Some Basic Problems with Capitalism
Capitalism encourages greed, exploitation and corporate wrongdoing of the Enron variety. Too much power is in the hands of massive trans-national corporations that are not accountable to the public as governments are [Note 1], and which have a single motive: profit.
The basis is exploitation - the means of wealth production are controlled by a tiny minority of the population. The rest of us have to sell our skills to them for a wage which, because of profit, is necessarily beneath the value of what we produce.
The result is that a tiny percentage of people enjoy huge wealth, while millions of people live in abject poverty. There are sufficient resources to feed, clothe and educate all of humanity but that doesn’t happen: millions of people die every year because of poor food, housing and medicine, while the rich get richer. This is a direct result of capitalism.
The competitive struggle for profits leads to stress, environmental damage and lack of job security. It also leads to war and the tremendous cost to the public purse that arms spending represents. Cost to the USA of the Iraq war so far: $750 billion. Arms companies do very well out of wars [Note 2].
Politics and Profit
Capitalism is a profit-making system that puts profits before everything else and cannot work in any other way. This is why changing governments changes nothing: they are bound by the economic laws of capitalism. Hence, governments elected on a manifesto to reform capitalism normally end up squeezing wages, benefits and public services to keep costs down (e.g. Tony Blair‘s New Labour). The profit system constrains what government actions are possible.
Most governments are in league with Big Business, so any political party with a genuine chance of power acts in the interests of the big corporations and the privileged few at the top.
Motivations
It is expected under capitalism that people will accumulate as much property as possible, with the intention that that people in general will benefit. Unfortunately, this accumulative motivation does not have the desired effect because most people do not benefit.
There are other motivations besides salary: travel, education, interesting work, holidays, more free time, helping people, a feeling of importance, the happiness that comes from doing a good job, and so on. Management theory has it that the single thing most likely to motivate employees was the feeling that what they were doing was important. [Note 3]. Whether you agree with this or not, the important point is that pay is not the only factor.
The primary support for the wage incentive principle is the falsehood that luxuries brings happiness and this falsehood is ruthlessly perpetuated by employers and advertizers alike - they are in collusion with each other, of course. So, selfishness and greed are encouraged. Greed is sometimes even taught in schools; in the words Albert Einstein: “An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career”. [Note 4]
Fairness
Fairness and business are antithetical. Business condones profiteering, pollution and exploitation as long as they remain within the letter of the law (or sometimes even outside the law if they think it‘s worth the risk). Fortunes are spent by businesses every year, lobbying against laws to prevent their worst excesses. Anti-pollution regulations are almost always vigorously opposed by businesses because they impact on profit.
The mass media tends to reinforce the system because it is not free of financial constraints. Advertizers gain influence over content because their money is required to keep the TV stations and newspapers in business, so inevitably the reliability of what is broadcast is suspect. This, of course, reinforces the luxuries falsehood mentioned above.
The media onslaught is so intensive and consistent that many people no longer question it and lead their lives untroubled by self-examination. Why don’t schools teach the whole picture rather than merely one facet, and show people how to think critically about economics, politics, ethics and how they live their lives?
Starving
Under capitalism, insensitivity to human needs is rampant. Many Western countries actually pay for crops to be ploughed back into the fields, while people starve throughout the world (The EEC does this and so do both Canada and the USA).
Production should be determined by human need, by necessity.
Antisocial Behaviour
Strong Capitalists are typically against nationalized healthcare, environmental regulations, and other socially and environmentally beneficial programs. These attitudes are not only anti-socialist, they are antisocial. The opposition is because these programs reduce profit.
The profit requirement prevents capitalism from resolving the injustices that it causes.
A More Socialized World
A more socialized world is possible in which people come before profit. Societal control would be more democratic and less influenced by the rich and by Big Business. The world’s resources could be put to meeting human needs, rather than using them solely to make the rich even richer. It should be a matter of shame for all of us if anyone in the world is starving to death.
People would still work to make a living and they would still buy and sell - there is no excuse for laziness. Some jobs would, of course, pay more than others. The minimum wage would be sufficient to live adequately and healthily.
Excessive bureaucracy has been an issue in some socialist/capitalist hybrid economies, so we must learn from them and maintain the rights of the individual whilst avoiding too much government and bureaucracy. The tax laws should be able to be printed in large print on one side of one sheet of paper, for example.
Schools should teach critical thinking and the responsibilities of living in a society and should present all sides of issues rather than just one side.
These ideas may sound outlandish to many, and that is a result of the propaganda machine that relentlessly reinforces the current system and dismisses alternatives. If you only take away one thing from reading this short piece, let it be this:
Those with wealth and power want things to stay exactly as they are. Why do you think that is?
Notes
1. If Wal-Mart were a country, its 2002 sales of $245 billion would make it No. 31 on the list of the world's largest economies richest nations, ahead of Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Austria.
2. “In 1 year, Halliburton's stock doubles as troop deaths double”
“Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War”
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/stock_troop2.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/15445/
The “10 Most Brazen War Profiteers“:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/41083/
3. This is basically Maslow level 4: “The supervisor can help fulfil esteem needs by showing workers that their work is appreciated”.
http://telecollege.dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/4directing/motivatg/motivate.htm
“Certain things like money, a nice office and job security can help people from becoming less motivated, but they usually don't help people to become more motivated. A key goal is to understand the motivations of each of your employees”
http://www.managementhelp.org/guiding/motivate/basics.htm
semafu
Pro 
Sorry but I couldn't even get past the first sentence.
You are clueless - and if you were a teenager that would be fine, but you look like a grown man from that profile piccy.
Socialism encourages greed, exploitation and wrongdoing of the USSR and CHINA variety. Too much power is in the hands of a tiny number of "know bests" that are not accountable to the public at all.
Socialism is NASTY, not like Enron nasty but really nasty. just a trivial example; the USSR broke the fingers of pianists that were caught playing western music. .. I don’t think the greed of some shitty little Enron trader really matches that, do you?
Socialism is the blight of the 20th century, killing and emiserating millions.
I would have thought that after such clear illustrations of the economic inefficacy and utter moral worthlessness of Socialism, that people would stop supporting this ideology. Of course, this was too much to hope for.