What are the pros and cons of capitalism?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: What are the pros and cons of capitalism?
Position‹2 of 2: Capitalism is bad
Argument‹4 of 5›: Capitalism ignores social needs

The success of capitalism is entirely contingent on the premise of every citizen being able to work. Capitalism doesn't provide for people that cannot work (the disabled or elderly). It is a system that values profit over the needs of the people.

The argument

Capitalism ignores the needs of the society in many ways. First, capitalism doesn’t provide for the disabled. The success of capitalism is contingent on the idea of every person in a given society being able to work. However, disabled people or people with chronic illnesses, for example, might not be capable of working as hard or for as long as an able-bodied person. Capitalism discriminates against people who cannot work, leaving them to instead live in poverty or on limited government benefits. Capitalist societies depend on these socialist programs to provide for the well-being of society’s most vulnerable. In addition, the privatization of healthcare and pharmaceutical companies has made seeking medical help extremely inaccessible, and disabled people have limited options in regard to earning the money needed to afford treatment. Socialist programs are needed for the most disadvantaged. A system that doesn’t work for all is a flawed system. Also, if people can’t contribute to supply (the elderly or disabled) then they are no longer viewed as important; they are marginalized. The culture of productivity in capitalist societies is toxic and makes people feel ashamed for not being able to work as hard as their able-bodied peers, which has a detrimental impact on their mental health. Capitalism will also overprice or under-provide goods with positive externalities (health, public transportation, and education). Government provided socialist programs are again needed to provide or make affordable these public goods and services.

Premises

[P1]Capitalism assumes everyone can work, so it fails to provide for the disabled and chronically ill, discriminating against those who cannot work and leaving them in poverty or dependent on socialist programs. [P2] It also makes healthcare inaccessible through privatisation, marginalises those who cannot contribute to supply, fosters a toxic productivity culture harmful to mental health, and under-provides positive-externality goods like health, transport, and education. [C] Therefore, because it ignores society's social needs, capitalism is bad.

Counter-arguments

Capitalism needs social programs and regulations to keep the system in check. Checks and balances have been applauded within government but are used as an attack against capitalism; this does not make sense. Capitalism provides opportunity and encourages innovation and for the small population that is not able to work in this system social programs are relied on as a safety net which is not a bad thing.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That the system assumes everyone can work is stated rather than argued, and the premise's own evidence tells against it: disability benefits, public healthcare and social insurance exist in every developed market economy, so provision for those who cannot work is a feature of these societies rather than an absence in them. Treating those programmes as external to capitalism is the assumption doing the work. [Rejecting P2] The list mixes claims of different kinds — privatised healthcare is a policy choice many market economies have not made, marginalising those who cannot produce is not confined to any one system, and under-provision of positive-externality goods is a recognised market failure with a standard corrective the premise itself names. That the remedies exist and are widely used is a case for regulation, the counter's point, rather than for the verdict the conclusion reaches.