Autopsy of Capitalism: Dissecting a Top-Heavy System’s Flaws
Originally published on 24 February, 2024, now updated for 2025 and featured in our new Substack space
Introduction
Modern capitalism is often championed for generating wealth and innovation, but beneath its surface lie stark disparities and systemic crises. In this “autopsy” of capitalism, we cut open the system to examine its vital organs – wealth distribution, labor, media, politics, and the planet – and find many in a state of decay. The goal isn’t mere indictment; it’s to illuminate facts and spark discussion on whether capitalism, as it stands, truly serves the majority. The tone here is unapologetically critical and activist, but every claim is grounded in evidence and historical context.
The Pyramid of Capitalist System - A Powerful Visual Critique
A 1911 political cartoon titled “Pyramid of Capitalist System” illustrates a society stratified by class – from a wealthy elite at the top to workers at the bottom supporting the entire edifice. Over a century later, its message about labor propping up luxury remains disturbingly relevant.
I. Extreme Inequality and Human Cost
It is often said that capitalism has lifted many out of poverty, yet the distribution of its rewards has been extraordinarily uneven. Today, billionaires and corporate giants hold a staggering share of global wealth, while billions struggle to meet basic needs. According to an Oxfam report, just 26 ultra-rich individuals now hold as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people – half of humanity.
Billionaire fortunes are compounding at rates unimaginable to ordinary families: in 2018, billionaires saw their net worth increase by $2.5 billion per day. Meanwhile, the bottom half saw their wealth fall by 11% that year. Such wealth concentration has only intensified in recent crises; during the COVID-19 pandemic, billionaire wealth surged even as millions fell ill or lost jobs.
At the height of the pandemic, billionaires’ net worth grew by $5.2 billion per day, even as approximately 24,000 people died per day from hunger.
The global economy produces $400 trillion in wealth, yet “9 million people die of hunger every year… Shame on us,” as the director of the World Food Programme remarked, highlighting the moral outrage of such loss amidst plenty.
An aerial view of Buenos Aires starkly contrasts a lush wealthy district (left) with a densely packed slum (right). Such juxtapositions – mansions and pools beside tin-roof shacks – are visceral reminders of capitalism’s winners and losers, often separated by only a wall or a road.
Within wealthy nations, gaps between the rich and everyone else have widened to levels last seen in the Gilded Age. In the United States, for example, worker productivity rose about 74% from 1973 to 2013, but typical workers’ hourly compensation rose only 9%.
In simpler terms, workers have been vastly more productive, yet most of the gains accumulated to owners and executives – a trend economists describe as workers “running faster but standing still.” It’s no surprise,then, that the richest 1% of people now have more than twice the wealth of the entire bottom 99% combined.
Middle-class incomes have stagnated while the top 0.1% amass fortunes; the American middle class in 2007 would have earned $17,000 more per year if inequality had not accelerated since the late 1970s.
The human costs of these disparities are devastating. Across the world, over 3.4 billion people struggle to survive on less than $5.50 a day, many lacking reliable food, housing, or healthcare. Even in affluent countries, poverty and precarity persist alongside opulence. A stable job with a living wage and benefits has become a fading dream for many, replaced by gig work or exploitative conditions. Every statistic on inequality translates into real lives: children who go to bed hungry, families one medical bill away from bankruptcy, workers doing two jobs and still unable to afford rent. In a world of smartphones and space travel, millions die from preventable causes like malnutrition and lack of medicine. This is not due to a lack of resources – clearly, the wealth is there – but due to how the system allocates those resources. Capitalism’s apologists celebrate its wealth creation; its critics ask, wealth for whom?
II. “Spin Doctors” and the Illusion of Merit
With inequality at such extremes, one might expect widespread revolt. Why do so many people accept, or even defend, a system that leaves them with so little? Part of the answer lies in how capitalism’s narrative is managed. From corporate-funded think tanks to PR firms and media conglomerates, a vast ideological apparatus works to justify the status quo. We are told that “anyone can make it” with hard work, that the market rewards merit and punishes laziness. This powerful myth of meritocracy and upward mobility has been continuously reinforced in popular culture and politics, but reality tells a different story.
