Do you believe that capitalism should finance the transformation of society?

[Free Thinker]

I believe that capitalism is good economic system but capitalists can become selfish and corrupt over time. Capitalism is not intended to be social or moral but rather is a method of trading property and value conversion. I believe that for its intended purpose it does a great job. However as far as being a form of social security capitalism doesn't do as well because of its limitations (monetary resources are limited in comparison to available human resources). Therefore I believe capitalism must be considered purely an economic rather than social model.

Socialism is a social collectivist (community property ownership) ideology that attempts to use capitalist money and property to change and transform society. It would seem to me if socialism is really the culmination of social evolution as claimed by its proponents the available monetary resources would directly match the human resources it is required to support by default. Evolution usually occurs naturally or by natural causes. Simply redistributing existing, limited quantities of money or wealth is not evolutionary but rather is an act of human intervention. One way some socialists try to solve this problem is by decreasing the population and changing the quantity of consumers so that the existing limited money supply and property resources will match or exceed the quantity of existing potential consumers. A second method is to redistribute a limited, finite number of dollars and property value to much larger group of people by means of redistribution of money which they perceive to be wealth. I would argue forced social evolution utilizing the destruction of some humans in favor of others and/or the theft of one humans property for the purpose of redistribution to another human or humans is not evolutionary.

I believe true human evolution would match natural population growth and human consumption demands in both money and wealth naturally. In an evolutionary monetary system all social and economic growth should occur simultaneously.

My final argument is that a social system that cannot support itself financially is flawed and dependent. Rather than changing capitalism, which works, we should change how we fund government, how we circulate money, how we value money, and how money interacts in international trade. These are the flawed systems that can be changed by the government on behalf of people and can easily support and grow both the human population and capitalism.

Note:
For those who want to accuse me of being a socialist or a communist I will say this:
I do not believe in global governance or global currency (but I do believe in international standards).
I do not believe in communism or conflict based socialism (I am a sociable capitalist).
I do not believe in redistributing money (if you can't distribute it right the first time why would you do a better job the second time?).
I do not believe it is possible to redistribute assets or property (asset or property value is market driven).
I do not believe that money and wealth are the same (money can be created but wealth is a perception of value that is best determined within a free market).
PS
I believe that: Strong individuals = strong families = strong communities = strong state governments = a strong national government.

[▒Ðαη†є]

Firstly this is an excellent well thought out question to which I would but only say that capitalism is a transitional method of developing economies but it is also a singly focus effort: Profit. And that alone is unsustainable within a framework of limited resources. So as corporations grow in geographic scope and power, their footprints tend to run counter to societies goals.

What I see happening is that as governments fail due to their dependence upon the economic health of the societies they represent, corporations will establish puppet government entities to their benefit since they have a huge edge in funding their goals via corruption, as the recent elections in Mexico demonstrate.

I see armed conflict between the have nots and the elite group which benefit on all sides of corporate ventures.

[Wayne G]

Give capitalism time to work all the way to its end purpose. Less than 100 people in all
the USA would own and control all the wealth in America. All of it!

[SDD]

You already said it. Capitalism does what is supposed to do: allocate resources most efficiently. You shouldn't expect it to do anything else. A horse does very good job a providing you with transportation around the ranch. The fact that it does not plow your fields, harvest the crops, make dinner for you and solve every other need you have is irrelevant. And if you try to make it do those things, it will probably die on you and you'll no longer be able to ride the ranch.
Capitalism is the horse that produces wealth. Be kind to it or you'll have a lot less wealth in the future.

[Victor]

I say mixed economic: combine the best part of both.

[kaps]

If capitalism should finance the transformation of society, would it be still called Capitalism ?