Why capitalism is harmful to society

Why capitalism is harmful to society
- Against "Human nature is egoism"
- Against "No incentive to innovate"

Against "Human nature is egoism"

"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."

~ Andrew Collier, Marx: A Beginner's Guide

I found this from a video on YouTube, and the argument holds on its own.

Against "No incentive to innovate"

Note

Summary: Innovative here means "different" more than "useful". And "different" is meant to be all about "artistic" nature of things, and "art", while is important, is not worth dying for. Because art and beauty flourishes through love, and there is no love in letting other people suffer for your benefit, and hence there is no art in it. And hence, there is no innovation, useful or artistic, either. In other words, the proponents of this argument skew the meaning of innovation to mean "different" rather than to mean either "useful" or "artistic".

I'm aware that there are some things that are inherently beautiful to the human eye, such as some colour palettes, but it is not in favour of capitalism. Those are general principles of art, which are related to the properties of human perception of the universe, and it belongs to the realm of science, philosophy and art rather than to the free market. A price tag does not make something beautiful, the thing itself makes it beautiful. And not all beautiful things are intricate or demanding of extensive labour to justify capitalist ideas.

And things being different is only useful in the sense that it encourages people to buy new things, which leads to more profits for the makers, while not doing any meaningful work or putting in much effort to do the same in comparison to what they'll gain out of it, which is economic, and hence also political advantage over other people.

This is often used as an argument against "right to repair" and "capitalism". This plays on the feelings of an individual to the word "innovation" as something new and better, leading to "progress". "Innovative", "better" and "progress" are all good to have, which is why a person is encouraged to defend these ideas. However, this argument simply skews the true meaning of these words.

People will be interested in new technology that actually serves a purpose than a new phone with a different style of notch, aside from for artistic reasons.

[REFACTOR ARTICLE BY REFERRING THE SUMMARY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "ARTISTIC" AND "DIFFERENT"].

Then it becomes more of an art piece than just a useful technology. (See my definition of technology Technology, where you can see that it is a word that means "a form or work of art", which can also be "useful".)

What capitalism encourages is forcing people to buy new art pieces because they are the "new technology", and "old technology" is outdated.

But see, the natural way of life always happens in cycles. for a simple understanding, no matter how strong of a food technology you invent, a human needs to intake a certain quantity of energy, and needs to digest it and get enough rest. Even if you turn people into cyborgs who can be recharged, you will need to spend enough time to recharge the being in proportion to the energy capacity of the individual. And even if faster charging technologies (Power, E/t, in Watts) are invented, you still need to carry around the weight of the cyborg battery, which is also large in proportion with the energy capacity. And even if we are able to minimize the weight of the battery (specific energy, E/m, in J/kg), we'll still be dependent on a device, like crutch just to keep living.

This is just like the problem of food in the natural world, except that with this being a capitalist world, everything has a price, from the purchase to maintenance of such a device. It would also be impossible to live in the older sense of the world, because a capitalist world would impose the laws of the rich and turn the entire planet into the same infrastructure, unless we move to a different life-supporting planet. This is just like how they've burned down forests to form cities, while still depending on the same trees for their survival. And that has led to a global state of pollution, which the capitalists can live around because they have access to more resources.

The capitalists did not even bother to find another solution to protect the earth against ozone holes and global warming while expanding like this, and they don't even work on the current solution of collecting and disposing plastic waste, because it's not profitable!

The thing about art pieces is that, while they are good, and are very important to have because we all love wonderful things, they are not better than starving. And also, some people even find the aesthetic of a simple life to be wonderful, because all people are different (minimalism, plain-text interface lovers, naturalists, etc.).