In the U.S., often hailed as the land of opportunity, only about 7.8% of children born in the poorest fifth of households will climb to the richest fifth in adulthood. Americans believe the number is higher (on average, they guess a 11.7% chance), reflecting an optimism instilled by the American Dream narrative. In truth, social mobility in the U.S. is lower than in many European countries, meaning a person’s life prospects are more tied to their parents’ socioeconomic status. The rags-to-riches story is still popular, and it makes people less likely to demand change — because if they believe the system is fair or think they have a chance to become rich themselves, they’re less likely to question or challenge how things work.
Corporate media plays a key role in shaping perceptions. Consider that 90% of U.S. media outlets are owned by just six corporations (Comcast, Disney, AT&T, ViacomCBS, News Corp, and Sony). This concentration puts enormous power in the hands of a few profit-driven executives. It doesn’t require a secret conspiracy for media to exhibit a pro-corporate bias; it’s often enough that news organizations are themselves big businesses.
They naturally tend to frame issues in market-friendly terms and avoid truly radical critiques of the economic system that enriches their owners. Investigative journalist Upton Sinclair put it bluntly decades ago:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
When mainstream platforms only present a limited range of viewpoints, people may start to believe that these are the only reasonable opinions. For example, it's common to see debates about whether to slightly raise or lower taxes on billionaires, but rarely do we hear anyone question why billionaires exist at all while others go hungry. The dominant narratives are the ones that protect the interests of those already in power.
The business world has its own “spin doctors” – public relations strategists and lobbyists whose job is to maintain a favorable environment for corporations. They skillfully employ subliminal programming in advertising and messaging, associating products with happiness and status, while deflecting attention from harm.
A classic example is the tobacco industry’s decades-long campaign to downplay the link between smoking and cancer. Today, we see similarly brazen efforts by fossil fuel companies regarding climate change (more on that later). Oil giant ExxonMobil, for instance, knew about the climate-altering effects of carbon emissions as early as 1977, thanks to their own scientists, and understood the potential catastrophe.
Instead of warning the public, Exxon spent subsequent decades funding think tanks and media campaigns to seed doubt about climate science and block action. The strategy was straight out of the tobacco playbook – even using some of the same PR firms and consultants who once obfuscated smoking’s dangers. This tactic of manufacturing doubt to protect profits has been dubbed the “Merchants of Doubt” phenomenon, and it’s a sobering reminder that truth can be a casualty when high profits are at stake.
Meanwhile, corporate lobbying and campaign donations flood our politics with money, often drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. In the U.S., companies and industry groups spend roughly $3.3 billion every year on lobbying federal officials – that’s official spending, not counting “dark money” routed through Super PACs and nonprofits after the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
The result is policies that often reflect the wishes of big donors rather than the public interest. A famous Princeton study in 2014 found that when the preferences of economic elites and interest groups are accounted for, the influence of average voters on policy outcomes is “only a minuscule, near-zero… statistically non-significant” factor.
In plainer terms, ordinary citizens have little to no independent impact on U.S. government policy, compared to the rich and powerful – a state of affairs political scientists call “economic elite domination”. This undermines democracy at its core. Yet, thanks to relentless messaging, many voters have been convinced that the real threats to their freedom are things like immigrants, or welfare cheats, or “cultural Marxists,” rather than the concentration of wealth and power.
To be sure, not all aspects of capitalism are ignored by media or society – we do see coverage of issues like poverty or corporate malfeasance. But these tend to be framed as isolated problems (a bad CEO here, a market failure there) rather than symptoms of a deeper systemic issue. The activist perspective urges us to connect the dots: when wage stagnation, unaffordable healthcare, student debt, and sky-high rents all coexist with record corporate profits and ever-bigger yachts, that is a systemic issue. It’s the predictable result of an economic model geared toward maximizing returns to capital at any cost.
However, getting that message across means cutting through layers of ideological fog generated by those very returns. As the saying goes,
“The hardest part is making people see the chains they are in.”
