: You accept that individual liberty when combined with private property does create huge opportunities for people to create wealth and abundance then, thats good.
Marxists have never denied the capita;lism is amazing, nor that it is progressive, simply that in teh end, it does a lot of harm as well.
: I think its 'collapses' are not spectacular. I do think that the rich make easy-life armchair socialists (the 'liberal' sort one finds in America) whose very existence is made possible by that which they decry.
Capitalism doesn't collapse, but if we look at '68 or '73 (the big one) its crises did a lot of harm to workers across teh board, and as it becomes less profitable to invest in production, more and more money goes into zero-sum economics, like buying shares, currencies, or land, speculation, which makes lots of money, but doesn't produce anything; and which creates a plethora of mini market crises in these areas, which do a lot of harm.
: All systems must be based upon scarce resources. Capitalism frees people to interact with those resources in a non-coercive manner. It can just about be perceived in the west, behind a shroud of statism.
Yes, but it doesn't free us enough, once we have socialism, we wwill have total freedom of usage of resources.
: Scarcity does not disapear though. Scarcity of food may disapear in welathier nations, but then you get scarcity of other demanded resources (dare I say holidays!) which may not be vital to biologocal survival. It doesn no undo its own logic.
In terms of most goods, it does, most markets (production that is) end up saturated. We could even have a three day weeek, but then we'd never have enough wages to live on. Effective abundance is possible.
: The cycles of oversupply are mediated by changes in technology, and restricted to sectors of an economy, rather than massive all over cycles.
Ignoring the 30's, '68, '73, the ongoing rate of two million unemployed in Britain, etc. the downward slope to stagnancy approaches.