In terms of material wealth Western commerce structures have produced more. However, much suffering has occurred a result. High levels of pollution, propping up of corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources for cheap cost, environmental damage done to poor countries, etc.
The costs of this material wealth have not been measured fully. Typically fields like economics only look at financial matters to determine that we are better off. The 'we' part changes depending on context. Are people in the Nigerian deltas better off? Every two years or so they experience a Gulf of Mexico BP level oil spill. Acidity levels in the ocean are increasing and then there is global warming.
In some countries life is good (generally speaking) but this good life does come, at least partially, at the expense of others. From my perspective there is a serious problem with capitalism and Western commerce structures. The problems seem to be getting worse.
> In terms of material wealth Western commerce structures have produced more. High levels of pollution, propping up of corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources for cheap cost, environmental damage done to poor countries, etc.
It is inarguable that all these things have occurred. The point I hope to politely contest is that this is a function of Western commerce structures to a greater degree than other commerce structures.
The reason is that the Soviet Union had ecological catastrophe on a scale far beyond anything observed in the West:
Basically, for every Three Mile Island class event in the West, you had a Chernobyl (or more than one) under the communist regimes.
Put another way -- there's no question that large corporations will pollute if they can get away with it, which is why some form of externality regulation is necessary. But large governments will also pollute if they can get away with it, and in the absence of independent power structures formed by individuals (= capitalism/markets), there is only politics -- and governments outside the West have tended to be less answerable to their people.
Thus, a non-Western commerce structure which produced less material wealth (namely communism) also produced "high levels of pollution" and "environmental damage in poor countries". Communists also certainly propped up corrupt regimes in return for access to resources at cheap cost (e.g. the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was in part driven by their desire to get to the Gulf).
I'm not trying to split hairs here by any means, just saying that the "overthrow of capitalism" which the original post advocates will not solve the very real problems you identify, and the historical record indicates that it may in fact exacerbate them. Now, there might be a third solution[1] which is not communism or capitalism that does not result in the problems you describe, but (IMO) it's unlikely to simply be an intermediate between the two.
---
[1] I found the following article by Steven Johnson interesting, on how open source doesn't fit into the market-oriented frame of capitalism nor the command-and-control frame of socialism/communism:
I think the paradox he observes is that people are motivated by socioeconomic status, and that open source contributors are more interested in the "socio" (= props from other programmers) than the "economic" part of that equation. Given that the "economic" part dominated thought in the 20th century, even to the extent that people actually used it as a proxy for (rather than correlate of!) social class, it might be profitable to think more in terms of the "socio" end[2] of things should one want to start improving society.
[2] I hesitate to use the term "game mechanics" in such a discussion, but this kind of thing makes recycling fun, and takes it out of the market frame:
There was a far greater ecological disaster in the former Soviet Union than in the United States. I don't think the comparison is fair since Soviet chemical and gas companies didn't do quite the level of investment in third world countries as American companies did. I think one needs to factor in things like Bhopal, Nigeria delta, etc. when comparing to the Soviet Union. We just shifted the dirty work, literally, to other countries.
The problem as I see it comes from trading with countries without high levels of worker safety standards and environmental standards. Also from not accounting for negative externalities. A tax on carbon would be useful. Things like that.
A man said many years ago that the love of money was the source of all evil and this, I think, is the crux with the problem of capitalism. Money is not a great motivator. Newton did not invent calculus to make billions. Leonardo would not have painted better if he had been paid more. I don't the answers to the problem but I do believe there is a huge problem with capitalism and, more specifically, corporatism.
Adam Smith opposed corporations because the externalities weren't accounted for (to use modern parlance). I agree with him on this. There are lots of examples of corporations acting in a brutally authoritarian way and the comment by nazgulnarsil seems to imply that by reading history one comes away with a view opposite to:
" fortune 500 company a "brutal authority" "
Again, I don't know the solution but there is a problem and plenty of examples of Fortune 500 companies acting with brutal authority.
EDIT: I'm not implying in any way that the Soviet Union was a model or that it ought to be emulated. I don't suggest communism as practiced by the Warsaw Pact nations was better than capitalism.
This is a good question. I believe a libertarian society would function well; but what about the boundarys between societies -- Could somebody live in libertopia, but operating plantations in slavtopia where the labour is cheap and fear keeps environmentalists away. (note: I think there is something to prevent it --- I just don't see what it is yet).
However, your other points: nobody is motivated by money. They want the 'wealth' it is convertable too. And wealth is all valuable things: medicine, automobiles, green energy, free range chicken, homes, etc.
'Wealth of Nations' Adam Smith? I don't recall him being that specific. The wealth of nations was largely an accounting of the wealth of Britain and his inquiry into the cause of it (capital, specialized labour, deregulation).
---
Actually I think I have a solution. If libertopia was better -- no skilled labour would move (or stay) in slavtopia. The few viable industries (diamond mining, oil & gas, lumber, etc) would expire as Libertopia naturally developed alternatives (like it already has: synthetics, electric cars, composite woods).
"I'm not implying in any way that the Soviet Union was a model or that it ought to be emulated. I don't suggest communism as practiced by the Warsaw Pact nations was better than capitalism."
I would take it a step further and say that it was inferior in almost every way. There are individuals and organizations that behave with "brutal authority" in every society, but when it is the government and they have absolute (unchecked) power, then it is far worse.
The costs of this material wealth have not been measured fully. Typically fields like economics only look at financial matters to determine that we are better off. The 'we' part changes depending on context. Are people in the Nigerian deltas better off? Every two years or so they experience a Gulf of Mexico BP level oil spill. Acidity levels in the ocean are increasing and then there is global warming.
In some countries life is good (generally speaking) but this good life does come, at least partially, at the expense of others. From my perspective there is a serious problem with capitalism and Western commerce structures. The problems seem to be getting worse.