Education and awareness – backed by solid facts – are the first steps toward loosening those chains.
Elon Musk’s Nazi Salute vs His Heart Goes Out To People
A raised arm Musk claims was 'his heart going out or Roman Salute' — but echoes dark times. The other, with his hands forms a heart — a symbol of care. Intentions aside, the contrast speaks volumes.
III. The Far-Right Nexus: When Capitalism Meets Authoritarianism
When inequality becomes extreme and popular discontent rises, societies reach an inflection point: either move toward reform and greater equality, or see the status quo maintained by more coercive means.
History offers a chilling precedent for the latter. Capitalism, especially in crisis, has often found an ally in far-right authoritarian movements as a bulwark against calls for redistributive change. Perhaps the starkest example is the rise of fascism in the 20th century. In the early 1930s, as the Great Depression drove desperate masses toward left-wing parties calling for socialist reforms, many wealthy industrialists in Germany threw their support behind Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party.
Why? They feared the growing strength of communists and socialists who threatened to upend the capitalist order. Hitler’s rabid anti-communism and nationalist fervor appealed to these elites as the lesser evil – a force that could crush labor unions and leftist parties, protecting their property and profits.
In 1932, a group of prominent German businessmen and industrial magnates – including figures like Gustav Krupp – wrote to President Hindenburg urging him to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. They believed Hitler could be used as a tool: he would neutralize the left and restore stability, after which the conservative elite could restrain or replace him. Of course, they disastrously miscalculated. Once in power, Hitler smashed not only the communists and trade unions (indeed clearing the way for corporate dominance), but also eliminated any possibility of removing him, and pursued a genocidal agenda that ultimately led to world war.
This episode is a grim reminder that the guardians of capital may resort to empowering anti-democratic, violent forces rather than allow wealth and power to be democratized. In a very real sense, fascism in Europe can be seen as capitalism’s macabre insurance policy: when open democracy puts their privilege at risk, some elites choose to underwrite tyranny.
Such dynamics aren’t confined to the 1930s. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, we see instances of capitalist powers tolerating or actively supporting right-wing dictatorships that protect business interests.
From Pinochet’s Chile (where a U.S.-backed coup in 1973 replaced a socialist president with a military junta that imposed Chicago-school economic policies) to apartheid South Africa (where Western corporations profited despite the regime’s racism), the pattern recurs. Even today, elements of the far-right get significant funding from billionaire donors and corporate lobbies and sometimes from foreign powers to stir up tensions.
For example, fossil fuel tycoons have bankrolled climate-denying politicians and think tanks, - some of which flirt with ethnonationalism-, to ensure nothing impedes their profits. In the United States, the Koch brothers (owners of a petrochemical empire) poured hundreds of millions into building a network of advocacy groups that push far-right economic agendas – opposing environmental regulations, union rights, and social programs.
The Koch brothers and allied billionaires helped fuel the Tea Party movement and later Trumpism, channeling popular anger toward government and immigrants instead of Wall Street. This isn’t to say capitalism causes fascism or racism – those have many roots – but rather that capitalist elites will sometimes harness and amplify those dark currents when they serve their interests.
It’s also worth noting how corporate-friendly rhetoric often coexists with reactionary social politics. Authoritarian leaders frequently promise to unshackle businesses from taxes and regulations (thrilling investors) while stoking culture wars to distract the public. The mix of neoliberal economics with nationalist or theocratic appeals is evident in regimes from Bolsonaro’s Brazil to Modi’s India to Orban’s Hungary.
Each presents itself as a champion of the “common people” against some malign enemy (be it immigrants, minorities, or “globalists”), all while entrenching oligarchic power behind the scenes. In the worst cases, democratic institutions are eroded – independent media muzzled, judges corrupted – until reversing inequality through normal politics becomes nearly impossible. Thus, capitalism’s crises can morph into a vicious cycle: economic grievances feed extremism, which in turn protects the economic system by authoritarian and often violent and forceful means.
