I think it depends on what kind of capitalism you're talking about. Capitalism in a truly free market, in which all players are equal, is one thing, but crony capitalism, in which oligarchs use the state to keep the game rigged in their favor, is not conducive to innovation. Capitalism without oligarchy seems to me as much of a fantasy as communism without an oppressive state.
That's corruption, not capitalism. And corruption is far worse in non-capitalist states, although the spoils are much smaller in magnitude. And I'm not opposed to regulation or in favor of pure laissez faire markets.
I would add an important point though. In China, 300 million people have been lifted out of poverty in 30 years, a modern miracle, simply by introducing well regulated capitalism to the economy. This despite the fact that billions are siphoned off through corruption and "crony capitalism." Many will look at this and rightly point out how unfair and unjust this is, however most Chinese would rather have a few, even many, rich corrupt official than the old state run distribution system, because now is overwhelmingly better for most Chinese than then. The overall effect is enormously positive, and nitpicking corruption that falls through the cracks is misguided. Corruption unjustly gives some more wealth than they deserve in every country - capitalism just means the pie is bigger.
True... and as China is lifted out of poverty, the US standard of living is decreasing because those who have capital are leveraging their capital against those without (enabled by a lack of regulation which is, in turn, a result of corruption).
It seems that in speaking of "capitalism", some are speaking of capitalism as a distribution system (which is entirely sensible) and some are speaking of Capitalism as a philosophy (which, more or less, idealizes the law of the jungle). My guess is that Riseup is speaking of "capitalism" in the latter sense (and, if so, adding "unregulated" to their wording would clarify their position).
I think that might be an ambitious guess regarding Riseup's intentions - they don't make any such distinction. They demonstrate a typical uninformed, knee-jerk, radical anarchist philosophy.
For reference, a definition of capitalism:
"An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
I don't agree that the US standard of living is decreasing "because those who have capital are leveraging their capital against those without." In fact, the US has an extraordinary high standard of living, far better than 20 years ago (just look at a grocery store, your average automobile or home, or what people do on vacation.) If it is plateauing or declining the last few years, it is for other reasons, including:
- An unrealistic increase over the last 10 years built on credit. It will take a few years before our economy catches up with that.
- A wasteful and destructive government education system rotting for lack a free enterprise and undermining our economy as a whole.
- Wasteful government spending and borrowing - trillions of dollars spent on corruption and war.
Nobody is using capital "against" anyone - I'm not even sure precisely whbat it means, yet I'm quite sure it's false.
>I think that might be an ambitious guess regarding Riseup's intentions - they don't make any such distinction.
Perhaps, although I've never met an anarchist calling for a centrally planned economy. Most anarchists have jobs and use money and some even run businesses. They're primarily against coercion and abuse perpetrated by the state and corporations rather than against people buying and selling things per se.
>the US has an extraordinary high standard of living, far better than 20 years ago
We're a few years into a global recession, with massive job losses and unemployment. It seems counter-intuitive that this leads to an increase in the standard of living.
>Nobody is using capital "against" anyone - I'm not even sure precisely what it means, yet I'm quite sure it's false.
I would say the recent economic collapse is a fairly good example of the use of capital agressively. Those who introduced derivatives into the market did so by more or less paying government representatives to remove legislative barriers.
A less dramatic example would be the stereotypical Wal-Mart using its capital to dominate local markets, wiping out existing local enterprise.
