What good is a stated goal if the reality is the opposite? Capitalism may not have a lofty sounding goal to your ear, but the fair trade of goods and services is actually a pursuit in the betterment and empowerment of mankind. Of course, human nature gets in the way, and leads to corruption that needs to be constantly addressed and readdressed, but that will never change no matter what system you dream up.
And while capitalism isn't draped in utpoian idealism, it has the benefit of having proven to be able to lift a huge bulk of humanity out of subsistence living.
Look at a company. The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money".
Capitalism does not have meeting basic human needs as a core goal. Capitalism's distribution of money to labor is a side effect, not a goal. It has the freedom of capital to amass capital as a core goal. Thus, if something needs to go, it's not going to be capital's ability to amass more capital.
As automation comes for more and more jobs, the demand for labor in general will fall. Capitalism, even in its most idealistic "a rising tide lifts all ships" form, does not care about those it doesn't need. If your preferred answer to "what do we do when human labor is no longer necessary" isn't "extinction", you can't rely on Capitalism as an ideology.
Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion?
This is a reductive and ridiculous take. The real world isn’t Soc101 or a poor reading of Marx, nor is it black and white.
Well, non-profits are not exactly capitalist companies like the ones for profit. Neither necessarily are the small business where the owner values other things over the expansion and profit. But these things are not much relevant when concerning most of production, the things that influence a country's GDP. These small businesses or non-profit organizations indeed may have concerns other than profit. But good luck convincing shareholders in a big company that they should take the less profitable path, especially if there is competition with other companies.
Shareholders can be convinced that a long term play may be less profitable today than it will be in a decade and opt to take that path. I’m not sure why that’s assumed to be prima facie untrue.
Is Uber or Door Dash not a company or mot capitalist? The latter especially appears to have no road to profit. If it’s not capitalist, by your definition, what is it? Why are its shareholders not replacing the board on a daily basis until someone makes it profitable?
> Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion?
The law makes such businesses slightly less likely to survive. There are ideas and ideals that are the source of that law.
Do you think that’s unfair? Do you think suggesting that capitalism is just about enriching shareholders today is not reductive?
Whether the law makes small businesses less likely to survive (citation needed) is immaterial to the question.
This is what happens when you smoke too much of your own propaganda.
America is very much a mixed economy, and we're the so called 'leader' of the capitalistic world. If the US had been allowed to be an unchallenged capitalistic country then we'd look very much like Russia today (which is not communistic in any way), a corrupt shithole. A huge part of our success was the labor movements of the mid 1800s in which a fair number of people died in. Then later in the 1930s after unchecked capitalism brought about a horrific crash that required a massive amount of socialistic policies to bring us back from the brink and get the economy working.
The reality of these situations is far more complex than the red white and blue cheerleading we're taught in school.
Capitalism's goal is to maximize the creation wealth by allowing individuals to privately hold wealth and efficiently leverage it to produce more wealth. Currently, humans are a crucial element in the production of wealth, which has allowed labor to capture some amount of that wealth for themselves. But that's not central to Capitalism. If you can generate massive amounts of wealth and give none of it to your workforce, you've succeeded at Capitalism, even if it means the 90+% of the population who don't own much capital at all starve in the streets.
In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless, moneyless society that provides to each according to their need, and each works according to their ability. Unlike Capitalism, the elimination of the necessity of labor doesn't intrinsically cause everybody to starve. It just dwindles away the necessity of the "from each according to their ability" part.
So you can argue about what other better solutions there are, but if we're pushing towards a world with less and less need for human labor, Capitalism is flatly untenable. Capitalism's answer to human labor being optional is that the former labor class dies.