The alliance of convenience between billionaire class and far-right demagogues underscores a sobering point: political democracy and unfettered capitalism are often in tension. When push comes to shove, robust democracy – which implies the majority ruling in its own interest – would curb extreme inequality through redistribution, regulation, and public programs. That is precisely what those benefiting from the inequality seek to prevent. So they fund politicians or movements that promise to guard the existing hierarchy, even at the cost of democratic norms.
As citizens, being aware of this dynamic is crucial. When we hear calls for “law and order” crackdowns on protesters, or see propaganda demonizing the poor or marginalized, it’s wise to ask:
Who benefits if society is divided and distracted?
Often, it’s the same interests that would be lost in a fair economic system. Solidarity and informed critique are the antidotes to this strategy of division.
IV. Growth at Any Cost: Capitalism vs. the Planet
Perhaps the most consequential indictment of capitalism is its relationship with our planet’s environment.
A system predicated on endless growth and ever-increasing consumption sits on a collision course with a finite Earth. We are now living that collision. Climate change, mass extinctions, deforestation, ocean acidification – these are not random tragedies, this is what happens when an economic system sees nature as endless and treats it as something outside the system—just a resource to be used and thrown away.
While industrial output and corporate profits surged over the past two centuries, the bill for the damage was left unpaid – until now, when we all face the costs in the form of an unfolding climate crisis. Here too, inequality rears its head: the poorest communities and countries (who contributed least to the problem) suffer the earliest and worst effects, from catastrophic floods to lethal heatwaves, while the rich insulate themselves or even find ways to profit (selling AC units, privatizing water, etc.).
The numbers speak volumes. Since the late 1980s, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions
Let that sink in: a mere hundred corporate and state-protected entities – chiefly fossil fuel producers like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and coal companies – account for the majority of the emissions driving climate breakdown. These firms have reaped trillions in revenues by selling oil, gas, and coal, all the while knowing that their products wreak havoc on the atmosphere. In a functioning moral economy, one would expect urgent action to change course – an energy transition to renewable sources, drastic cuts in carbon output, etc. Yet, due to the disinformation and lobbying campaigns mentioned earlier, meaningful climate policy has been repeatedly delayed or derailed.
Time and again, short-term profit for a few has trumped the long-term survival of many. We now have a narrowing window to avert truly catastrophic warming (scientists warn that time is running out to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C), and capitalism’s growth imperative is arguably the biggest obstacle in that race. After all, quarterly earnings reports and relentless expansion of production/consumption are hardwired expectations in our economies, whereas forests and glaciers cannot speak for themselves in boardrooms.
Protesters at a Global Climate Strike holding a banner with the message "Planet Over Profit"
Climate activists worldwide have highlighted the slogan “Planet Over Profit.” The message is simple: if we continue to prioritize economic growth and corporate profit margins above ecological sustainability, we risk destroying the life-support systems of our civilization.
It’s not that alternatives are unknown. Technologically, we could rapidly shift to renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and circular production systems. The barrier is political and economic: those who profit from the old system fight to maintain it.
Consider the case of BP (British Petroleum) – a company that spent the 2000s rebranding itself as moving “Beyond Petroleum” with green marketing. In reality, BP recently announced plans to spend as much as double the amount on oil and gas projects as on renewable investments in 2023 . Specifically, it earmarked up to $7.5 billion for fossil fuel development, versus at most $5 billion for green energy. Despite advertising itself with images of wind turbines and solar panels, BP is doubling down on oil – especially after the Ukraine war drove prices (and profits) higher.
This kind of greenwashing is rampant: companies talk about sustainability while their core business remains tied to destructive practices. The reason is straightforward – in the current capitalist framework, abandoning lucrative oil reserves or unsustainable supply chains is seen as a fiduciary irresponsibility unless compelled by law or consumer revolt. And those laws are hard to pass when corporate lobbying holds sway.
