: Now, there are ways around [market saturation]. One way is capital investment in production- creating new and better products to stimulate more consumption. However, this leads to a decline in overall proffit (The rate of profit) as more and more accumulated capital is spent on capital investment, as a share of gross profits- so again a decline of overproduction sets in- sack the workers (Fun game this, innit?)One of the major problem with socialism is idleness. In a system of minimal competition and absolute equality, there is no motivation to progress socially. Where do the artists, scientists, philosophers, musicians come from? The intellectuals from the Soviet Union's communist regime appeared in opposition to the government, not in cooperation with it.
On the other hand, capitalism promotes inequality, which promotes progress. Capitalism is dynamic and far from idle. The capital investment in production you describe is the perfect example. The full force of economic motivation (to prevent market saturation) is behind research and development. That's why there are Thomas Edisons and Henry Fords. (The U.S. capitalism is negligent in the arts. There are too many "starving artists." Economics has little influence in art, and so art suffers as long as we consider that economics drives the capitalist society.)
However, I agree capitalism is lacking in humanitarian concerns. I don't like the idea of economic empowerment of the elite or class castes. To me, "middle class" is synonymous with "mediocrity" because it is so large. However, in a socialist system, the entire populace would be the living embodiment of mediocrity, with no instigation for progress.
In meantime, capitalistic diversity is good for social progress.
Evan Kirby
None.
