That doesn't mean Capitalism can't do better. I'm extremely tired of this "Capitalism did good things once! Why are you criticizing Capitalism?" trope when talking about the very obvious flaws of it.
I don't know what the solution is. Every government intervention has the potential to distort the market and create corrupt/perverse incentives. Rent control is a great example of something that sounds nice on paper but ends up increasing housing costs as a result. I'm generally in favor of expanding the welfare state but I think we should be extremely cautious in doing so.
Scandinavia says hi. And those "disastrous" times you're talking about are more the result of dictators, than any economic system used.
Idk, maybe I'm spending too much on the internet but it seems like the discussion around inequality has shifted from "let's increase the welfare state" to "let's dismantle capitalism and give socialism a try". There seem to be a lot of people these days that call themselves Marxists or capital-S Socialists, and even some who are apologists for the likes of Stalin and Mao. These people are everywhere on Reddit and HackerNews.
I'm all for the Scandinavian model (which, to be clear, is capitalism with a large welfare state and a sovereign wealth fund, not socialism), but do I want a planned economy or a dictatorship of the proletariat? No, because it doesn't work.
> And those "disastrous" times you're talking about are more the result of dictators, than any economic system used.
Socialists use this argument a lot but I can't think of a scenario in which socialism doesn't eventually devolve into fascism. Even if the means of production are owned by the workers, the workplaces are run democratically, and resources are allocated by direct consensus, you'll still need to use coercion to force people to participate in the economy. If people in village A need more grain and the farmers in village B don't want to produce more grain, do you point a gun to the farmers' heads and make them produce more grain? Disagreements will still happen in Socialist societies. People will still fundamentally be selfish. People will still want to barter with each other and enrich themselves through their labor, intellect, and unique talents. How do you seize peoples' property, prevent them from bartering and hoarding, and force them to participate in a planned economy without a massive and violent state apparatus?
The great thing about capitalism is that it recognizes the inherent self-interestedness of human beings and channels it into something that is (mostly) positive for society. Socialism starts with the premise that human beings would behave in higher-minded way if only they had more economic power, which I think is a flawed assumption and the reason why socialist economies will always fail.
Given how shitty capitalism is treating people right now, that's a pretty valid viewpoint.
"There seem to be a lot of people these days that call themselves Marxists or capital-S Socialists, and even some who are apologists for the likes of Stalin and Mao. These people are everywhere on Reddit and HackerNews."
So what?
"Socialists use this argument a lot but I can't think of a scenario in which socialism doesn't eventually devolve into fascism."
I can't really think of a scenario in which capitalism doesn't either.
"The great thing about capitalism is that it recognizes the inherent self-interestedness of human beings and channels it into something that is (mostly) positive for society."
This isn't a positive, and it does not channel it into positives for society. Captialism encourages things like dumping waste into rivers. How is that a positive for society?
And yet something less than full blown socialism seems to work fine just about everywhere.