Environmental destruction under capitalism also extends beyond climate change. The pursuit of profit has led to sprawling dead zones in oceans from overfishing and agricultural runoff, toxic waste dumps leaching into poor communities’ water, and the clearing of rainforests for cattle ranching and palm oil. These crises are interconnected: the Amazon, often dubbed “the lungs of the Earth,” is nearing a tipping point because economic forces value it more as farmland and timber than as a vital carbon sink and biodiverse treasure. Species are going extinct at a rate not seen since the dinosaurs died out, in what scientists call a Sixth Mass Extinction – again, largely driven by habitat loss, pollution, and climate change linked to human economic activity. We are sawing off the branch we’re sitting on. As Greta Thunberg and millions of striking students have pointed out, our house is on fire. Yet the masters of the house are still busy counting their money, convincing us that a sprinkler system (or a Green New Deal) is too expensive.
If there is a ray of hope, it’s that people are mobilizing. Environmental movements around the globe – from Indigenous land protectors blocking pipelines, to youths litigating for their right to a livable future – are directly challenging the capitalist logic that puts profit over planet. They are demanding system change, not climate change. And indeed, addressing the ecological emergency may require transcending the traditional capitalist model. Ideas once dismissed as radical – like “degrowth” (scaling down needless production and consumption in wealthy nations), or legally granting rights to nature, or massively expanding the commons (publicly owned renewable energy, etc.) – are gaining traction.
The climate crisis can be a catalyst to rethink our economic priorities at the most fundamental level. In doing so, it aligns with the critique that capitalism’s endless pursuit of profit is incompatible with a finite environment. We simply cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. One way or another, reality will force a change; the question is whether it comes through deliberate, just transformation or through chaotic collapse.
V. Corruption, Oligarchy, and Eroded Democracy
A healthy society relies on fair and transparent institutions – but under hyper-capitalism, money often subverts justice and democracy. We’ve touched on lobbying and policy capture, but consider also the massive edifice of tax avoidance, financial secrecy, and outright corruption that enables elites to siphon wealth out of communities and hide it offshore.
Studies estimate that as much as $21 to $32 trillion in private financial wealth is stashed in offshore tax havens, beyond the reach of any nation’s tax laws. This shadow wealth, held by ultra-rich individuals and families, represents lost public revenues of around $200-280 billion annually. Those lost funds could have built schools, hospitals, and infrastructure; instead, they accumulate, often untouched, in Caribbean islands or Swiss vaults. Multinational corporations likewise exploit loopholes to shift profits across borders and minimize taxes – some of the biggest companies pay effective tax rates in the single digits if that.
While a small-business owner or a teacher has taxes deducted straight from their modest paycheck, a Fortune 500 corporation may deploy an army of accountants and lawyers to avoid contributing to the society that enables its success. This is sometimes legal, sometimes not – the line between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion is thin and frequently crossed (as shown by leaks like the Panama Papers and Pandora Papers, which exposed how politicians and tycoons secretly shelter income). The result is a parallel system of rules: one for the rich and connected, and one for everyone else.
Corruption isn’t limited to hiding money. It also includes how money buys influence. Election campaigns, especially in the U.S., are exorbitantly expensive – the 2020 U.S. elections saw over $14 billion spent on federal campaigns, more than double the cost just a decade prior. Much of this came from Super PACs and “dark money” groups empowered by Citizens United, funneling billionaire and corporate donations into attack ads and propaganda. When politicians depend on a handful of mega-donors or industry bundlers to stay in power, is it any wonder they respond to those interests?
A striking example: pharmaceutical companies have spent millions lobbying to protect U.S. laws that ban Medicare (the public health program for seniors) from negotiating drug prices. Consequently, Americans pay two to three times more for many medications than Europeans do – a transfer of wealth from patients to pharma shareholders enabled by policy capture. In such cases, legal corruption (through lobbying and campaign finance) costs the public far more than outright bribes would.
Even beyond policy, there’s a corrosive effect on the social fabric. When people see that bankers who crashed the economy in 2008 faced almost no consequences it erodes faith in justice – banks deemed “too big to fail” got bailed out with public money, and not a single top executive went to jail for the rampant fraud that contributed to the crisis.
Compare that to the treatment of, say, a poor person caught shoplifting food or a minority youth caught with a small amount of drugs; the latter often face harsh prosecution and prison. The glaring double standard sends a message: if you’re wealthy enough, the law bends around you. This breeds cynicism and despair, a sense that the game is rigged (which it is). And cynicism can be as dangerous as anger; it leads to withdrawal from civic engagement, leaving the field even more dominated by those with money and power.
