAL, FAST-THINKING PROBLEM SOLVER IF HE HOPED TO GET A WIFE. BUT THOSE GOD-FORSAKEN YOUNG WOMEN I SEE TODAY HAVE LOWERED THEIR STANDARDS TOO MUCH! THEY WILL SETTLE FOR A GUY WHO PLAYS IPHONES AND PS3. THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN DOING SO POORLY LATELY! REMEMBER YOUNG FELLA, DON'T GET ALL KNICKER KNACKERED WHEN SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING. YOU HAVE TO BE CALM, LOOK THEM IN THE EYE AND CONFRONT THE THREAT HEAD ON YOUNG FELLA. GOD BLESS
This post was made using voice recognition software developed by Elenvire Technologies, Inc. Copyright (C) 1997 Microsoft Corporation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
>>5210 >references to some really obscure (as far as recognizability goes) posts somewhere else on the board
You're sure you're NOT HIM LMAO?
I mean, honestly, why would anyone go such lengths for no apparent reason? Oh well.
>he likes people, polemics and discussions, but in this thread he proved he's not willing to discuss with everybody
Look at the world caring. Can we just get back to the actual topic please? I am honestly more interested, for example, how capitalism vs socialism are different, or rather, that much different. Like, you can game the system, climb the ladder or whatever in both systems. You can have some honest job in both systems too. You can centralize or decentralize control in both systems, you can live under the dictatorship and under the democracy in both systems, and the list goes on. What's the fundamental difference? The definition says it's in:
1) private property vs some form of social property
2) that's pretty much it, the rest is replicable in both
So, the main question becomes what laws regulate the property and how. Capitalist societies can have publicly traded companies with CEOs (the controllers and decision makers for the most part) being professionals getting paid the wage (not the owners), sooooo~ What the actual fuck? Is communism here already, like, the beginnings of it?
>I don't have air-conditioning and have last two.
It really doesn't matter dude.
>I don't think material for inner dialogue is consuming
Well, think again. You took his material for whatever inner workings of yours man.
But again, it doesn't fucking matter. What matters is you defend your questionable point tooth and nail. What a shitshow.
> Following this, nietzsche takes clear, in his opinion natural anti-slavery stance and if there was "pacifist, freedomful society not denying individuality", he would be their first singer.
History teaches us that societies do not get created on paper, so please take your fanboyism somewhere else. Like, to a separate thread.
>by being indifferent, overlooking towards society in his writings, he was seclusionist too, society did not define him in his writings imo.
Nietsche cared very much about society, or else "Gott ist tot" wouldn't be such a theme. Anyway he clearly was a bearer of Christian morality and he came from that background, that much is obvious. Whatever you say is short-sighted.
>Imho he doesn't seek validation. He's exhibitionist
Isn't it what exhibitionists do, seeking validation LOL? Jesus Christ you're not the sharpest tool here.
>>5230 >You're sure you're NOT HIM LMAO?
At this point, including the flub in his narrative PoV, I am certain they are one in the same. Or perhaps, inhabit the same mind/body.
I wish we could discuss the topic at hand, you raise excellent questions that I do not have the answer for. One thing that really strikes me is for instance how productivity in certain industries is monitored by computer systems that can be gamed and indeed are gamed so that higher-ups have good reports to look at even though they themselves know the numbers are bullshit when reading said reports. This is strikingly similar to anecdotes and stories I have read from the former Soviet Union. Everyone knows something is bullshit, but we all play along anyways, instead of addressing the issue.
We might already be in some sort of post-Soviet consumer based crypto-communism.
>>5230 >why would anyone go such lengths for no apparent reason?
Because it's fun being attorney defending long-goer against pig/pol/ and because I don't like baseless, "personal" and projectionist attacks made by retards seeking streetcred on bangladeshi knitting forum.
>Anyway he clearly was a bearer of Christian morality and he came from that background
This explains plato very well, as nietzsche was very fond of him and I'm too. I don't think not "coming from christian background" would change anything.
>History teaches us that societies do not get created on paper
History teaches us exact opposite. Since printing press several times more so.
>Whatever you say is short-sighted.
I think it's you who is.
>Isn't it what exhibitionists do, seeking validation?
No, it's you projecting.
>>5252 >One thing that really strikes me is for instance how productivity in certain industries is monitored by computer systems that can be gamed and indeed are gamed so that higher-ups have good reports to look at even though they themselves know the numbers are bullshit when reading said reports. This is strikingly similar to anecdotes and stories I have read from the former Soviet Union.
Isn't it just some corruption evidence? I mean, it doesn't really prove the depth of similarity I'm going for. Though it's definitely curious. One could say some particular corporation can be structured in a peculiar way, with like those Japanese corporations which keep their fuckup employees as well as regular employees. Fuckups just get some unfailable job.
>>5256 >Isn't it just some corruption evidence?
I suppose. Alas, the corruption serves no purpose than to make false reports to be reviewed, as it doesn't change the profits or real productivity.
>I mean, it doesn't really prove the depth of similarity I'm going for.
Truly it doesn't, was just some superficial observation I had been bouncing around in my head for a few months. For the real down and dirty, we would need to examine more than just the similarities of two societies desperate to find positions for all the cogs. Unfortunately it also may be as facile as that. There may be nothing more under the window dressing. The migratory tentshow.
>This is a thread for critiquing capitalism.
Fertile ground, this is.
>Capitalism is a system of resource distribution. In which resources are owned by individuals, ownership is enforced by physical threat (typically the government), and resources are distributed through a mechanism called Price.
