> Capitalism has defined ‘health’ itself as a capacity to submit oneself to labor
People keep mindlessly saying this but I have never seen evidence for it. Before money was ever invented the idea was already there that if you're healthy you can sustain yourself. All 'capitalism' did was saying "and most people nowadays perform abstract services in trade for an abstraction of a promise of a pinky swear saying "if you trade this pinky swear to me you'll get some food".
It's not 'economic systems that are fundamentally hostile to bodies that cannot produce consistently', it's a fundamental reality of life. Either you are capable of getting enough food for you and your family, either directly by farming, gathering or hunting, or you are not.
We have plenty of food because of capitalism (particularly the fact that we have plenty of incredibly cheap food grown by a tiny fraction of our population).
You're missing my point. Shortage and conflict is the default. It's not a fault unique to capitalism, and to say that it's its fault is missing the mark.
I'm not saying it's an ought situation or even an is situation; it's that I disagree with his diagnosis of what causes it.
Well right now there isn't a food shortage so what should we do while there isn't a food shortage? Should we perhaps say, that we only jettison the disabled people once we're actually running out of food and are forced to make a tough decision about who to keep alive, instead of doing it 20 years in advance just because there might be a shortage one day?
Whether we as a society support those who cannot productively contribute is orthogonal to capitalism. Capitalism itself has nothing to say about what we do with the increases in productivity. You can see this in many developed countries, which have wealth and surplus thanks to their capitalistic markets, but they also have high taxes and a strong safety net.
> Capitalism itself has nothing to say about what we do with the increases in productivity.
No, it has a lot to say about that. Our system encourages self-interest and maximizing profits, and that is what businesses do. Increases in productivity increase how much there is to skim off the products of said productivity. To them, using it for reasons outside profiteering is an immoral and wasteful. All the biggest players are aligned on this, and they are desperate to get another droplet of productivity by spending their money and power in all the right places. Corruption, favoritism, advertising, propaganda, monopolism (to accrue as much leverage over people and governments as possible). This is the default state that the system leads us to, it's not orthogonal, this is its natural outcome.
The counterexamples are countries that have found ways to counteract this influence in spite of the incentives. Usually it takes the right culture, as well as strong and competent government that looks out for their citizens. Capitalist absolutists rightfully see that all of this hinders their progress, so the fight between the 'make money at all costs' and 'we need to look out for other people' will always continue. If you don't fight it, you get something akin to the modern US.
Capitalism means resource allocation is primarily decided by billionaires. Why would they give resources up in any way that doesn't make them even richer?
Right-libertarianism means a system where everyone has maximum liberty including the liberty to take away each other's liberty (as opposed to left-libertarianism where we don't have that liberty) but capitalism means a society where liberty is proportional to capital.
No capitalist actually wants free and fair competition. A pure free market isn't the most efficient and productive means of making a profit, and they're in business to make as much money as possible.
What gets aspired to under the guise of "free market capitalism" is deregulation of the market in the ways which allow businesses to exploit consumers without consequences, such as lowering of environmental regulations or safety standards, but regulation when it hinders their competitors and lets them entrench their market position. Free market capitalism fails because of simple human nature - greed doesn't optimize for ethics, so neither do markets.
Any ideal system that simply expects people to act rationally and ethically en masse is doomed to fail, which is why capitalism only works when regulated and in the context of a society with strong social cohesion and a safety net because certain things like education and healthcare shouldn't be subject to free market dynamics.
Absolutely. It's a gray area though when you become partially able to support yourself. I think this is what the article is pointing out. You have to come to grips with this grim economic reality and it's hard and your future prospects are almost entirely based on where and to whom you were born. The author is simply lucky that they have a safety net. If you are lucky enough to have time to prepare for these things, you can build your own. If you don't prepare, given the opportunity, that's a 'you' problem.
Capitalism reinforces individualistic cultures. The reality is humans aren't so different from ants or other social insects. Individuals don't instantly die when alone, yet we survive better and longer together.
People keep mindlessly saying this but I have never seen evidence for it. Before money was ever invented the idea was already there that if you're healthy you can sustain yourself. All 'capitalism' did was saying "and most people nowadays perform abstract services in trade for an abstraction of a promise of a pinky swear saying "if you trade this pinky swear to me you'll get some food".
It's not 'economic systems that are fundamentally hostile to bodies that cannot produce consistently', it's a fundamental reality of life. Either you are capable of getting enough food for you and your family, either directly by farming, gathering or hunting, or you are not.