However, recognizing these realities is the first step to challenging them. Sunshine is a disinfectant: thanks to investigative journalism and whistleblowers, the public today knows more about these schemes than ever before. Terms like “the 1%,” “oligarchy,” “plutocracy,” “kakistocracy,”once rare, are now common in political discourse. Awareness is spreading that many democracies are turning into plutocracies (rule by the wealthy) unless checked.
The next step is action – closing tax loopholes, enforcing anti-trust laws to break up monopolies, getting big money out of politics, and demanding accountability for corporate crimes. None of that is easy; those benefiting most will resist at every turn. But history shows that progress is possible when people organize and push together. The Progressive Era and the New Deal in the United States tamed some of the worst robber baron excesses through public pressure and reform (antitrust laws, social security, public works, etc.). Those gains have been eroded in recent decades, but they provide a blueprint and inspiration that things can change.
VI. Is Another World Possible? Alternatives and Conclusion
Critiquing capitalism is not an academic exercise – it’s about imagining and building better systems. If this autopsy has revealed a patient (capitalism) with multiple failing organs, we must ask: do we treat and reform the patient, or do we consider fundamentally different models? In truth, it’s not an either/or. Many activists fight for immediate reforms (higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, stronger environmental laws) to alleviate suffering in the here and now, and for long-term systemic change (like transitioning to post-capitalist, democratic economic structures). What might those structures look like? There is no single blueprint, but there are promising experiments and ideas around the world pointing the way.
One such model is the worker cooperative. In contrast to traditional firms where owners and shareholders reap profits and workers simply get wages, a cooperative is owned and governed by its workers, who share the profits. The Mondragon Corporation in Spain is a shining example: founded in the 1950s, it’s now a federation of over 90 co-ops employing about 80,000 people, making everything from appliances to machine tools. Mondragon’s co-ops practice wage solidarity – the highest-paid executives earn at most 6 to 9 times what the lowest-paid workers do. (By comparison, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio at large U.S. companies is over 300:1, and in some cases above 1000:1). No one at Mondragon is a billionaire, but tens of thousands of families enjoy decent livelihoods, and the Basque region benefits from far lower inequality and higher social cohesion.
During economic downturns, Mondragon co-ops have a history of avoiding layoffs by collectively agreeing to temporary pay cuts or reassignments, demonstrating a level of solidarity rare in traditional firms. Worker ownership isn’t a panacea – co-ops still operate in a market and face pressures – but they prove that business can be run democratically, with priorities beyond just maximizing profit for distant investors. Employees in such enterprises report higher job satisfaction and community attachment.
Another avenue is public ownership of key sectors. Many countries successfully run public utilities, transportation systems, or even banks that serve broad social goals rather than short-term profit. For instance, the idea of a public pharmaceutical company has been floated, which would develop essential medicines and sell them at affordable prices, instead of the current model where private pharma often focuses on the most profitable drugs (like lifelong treatments) and sets extreme prices. Similarly, energy could be treated as a public good – imagine a national renewable energy company that rapidly builds solar/wind infrastructure and charges consumers at cost, plowing any surplus into further green transition or back to the public treasury.
This isn’t utopian; historically, public investment has driven many innovations (from the internet to vaccines). The key is accountability – publicly owned institutions must be transparent and answerable to citizens to avoid the stagnation or corruption that sometimes plagues state enterprises. But when run well, they can ensure essential needs (power, water, healthcare, education) are met universally and affordably, taking some areas of life out of the market’s realm.
Even within market capitalism, stronger social democratic policies can humanize the system. Northern European countries, for example, tend to have robust safety nets, high taxes on the rich, and empowered labor unions. The result? Lower inequality, lower poverty, and often higher productivity with innovation – debunking the myth that only laissez-faire policies drive growth. A country like Denmark or Finland still has private property and markets, but the excesses are tempered by public policies (free healthcare, free college, unemployment support, etc.) that give everyone a decent standard of living and opportunity. These societies demonstrate that if there is sufficient political will, capitalist economies can be rewired to share the fruits more equitably. However, even they are not immune to global pressures of capital flight or austerity pushes. Ultimately, we may need to envision deeper changes.
