Capitalism depends on all of the players making decisions to optimize their own outcome. The manufacturer is trying to optimize profit from sales. Customers are looking for the best deal at the best price. And labor is looking for the most attractive job according to pay, benefits, hours, and work environment.
But to optimize profit, the manufacturer must must draw the best employees and offer the best product or service relative to the competition, so he must consider what both the employee and customer require to continue either working for or buying from him.
I sometimes go on anti-capitalist tirades myself, although I tend to look at it more from a historical viewpoint of where it came from and what it grew out of.
I think what we see today, at least in regards to the positives of capitalism that many people talk about, was the result of restrained and regulated capitalism, with a strong, government-supported social service system to ensure that the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged are taken care of.
When looking over the grand scale of history, one can cite countless examples of man's inhumanity to man. The Romans are a common example, an aggressive, warlike empire built on conquest and slavery, and which found entertainment in gladiatorial games. But they also became quite wealthy and powerful, which seems to be a common goal for a lot of people who have walked this earth. Some people are satisfied with less, but there have always been those who want it all.
Such seems to be a constant throughout history. But there have also been political changes which occurred, as well technological advancements which led to industrialism. Peasants went from working in the fields to working in the factories, where the capitalist factory owner was the replacement for the feudal lord they used to work for. Toiling at 12-14 hours a day, 7 days a week - for about 50¢. Even small children worked in factories back in those early days. Beatings were commonplace, and it could be said that screaming and crying could be heard from the factories to the late hours of the night.
There was strong resistance at first, not just due to the maltreatment, but they also felt that machines were a threat. People who did things by hand or worked primarily with their muscles saw machines as threatening their livelihood. There were others who immediately noticed the by-products of industry and the effects of pollution and waste. But the capitalists were growing wealthy and powerful, and they were able to use that to influence politicians and government.
One thing that should be noted is that, capitalists rarely agreed to reforms easily or voluntarily, especially when it came to things like ending sweatshops, child labor, slavery. They fought violently and aggressively against the labor movement, using strikebreakers and murder to get the strikers back to work so they can gain more profit. Most of our nation's sins are rooted in the incessant drive for profit, which dominated our politics for a long time - even while hiding behind slogans such as "freedom" and "liberty."
The core element in all of this is that, there is a certain class of people who seem to think that they're above others, and that the common worker or peasant is just some "thing" that they feel entitled to abuse, exploit, mistreat, or pay as little or much as
they decide. If the feudal lord or plantation owner or factory owner wants to get something done and needs workers, they'll do whatever it takes. They'll send out thugs to capture people in other lands and make them slaves, they'll trick people, entice them with false promises, manipulate them, gaslight them - as well as bribe politicians to ensure the government is always on their side, leaving the common people even more powerless.
But the rise of various reform movements could not be stopped or ignored, so politically, it became necessary for capitalists to change their ways of thinking. The various revolutions in Europe (such as in 1848) were wake-up calls for a lot of people that their world was rapidly changing and they'd better adapt quickly. Plus, the advent of industrialism was leading to better weapons and bigger armies, so that was also a growing concern. Technology was changing things to the point where politics and society took time to adjust.
I think World War I marked a major turning point, mainly because it demonstrated what a dead end capitalism, industrialism, and nationalism can lead to when they're combined together to make a war. All of the nations which participated in that conflict had capitalist or quasi-capitalist systems - not a socialist in the bunch.
All had imperialist ambitions, especially the Germans, who wanted a bigger piece of the colonial action being monopolized by Britain and France. They wanted their share. Austria also wanted to grab what they could of the Balkans, as they were left in disarray due to the slow crumbling of the Ottoman Empire.
All were motivated by self-interest, both economic and strategic interests. The capitalists have a vested interest, since if their side wins, they stand to benefit, whereas if they lose, then they also lose. Each country's government's actions and positions taken in the war is explainable when viewed from that standpoint.
Capitalism and nationalism are philosophically related in the sense that both emphasize self-interest and competition, although not all competition has always been "friendly," to say the least. WW1 was a most unfriendly competition, to say the least. But to many people at the time, they saw it as the result of a capitalist/imperialist philosophy which believes that only the strong shall survive.
That's how socialism grew to be more attractive in places such as Imperial Russia, which suffered immensely as a result of WW1. Germans also rose up against the Kaiser, forcing him to abdicate. It was clear that much of the world was becoming quite fed up with the ways and means of how the world was being run. I think capitalists in America, Britain, and France saw what was happening in Germany and Russia and figured they'd be better off giving more to the workers and common people, lest they also be tempted by revolutionary ideals. That's when unions became more of a force and governments were more inclined towards reform, which capitalists bristled against all throughout.
For America, the policies of FDR actually paid off in the long run, as he advocated liberal social programs and reforms in many areas. Plus he marshaled the country's resources and manpower which was a tremendous boost to the Allied powers in WW2. Afterwards, America was in a fortunate position to be among the few countries left with fully functioning industries. That also benefited capitalists and the working classes. Unions were stronger, but it seemed the capitalists could still make a decent profit while compromising with the unions. And, as long as there was the support of a strong, stable government dedicated to the rule of law, people would be assured that they would be protected by the law.
That may reflect what many people might view capitalism as, since it's viewed as the "after" picture. We don't really want to look at the "before" picture. For many Americans who enjoy a relatively decent standard of living, capitalism has been good to them, and that's all they really want or need to know.
