A system of greedy exploiters abusing the police state, or the idea of prosperity?
9 out of 10 great café intellectuals blame capitalism for the current crisis. The tenth is me (I'm currently drinking my cappuccino).
I claim that the nine intellectuals are wrong. I don't take that greedy capitalists, synonymous with the hell of the devils of today, made fraud. In my opinion, however, the frauds themselves were the crisis, so the roots precede it.
But the main and foremost thing is that the 9 intellectuals do not know what capitalism is. I decided to explain it to them.
What is capitalism like?
I dont know at all. I do not know the answer to this question, especially since capitalism is as we make it.
Capitalism calmly includes socialism. It is no problem for a community to buy land and live in it in "its little socialism" - it is a voluntary, free arrangement.
Capitalism is free market system.
The free market is system of free cooperation, cooperation.
The market is not a UFO. There is no market if there are no people, but at the same time the market as such does not constitute an individual in itself. However, the moment I encounter another person, interpersonal interaction, cooperation and a market is created. The market outputs are outputs of human behavior.
So when we say that 'the market is harmful', it means that 'people are harming'. When we say that the market needs to be regulated, we say that "human action is detrimental" - that people need some elite authority to tell them what, when and how to do it.
Proponents of market regulation are, in fact, supporters of the harshest form of totalitarianism.
The equivalent of the word "market" is thus "human cooperation". Now the arguments of the "regulators" are different: "human cooperation" needs to be curtailed because the outputs of "human cooperation" are incorrect and need to be corrected. Therefore, something needs to be commanded for "human cooperation."
In practice, it seems that someone in Prague determines the form of employment contracts, for example in Ostrava, without having any relationship with the employer or employee.
The question arises: for whom are the outcomes of human cooperation wrong? Probably not for the cooperating parties, otherwise they would not cooperate. The answer is simple: bad is only from the point of view of the regulator. The regulator is usually a state (in some form). It is in the interest of the state (politicians) to collect as much money as possible from taxes.
Thus, according to the state, any result of human cooperation that would ensure a reduced volume of taxes collected is bad and needs to be regulated. In the interest of the state, the regulator, the possibility of human cooperation is as limited as possible. The interest of any regulator is thus to "combat capitalism" - that is, the interest of the regulator is that rigid totalitarianism over human actions and decisions.
Regulators do not belong to capitalism. What does it mean? I do not see capitalism anywhere in Europe and the USA. It is therefore a colossal mistake to think that capitalism is the culprit of the crisis and that the current crisis is the crisis of capitalism. Let's call the current system anyway, but certainly not capitalism, because the present is simply not.
Equation with positive sum
The market system differs from the systems of various forms of state interventionism in that capitalism is an equation with a positive sum. In the capitalist market system, everyone is allowed to specialize comparatively (specialize in what the individual can do best) and use their human qualities for any form of self-satisfaction and self-realization. Everyone gains, if it weren't for that, people wouldn't act, they wouldn't change, they wouldn't live.
So if you want to know what capitalism is, the answer is simple: capitalism, it is possibilities, freedom and voluntariness. Everyone has the opportunity to achieve what they want, but it is everyone's voluntary decision whether to choose these options freely. As a result, everything is the result of a simple calculation of subjective costs with revenues. Nothing more, nothing less.
PS: Note that the regulator or supporter of regulation when defending regulations automatically assumes that human behavior (including your behavior) is a priori wrong. They thus hold the presumption of guilt.