For the more radical imagination, concepts like “degrowth” propose that rich countries intentionally slow down GDP growth and focus on well-being and sustainability. After all, beyond a certain point, ever-rising GDP doesn’t translate to greater happiness – but it does translate to more resource extraction and pollution. Degrowth advocates for scaling back ecologically harmful industries, reducing work hours (people having more free time instead of more money to spend), and measuring progress by health, education, and happiness outcomes rather than production metrics.
This challenges a core capitalist tenet (that growth is always good), but given the ecological emergency, it’s an idea gaining scholarly and activist traction. Likewise, movements for “food sovereignty” push back against corporate agribusiness by empowering local farmers and agroecology, proving that we can feed communities without factory farming or genetic monocultures promoted by big firms.
The road to any of these alternatives is difficult. Entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail to maintain privilege – as they always have.
Yet, history also shows that change often comes suddenly after long periods of organizing. The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement – all seemed impossibly radical until they became reality through collective action and moral courage. Today’s fights against economic injustice and environmental ruin are of similar magnitude. There’s a burgeoning awareness, especially among younger generations, that something is fundamentally wrong with “business as usual.” They have grown up amid financial crises, student debt, gig work instability, and now climate anxiety, and many are questioning the old dogmas. This questioning is healthy and necessary. As the saying goes,
“It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”
But we must imagine economic systems beyond the present one if we hope to have a world at all.
In conclusion, this examination of capitalism’s inner workings – its inequities, its propaganda, its flirtations with authoritarianism, its pillaging of nature, and its subversion of democracy – is not meant to be an obituary. Rather, it’s an invitation to a conversation. By understanding the facts and history, we empower ourselves to ask hard questions: Is this the best we can do? Who does the current system truly serve, and at whose expense? And most importantly, what can we do differently, together? The purpose of an autopsy is to learn the cause of death to help the living. Likewise, analyzing capitalism’s failures can guide us in birthing a more just and sustainable future. The task is urgent – but people around the world are rising to it, armed with knowledge and driven by a desire for dignity, fairness, and a livable planet. The conversation – and the struggle – has only just begun.
.jpg){kind=link}
More Sources
Oxfam / Al Jazeera – Inequality Report (2019): “World’s 26 richest people own same wealth as poorest half of humanity.” Highlights extreme global wealth disparity and urges taxing the wealthy.
World Food Programme – Hunger vs. Wealth (2021): WFP Director David Beasley’s remarks at the UN Food Systems Summit: “400 trillion dollars of wealth, yet 9 million die of hunger yearly… billionaires’ wealth up $5.2bn per day in pandemic” (In world of wealth, 9 million people die every year from hunger, WFP Chief tells Food System Summit | World Food Programme).
Economic Policy Institute – Wage Stagnation: Data showing the productivity–pay gap: from 1973 to 2013 productivity rose 74% while typical workers’ pay rose only 9%, illustrating decoupling of worker output and compensation (Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts | Economic Policy Institute).
The Economist / Harvard Study (2018): Alesina et al.’s study on perceived vs. actual social mobility: Americans vastly overestimate chances of moving from poverty to wealth (think ~12% vs. actual ~8%).
Pathfinder (Mira Nalbandian, 2022) – Media Consolidation: Article explaining that six corporations control ~90% of U.S. media as of 2020, concentrating media power and potentially limiting diverse viewpoints (The Big Six's big media game - Pathfinder).
Scientific American (Oct 2015) – “Exxon Knew”: Investigation revealing ExxonMobil’s own scientists warned of climate change in the late 1970s, yet the company spent decades funding climate misinformation to protect its business (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American).
Holocaust Explained (The Wiener Library) – Nazi Rise to Power: Educational resource noting that prominent industrialists (e.g., Krupp, Schacht) backed Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor in 1933 to destroy left-wing opposition, unwittingly aiding the rise of Nazi authoritarianism.
