There are many forms of capitalism...
Humanistic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Democratic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism
Eco-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism
Inclusive capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism
Neo-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism
...just to name a few.
Which is what the Dude above was referring to.
So I'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long run.
I'll call it "the lesser of nightmares".
Being as we've seen where "just let property owners do whatever they want" has lead us to in the past.
Considering that, I don't believe this case, really justifies your (apparent) paranoia against the free market.
Or that is to say, "regulated".
Which again, is why I referred to it as the "lesser of nightmares".
capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
meritocracy: "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability."
morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
Here's how I think about "us looking down on them":
Assume both capitalism and meritocracy. Then the question becomes: How should superiors (in profit and ability) treat inferiors? That's the morality question. Try putting yourself in the cafeteria worker's shoes (i.e., you do not have ability and profit). How should you be treated? Surely things other than ability and profit should matter. We think "good" people deserve "good" things. What makes a person "good"? Is someone good if they were born with and then cultivated ability? Doesn't the low wage worker also work hard? Then the differences for ability are determined at birth. Does something determined at birth concern one's morality in the present? How about profit? Does someone's wealth factor into their morality?
I do not think morality is concentrated in the powerful. I think there are immoral powerful people and moral powerless people. I think it is fair to treat a moral person with respect regardless of their power position. I cannot tell whether a person is moral by their ability and profit so, a priori any other evidence, I believe in being respectful to everyone.
tldr: I judge people based on their morality and power isn't a signal. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to look down upon a person based on their power position.
> Capitalism is the use of markets as the primary method of resource allocation within a society.
http://www.americanteeth.org/2015/06/21/why-i-m-a-capitalist...
I lost a game of Go to the guy who wrote this. He's a total socialist, but he _gets it_. Capitalism is just using markets, and when he and I use that word we just mean that. But when many progessive-types use that word, they mean all of the perceived evils and unjustice that coming along with that system.
The Dude is absolutely right and spot on with this of course -- and in any case shouldn't have been downvoted for pointing it out.
Systematic social segregation and pervasive, manufactured feelings of inadequacy and inferiority aren't merely "bugs" in modern capitalism; they're among its core features.
That's the "real" problem here (as other commenters have identified in this thread).
1. have property rights so they have some say (even on the vote-with-your-feet level) in how things play out
2. the human condition can be leveraged against itself for general societal improvement
The counterargument is that a small group of humans can somehow design (and maintain!) a system that is somehow less susceptible to humanity.
No, this is how the market works, but the market is hardly meritocratic. On which merit do you propose we judge workers in order to determine fair compensation for their work?
"meritocracy" is a myth. Too many people forget that they started the 10-lap race with a 9-lap headstart.
I am personally very thankful for the headstart that my family gave me. Lots of others I grew up with didn't get the headstart.
...And it had nothing to do with me personally, it was an accident of lucky birth.
Well, too much further discussion along these lines will turn into a semantic quagmire. However, you can draw a spectrum where "individuals decide for themselves" is on one end and "a central power decides for everyone" is at the other. In that viewpoint, capitalism and totalitarianism are at odds, regardless of whether the central authority is an officer of a government bureau or a corporate one.
EDIT: I guess this is a bad question since it's really a matter of degrees. Perhaps a better question is: How meritocratic do you feel that our society is?
Wikipedia, on the other hand, is providing value, and isn't extracting the price. Therefore they rely on donations. If Wikipedia extracted their price for the amount of value they provide, I'd say they'll be one of the biggest companies in the world.