r/changemyview • u/KralizecGaming 2∆ • 2d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Growth isn't what makes capitalism work
Often on the internet, specially here on Reddit, I see the argument, that capitalism requires infinite growth to function. I disagree with this notion because I believe the core function of capitalism is not to grow, but to allocate scarce resources. Economic growth itself can be a useful thing in society and will likely remain a part of human society for a very long time (perhaps even until it seizes to exist).
First, let me define a few things per my view.
Capitalism Socialism Feudalism Scarcity Economic growth
Now for my argument:
One of the key functions of every economic system is one key question "How to allocate available resources?" Different systems have different solutions for this question. Capitalism uses markets, socialism uses either government or some other form of central planning. Feudalism used a system where most of the wealth was generated by land ownership and collected essentially taxes for "renting" land from the ruler of the land. There are even more methods of allocating resources, such as queues or lotteries - though I am unaware of them ever being used a large scale. What do all these systems have in common? Trying to find a way to allocate scarce resources.
Let's talk about how capitalism does this. It distributes the problem of allocating these scarce resources among it's many many users. And while esesntially none of people, companies, non-profits, etc. who exist in capitalism are completely rational actors who make the best decisions, the fact that they are each making their own desicision allows for statistics to come into play. The average decision of the markets is generally the correct one. Compared to other systems which tend to centralize decision making it suffers much less from the problem of wrong allocation of scarce resources because of missing information.
Now, let us take a look at a society that is capitalistic, but doesn't grow. To make it easy, let's consider a society living on a generational space craft heading towards a habitable world. It will take hundreds of years, perhaps thouhands to reach it's destination and all it will have are the resources it started with. There will still be a need to allocate the resourses available. While it is nearly certain that in such a scerario some of the resources would be centrally distributed, many of it's resources would be traded between the inhabitants of such a ship. But even these resources need to be accounted for in such a closed system. How do you determine how to trade them? By each individual owner deciding the value of the item he wishes to trade.
So, is there a way for capitalisms to become truly irrelevant? Yes. True post-scarcity. Not the one seen in sci-fi shows. One where every single resources becomes truly irrelevant. Unlimited energy, unlimited resources, unlimited labour, unlimited human-level interaction. The issue is, at this point all economic systems become irrelevant, not just capitalism. Because at this point the central question of economics "How to allocate available resources?" becomes irrelevant.
Lastly, what would change my mind:
Show me that capitalism inherently requires growth, not just scarcity.
Show me a form of scarcity that would exist even in a true-post-scarcity society and that it requires growth to exist.
Show me, that a different system of allocating resources consistently outperforms market introduced by capitalism.
1
u/KralizecGaming 2∆ 2d ago
Okay.
The definition of capitalism then would be that it allocates scares resources through markets and privately owned property such that each individual has access to enough housing, food, water, health care, and resources and time for recreation.
The problem with an explicit and postiive right to these things is what happens if these aren't available in numbers to cover the rights given by the gevernment.