That is the idealized version, which of course resembles nothing like Capitalism in practice.
>Price is a function of Demand, Supply and Cost of resource production.
>P = ( D / S ) * C
Microeconomics works, macro doesn't. The whole field is one big grift, designed as cover for the banks and multinational corporations so they can get direct access to cheap debt in endless supply, before YOU get a chance to do so. Read about the Cantillion Effect, read Mises, Rothbard, and Steve Keen.
>Proponents of capitalism praise it for: its simplicity, the natural/intuitiveness of Supply and Demand, its efficiency, and its innovations.
(((Proponents)))
>Efficiency of distribution under capitalism comes from new resource suppliers entering markets that have a high demand. This causes price to converge as close as possible to the cost of production.
This is free enterprise, not Capitalism.
>Innovation comes from the gambles capitalists take with their own resources in order to discover new products, or new manufacturing techniques in order to raise the demand, or lower the cost of their resource supply.
This is free enterprise, not Capitalism.
>Critiques
>Not creative enough.
>The common example is the iPhone. Every component of the iphone was invented in a publicly funded military or university laborotory. There are many avenues of research out there for humans to engage in, but most research projects do not result in high demand products. And even some that do aren't immediately obvious to their discoverer. Capitalists are simply too conservative to rely on for funding research projects.
Everything you described is practiced under Fascism, if Fascism is a merger of state and corporation.
>Not good at supplying resources in low demand.
>The immediate example in the public mind is health care. There is in general too little demand for resources like cancer treatments or brain surgeries, which you might need once in a lifetime. With such little demand few if any capitalists enter the market and compete to lower the cost. Governments all over the world take it on themselves to subsidise the cost for sellers and consumers to help distribute healthcare more usefully.
Low demand means high prices, price solves this per free enterprise
>Is too abstract to map onto typical human needs.
>Things that matter to humans (like having friends and relationships, or raising children) do not have the ability to react to changes in price quickly. If the supply of jobs decreases in your local community and rises in a community across the country you have to make a painful decision to disconnect from your local connections to move to where resources are.
All physical human needs are met through free enterprise, the others are met through free association.
>Too easy to corrupt.
>This can be argued from the pro or against capitalism sides. If you are pro capitalism then when governments interfere with supply or demand it can cause inefficiencies and unnatural problems in the resource distribution mechanism that work against you. If you are against capitalism then you see capitalists building too much economic power and corrupting governments to interfere in markets in their favour and against the rest of the population.
Agreed, b/c Capitalism is pipe dream solution much like universal suffrage democracy. Free enterprise and free association are what all peoples crave, because they work, and are natural.
>critique
/pol/ can't even make a valid thought on any subject other than repeating a bunch of shit some garbage blog said. how can they ever give a "critique" of something?
we're against crony "capitalism" but what are your arguments against anarcho-capitalism?
Really whether there is a centralized government, or decentralized companies that provide what government does in an ancap territory, you just have to make sure that the government or companies do a good job. Governments can become tyrannical, as well as markets. It's just that with markets, competition can allow people to regulate bad actions so it is thought that that can be an advantage in some instances.
>>5571 How do we respect the private property? By building up the private armies? Friendly reminder that any community closely resembling the ancap/libertarian paradise ended up shooting each other.
>competition can allow people to regulate bad actions so it is thought that that can be an advantage in some instances.
What is this shit? Competition doesn't regulate SHIT. In fact, governments of today do not a good job of reducing the unfair competition, and frankly, not everything legal is fair anyway.
And anyway, ancap competition would end in monopolies 100%. You don't need more than one company doing some specific thing.
Capitalism is a system of resource distribution. In which resources are owned by individuals, ownership is enforced by physical threat (typically the government), and resources are distributed through a mechanism called Price.
Price is a function of Demand, Supply and Cost of resource production.
P = ( D / S ) * C
Proponents of capitalism praise it for: its simplicity, the natural/intuitiveness of Supply and Demand, its efficiency, and its innovations.
Efficiency of distribution under capitalism comes from new resource suppliers entering markets that have a high demand. This causes price to converge as close as possible to the cost of production.
Innovation comes from the gambles capitalists take with their own resources in order to discover new products, or new manufacturing techniques in order to raise the demand, or lower the cost of their resource supply.
Critiques
Not creative enough.
The common example is the iPhone. Every component of the iphone was invented in a publicly funded military or university laborotory. There are many avenues of research out there for humans to engage in, but most research projects do not result in high demand products. And even some that do aren't immediately obvious to their discoverer. Capitalists are simply too conservative to rely on for funding research projects.
Not good at supplying resources in low demand.
The immediate example in the public mind is health care. There is in general too little demand for resources like cancer treatments or brain surgeries, which you might need once in a lifetime. With such little demand few if any capitalists enter the market and compete to lower the cost. Governments all over the world take it on themselves to subsidise the cost for sellers and consumers to help distribute healthcare more usefully.
Is too abstract to map onto typical human needs.
Things that matter to humans (like having friends and relationships, or raising children) do not have the ability to react to changes in price quickly. If the supply of jobs decreases in your local community and rises in a community across the country you have to make a painful decision to disconnect from your local connections to move to where resources are.
Too easy to corrupt.
This can be argued from the pro or against capitalism sides. If you are pro capitalism then when governments interfere with supply or demand it can cause inefficiencies and unnatural problems in the resource distribution mechanism that work against you. If you are against capitalism then you see capitalists building too much economic power and corrupting governments to interfere in markets in their favour and against the rest of the population.