You bring up good points, but there is such a thing as nuanced argument, and we can make distinctions between late and early capitalist models to avoid throwing out mom and pop with Jeff.
I'm not going to argue that capitalism does not bring benefits, it certainly does, I don't think anyone could deny that, but just because it has brought many benefits does not imply:
a.) That its negatives should be ignored or considered negligible by default. (I hear fascist states are highly organized and effcient, surely this benefit outweighs all the censorship, restrictions on freedom, etc. that often accompany this increased organization and efficiency?)
b.) That it is the only system that could bring such benefits.
c.) That there are no better models.
d.) That history is static and the model that works today is also sufficient for the future.
Because none of these hold I think it's worthwhile to call capitalism, and other systems, into question and see if we can envision alternatives.
As far as lamenting goes--since when was it a rule that I had to approach systems with an all or nothing mentality? So because I dislike one side effect of capitalism I have to dislike all of its side effects? Huh?
Doubtless Amazon is convenient, but you cannot deny that the Amazonian dominance (hah) has indeed erased the social relationships from early capitalism that I brought up. I'm pointing out that while we gain plenty from Amazon-- convenience, comfort, reliability--we also have to remain conscious of what we lose: the human quality (faint as it was) that used to exist in economics and the exchange of capital.
Hell, you don't even have to interact with your computer anymore to order toilet paper from amazon, you press a button and its done. Or, more eerily, you talk to Alexa and more or less accept whatever she orders for you--think of the interaction this is replacing. Consider a fur dealer; a detailed discussion with a domain expert about furs and what suits your particular needs is replaced by a technological interface that is assumed to preselect (more or less) the best available option for you without any sophisticated dialogue about it. Sure, someday Alexa will probably be an expert in furs as well--but we are losing something when companies are allowed to grow to incredible size at global scale. The world does become incredibly convenient--every purchase is an amazon purchase so the familiarity makes it near impossible to screw up or be cheated or surprised--but it also reduces individuality and choice.
Your concerns about the government are certainly not unfounded. Based on my anecdotal experience they seem a little overblown but you are right to call these things into question. I'm not sure it needs to be one or the other. It's quite likely both the big G and capitalism are contributors to the world's woes. Note however, that most of the issues stemming from big government you mention are intimately tied up with the flow of capital (retirement fund, saving rates, income...)
Amazon et. al. has not removed any of the interactions you've described, it's only changed shape. As fewer workers are needed to perform retail sales that labor is freed to perform other human interactive services. Many of those people now work in healthcare which is very hands on social interaction. There's more restaurants and bars, popular centers for social interaction. Lamenting the fall of mom and pop retail establishments is like lamenting the loss of the milk man. The new system is better and the milk man is now your masseuse, or physical therapist, or details your car, or provides some other valuable service for you.
People said it was "late stage capitalism" when Walmart destroyed the mom and pop.. and frankly that's who really did it. But that was a generation ago. Amazon is really just destroying Walmart. But more to the point whatever social fabric WalMart might have damaged it's nothing compared to the destruction of the family and social bonds that falls right at the feet of socialist policies that I've already mentioned. Capitalism is not the culprit here, socialism has been.
I'm not going to argue that capitalism does not bring benefits, it certainly does, I don't think anyone could deny that, but just because it has brought many benefits does not imply:
a.) That its negatives should be ignored or considered negligible by default. (I hear fascist states are highly organized and effcient, surely this benefit outweighs all the censorship, restrictions on freedom, etc. that often accompany this increased organization and efficiency?) b.) That it is the only system that could bring such benefits. c.) That there are no better models. d.) That history is static and the model that works today is also sufficient for the future.
Because none of these hold I think it's worthwhile to call capitalism, and other systems, into question and see if we can envision alternatives.
As far as lamenting goes--since when was it a rule that I had to approach systems with an all or nothing mentality? So because I dislike one side effect of capitalism I have to dislike all of its side effects? Huh?
Doubtless Amazon is convenient, but you cannot deny that the Amazonian dominance (hah) has indeed erased the social relationships from early capitalism that I brought up. I'm pointing out that while we gain plenty from Amazon-- convenience, comfort, reliability--we also have to remain conscious of what we lose: the human quality (faint as it was) that used to exist in economics and the exchange of capital.
Hell, you don't even have to interact with your computer anymore to order toilet paper from amazon, you press a button and its done. Or, more eerily, you talk to Alexa and more or less accept whatever she orders for you--think of the interaction this is replacing. Consider a fur dealer; a detailed discussion with a domain expert about furs and what suits your particular needs is replaced by a technological interface that is assumed to preselect (more or less) the best available option for you without any sophisticated dialogue about it. Sure, someday Alexa will probably be an expert in furs as well--but we are losing something when companies are allowed to grow to incredible size at global scale. The world does become incredibly convenient--every purchase is an amazon purchase so the familiarity makes it near impossible to screw up or be cheated or surprised--but it also reduces individuality and choice.
Your concerns about the government are certainly not unfounded. Based on my anecdotal experience they seem a little overblown but you are right to call these things into question. I'm not sure it needs to be one or the other. It's quite likely both the big G and capitalism are contributors to the world's woes. Note however, that most of the issues stemming from big government you mention are intimately tied up with the flow of capital (retirement fund, saving rates, income...)