Business & Human Rights / Guardian (July 2017) – Carbon Majors Report: Report that 100 companies are linked to 71% of global industrial GHG emissions since 1988 (Carbon Majors Database), underscoring how a small number of fossil fuel producers drive climate change ([
100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
FocusWashington (Dec 2022) – BP’s Spending Plans: Coverage of BP’s strategy shift: planning to spend twice as much on oil and gas as on renewables in 2023 (up to $7.5B vs $3-5B), despite green branding (BP Criticized for Plan to Spend More on Fossil Fuels Than Green Energy).
Reuters (July 2012) – Offshore Wealth: James Henry’s study for Tax Justice Network estimating $21–32 trillion in private financial wealth held in offshore tax havens, representing ~$280 billion in lost annual tax revenue (Super rich hold $32 trillion in offshore havens | Reuters).
Gilens & Page (2014) – Testing Theories of American Politics: Academic study (Princeton/Northwestern) finding that economic elites and business lobbies have significant influence on U.S. policy, whereas average citizens have negligible influence (evidence of “economic elite domination”) (Gilens and Page: Average citizens have little impact on public policy - PNHP) (Gilens and Page: Average citizens have little impact on public policy - PNHP).
Craftsmanship Magazine (2019) – Mondragon Cooperatives: Article on Mondragon Corporation, noting internal wage ratios are capped around 6:1 to 9:1 and no CEO earns over $1 million, versus 300+:1 ratios common in U.S. firms (Could Co-Ops Solve Income Inequality? | Craftsmanship Magazine). Highlights co-ops as a practical alternative reducing inequality.
Corey Dolgon – Kill It to Save It: An Autopsy of Capitalism’s Triumph over Democracy (2017): Book examining how American political discourse justifies harmful capitalist policies, using the metaphor of “killing” public institutions to save an ideological version of capitalism. Provides historical analysis of neoliberal policies undermining democracy.
Anne Case & Angus Deaton – Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism (2020): Research by two Princeton economists linking the rise of “deaths of despair” (suicides, overdoses, alcoholism) among working-class Americans to long-term economic stagnation, social decay, and the failures of contemporary capitalism to support lives of dignity.
Naomi Klein – This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (2014): Investigative book arguing that combating climate change requires confronting the fundamental logic of profit-driven capitalism. Explores how big business has blocked climate action and how climate justice movements are challenging the status quo.
Thomas Piketty – Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013): Landmark economic analysis of wealth and income inequality over 250 years. Shows that absent intervention, returns on capital outpace overall growth, leading to rising inequality – a dynamic Piketty sums up as r > g. Advocates progressive taxation and other policies to prevent oligarchic dominance.
Investigative Journalism (Panama Papers, etc.): Numerous journalistic exposés (e.g., Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, Pandora Papers) have documented how the global elite exploit secrecy jurisdictions and shell companies to evade taxes and accountability. These investigations by ICIJ and media partners provide concrete case studies of systemic corruption underpinning high capitalism.
ILO and OECD Reports on Labor: Reports from international bodies highlighting trends such as the decline of labor’s share of income, erosion of collective bargaining, and the proliferation of precarious employment (gig economy, contract work) in many capitalist economies. They offer evidence that many workers are not sharing in productivity gains and that employment insecurity is rising even in wealthy nations.
Historical Analyses of Fascism and Capitalism: Works by historians and theorists (e.g., Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, and academic studies in Journal of Modern History, etc.) examining how economic turmoil and elite interests helped enable fascist movements. These provide context for the observed pattern of capital aligning with authoritarianism in times of crisis.
These sources (and many others) reinforce the claims made in this article, providing a factual basis for critique and a springboard for further reading. The challenges described are complex and interwoven, and no single source captures it all. But taken together, they paint a clear picture: our current form of capitalism is producing outcomes that are morally unacceptable and unsustainable for democracy and the environment. Armed with knowledge from rigorous journalism, scholarship, and history, an engaged citizenry can better debate and demand the changes needed to build a more just, equitable, and livable future.