Paper Sample: Argument Against Fisher in Support of Capitalism

Introduction

Capitalism is the new global realism that is pursued to create generational wealth. Fisher claims that depression results from entrepreneurial practices, which is not the true reflection of the impact of entrepreneurship in society (Allman 12). Capitalism encourages entrepreneurship, which provides job opportunities. Hence, with job security, there is no social unrest that may be triggered by high unemployment rates. People who are not employed are subject to psychological stress, thereby leading to a mental breakdown. Therefore, Fisher's position that entrepreneurial practices cause mental illness is not well-founded since capitalism has created more opportunities, well managed, and favorably paying. Therefore, it would not be possible to generate such a capacity of employment when socialism was the concept applied in the current era of technological advancement. It is because people are disseminated to various parts of the world, seeking favorable working conditions. The abnormality that is associated with the high demand for work that has been generated by capitalists is a stereotype. Every capitalist aim is to produce more, and they decentralize operations to achieve efficient management and operations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Consequently, private ownership enhances effective cooperative operations since it has limited bureaucracies (Kibler et al. 948). It reduces the mental stress that would have occurred when dealing with the externalities that would have occurred in a socialist society. Therefore, capitalism enhances forward-thinking that exposes people to opportunities and enables the capitalists to provide opportunities. Opportunities from the created jobs offer social security to people since they can meet their livelihood. With an empowered society, there is reduced mental stress, depression, and anxiety, and the capitalists also enjoy favorable investment conditions, for they face reduced societal backlash.

Argument on Ecological Destruction

Fisher argues that capitalism cannot exist without threatening ecological sustainability (Allman 32). When keenly analyzed, capitalism promotes private ownership that reduces the risk posed to the environment by a less restrictive socialist economy. Capitalists use limited resources to maximize output, enabling the ecological resources to be sparingly used and reproduced without being extinct (Kibler et al. 950). Therefore, Fisher's proclamation is retrogressive and does not explain how ecological sustainability can be maintained in a socialist economy. In a socialist economy, every person relies on limited resources without diversification that can enable a cyclical renewal of the resources. To ensure the long-term existence and use by future generations, capitalists generate a lot of output from limited resources, thereby enabling a sustainable ecological system.

Also, a capitalist is investing a lot in production that addresses the issues of climate change. There is reduced social tension in a capitalist environment because there is a regulated number of people. Compared to a socialist environment where everyone is fighting for limited resources, capitalists can be regulated since they are few entities owning large amounts of resources and employing many people. When mandated with ecological conservation responsibility, they can control those existing in their industries to offer ecological sustainability. With a growing global population, a socialist economy can cause danger to the ecology. Ecological conservation may be mayhem since the entire population will be relying on limited ecological resources. Without proper control and limiting the usage scope, survival of the fittest will render some people a victim of injustice. Hence capitalism effectively deals with the ecological issue.

Argument on Erasure of History

Ownership has a critical role in the production. Fisher advocates for socialism, which does not provide a conducive environment for production. For capitalists to be in a production that meets their customers' needs, they are always dynamic to change. They employ futuristic methods of production that socialists argue erase history. Over the years, the mode of production has kept on changing. In the ancient world, production was not mechanized. With large volumes of production and increased knowledge, human beings have devised methods to ease their production methods. It has not rendered the production history erased since most production methods are rooted in the ancient ways of production. The only change is improving the capacity and making the production more efficient to meet the current demand.

Global trends have always influenced the way capitalists operate. It is worth noting that this has not affected any change in history. The existing production techniques are what the capitalists keep on improving (Thébaud 68). It saves them the overhead costs and reduces their costs of production. Since most ownership of capitalists are private, of a distinct social class, and have state protections, they employ production methods to enable the social class. The working class is higher in number relative to the owners. Therefore, to control social disruption, the capitalist implements ways to enable the working class to have favorable working conditions. It does not imply a change or erase history as advocated for by Fisher.

Capitalists Argument on Addiction to Technology

Capitalists employ technology in their production. Fisher argues that capitalism leads to addiction to technology. For efficient production and to meet the market capacity because of monopoly, capitalists seek to employ technology (Thébaud 71). It does not lead to technological addiction but improves the rates of production. Socialism promotes manual labor because of numbers. Capitalism improves human resource capacity by combining both the manual and mechanized methods of production. It enables the produced output to meet the customers' choices and preferences. In the real world which is characterized by competition, this offers the capitalists a competitive edge. By employing technology, the capitalists also incline themselves to the ever-changing global market and technological advancement. It overrides the socialists' school of not mechanizing their production, leading to a short supply of products to the ever-growing market. To match then the psychological change of people on various products, capitalists conform to how the customers shall receive the products upon production.

Argument of Capitalism against the Fisher Principle of Gross Wealth Inequality

Fisher advances the theory that capitalism leads to gross wealth inequality (Allman 48). It is not the case since the capitalists are only job creators. They invest their resources in projects that a majority of people do not seek to take the risk. Due to the risk they have to overcome; they presuppose conditions that enable them to earn back and enjoy the economies of the risk they took. Moreover, most capitalists are entrepreneurs who have identified a market gap and seek to exploit it. They take on the opportunity cost, invest in a given production, create jobs, and meet market demands. It earns them considerable dividends that the socialist claim is exploitative to the general society. It does not provide an analysis of how capitalists cause wealth inequality. Since capitalists depend on the working class for production, prudently, they promote income distribution. Industrialization does not occur without privatization. Most of the investors are always discouraged by government bureaucracies; therefore, states offer private ownership. It enhances economic growth and development. And are the opportunities that are always occupied by the capitalists. It overrides Fisher's position of promoting socialism.

Argument on Cultural Slowdown

Capitalism also promotes cultural growth. It is contrary to Fisher's feeling that capitalism limits cultural growth. Capitalists do not exist in a vacuum but in a social environment. They have to be accepted to attract a working relationship between the people and the business owners. The capitalists always aim at conforming to the cultural background of the environment they seek to invest (Thébaud 79). It enables them to establish an environment that is profitable to them and offers society social incentives. Fisher poses that cultural growth is only experienced in a socialist space, but this is not a just statement.

Capitalists cannot exist without people since there lies the market. With the existence of people, cultural growth is always promised. The capitalist always has to meet the demands that are desired by the people (Allman 68). Therefore, to achieve this, they have to incline themselves on the cultural understanding of the people. Hence, capitalism also promotes cultural growth, and this position opposes Fisher's claims.

Conclusion

Fisher's economic position advocates for socialism. It discredits the capitalists' stance with insignificant principles. Constrained world resources require capitalistic methods of operation. It shall limit the usage of the resources since most of the resources will be handled by a few people, and it is easier to hold them accountable. To absorb the large population of young people searching for job opportunities, capitalists are industrialists, and entrepreneurs are needed to fill the employment and market gaps.

Works Cited

Allman, Paula. Critical Education against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Critical Education. Brill Sense, 2019. https://brill.com/view/title/36555

Kibler, Ewald, et al. "The evaluative legitimacy of social entrepreneurship in capitalist welfare systems." Journal of World Business 53.6 (2018): 944-957. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090951616302498

Thébaud, Sarah. "Status beliefs and the spirit of capitalism: Accounting for gender biases in entrepreneurship and innovation." Social Forces 94.1 (2015): 61-86. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/94/1/61/1753699