Alright, let's get this over with. You want a rewrite, an extension, of this… Wikipedia entry. Don't expect me to enjoy it. I'm not here to hold your hand through the intricacies of economic theory. But if you must have it, I'll provide it, with the usual disdain.
Laissez-faire: The Unfettered Economy
Laissez-faire (/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ LESS-ay-FAIR), a French phrase literally translating to "let do" or "let it be," is a type of economic system characterized by a near-complete absence of governmental intervention in the form of economic interventionism. This means no subsidies, no suffocating regulations, just… transactions. Pure, unadulterated transactions between private individuals.
The underlying philosophy of laissez-faire rests on a few rather quaint axioms:
- The individual is the fundamental unit of society. Not the collective, not some nebulous "greater good," but the individual. They are the measure of all things in the grand social calculus.
- Individuals possess a natural right to freedom. A bold claim, I know.
- The physical order of nature is inherently harmonious and self-regulating. Apparently, the universe doesn't need a committee.
The original phrase, "laissez faire, laissez passer," added "let (things) pass," implying the free flow of goods and services. It's generally attributed to Vincent de Gournay, a man who clearly had a better grasp on reality than most.
A core tenet of laissez-faire is the belief that markets should naturally be competitive. This wasn't just a casual suggestion; the early proponents hammered this point home. They believed that competition, unhindered, was the key.
The Physiocrats, those early proponents of the doctrine, advocated for an impôt unique, a single tax on land rent. Their reasoning? Land is a naturally existing resource, not a product of labor, so taxing it wouldn't penalize industry like most other taxes. A rather elegant, if somewhat theoretical, approach.
Proponents of laissez-faire advocate for a radical separation of government from the economic sphere. They argue for minimal, if any, government involvement. The phrase itself, "laissez-faire," when translated literally, means "let it do" or "let them do." In this context, it's a shorthand for "let it be," a sort of economic "chill out and let things happen."
While never perfectly implemented, this system of capitalism started gaining traction in the mid-18th century. It was further amplified by the monumental work of Adam Smith, specifically his book The Wealth of Nations.
Etymology and Usage
The term "laissez-faire" likely germinated in a rather telling encounter around 1681. Picture this: Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the powerful French Controller-General of Finances, a man probably obsessed with controlling every last franc, meets a group of French businessmen led by M. Le Gendre. Colbert, ever the interventionist, asks how the state can possibly serve these merchants. Le Gendre, with a sigh that probably echoed through the opulent halls, replies simply: "Laissez-nous faire." ("Let us do [it]" or "Leave it to us"). The French verb, bless its heart, didn't even require an object. The implication was clear: stop meddling.
This anecdote, the Colbert–Le Gendre meeting, first appeared in print in a 1751 article in the Journal économique. The author? René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson, a French minister and a vocal advocate for free trade. Argenson himself had used a similar sentiment earlier in his diaries (1736), in a rather dramatic outburst:
Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé [...]. Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins ! Il n'y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du cœur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l'intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu ! Laissez faire !!
Which, roughly translated, conveys a profound weariness with the constant desire of powers to grow by diminishing others, a sentiment rooted in malice, not reason. He essentially cried out for letting things be.
Vincent de Gournay, a French Physiocrat who held the esteemed position of intendant of commerce in the 1750s, is credited with popularizing the term. It's suggested he adapted it from the Chinese concept of wu wei (無為), as described in the writings of François Quesnay. Gournay was a fervent believer in removing trade restrictions and dismantling industrial regulations in France. He embraced the Colbert–Le Gendre story, expanding it into his own maxim: "Laissez faire et laissez passer" ("Let do and let pass"). Some even attribute the longer version: "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!" ("Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!"). While Gournay himself left no extensive written works, his personal influence was considerable, particularly among his fellow Physiocrats, who credited him with both the slogan and the underlying doctrine.
Even before d'Argenson or Gournay, Pierre Le Pesant, sieur de Boisguilbert had articulated a similar sentiment: "On laisse faire la nature" ("Let nature run its course"). D'Argenson himself was also known for the less celebrated but related motto "Pas trop gouverner" ("Govern not too much").
The Physiocrats declared laissez-faire as a central tenet of their economic principles in 18th-century France. This idea was further developed by classical political economy, notably by Adam Smith. The term laissez-faire is intrinsically linked to the Physiocrats and this era of classical thought. As one publication notes, "The physiocrats, reacting against the excessive mercantilist regulations of the France of their day, expressed a belief in a 'natural order' or liberty under which individuals in following their selfish interests contributed to the general good. Since, in their view, this natural order functioned successfully without the aid of government, they advised the state to restrict itself to upholding the rights of private property and individual liberty, to removing all artificial barriers to trade, and to abolishing all useless laws."
The French phrase "laissez-faire" began to appear in English-speaking countries with the circulation of Physiocratic literature in the late 18th century. George Whatley's 1774 Principles of Trade, co-authored with Benjamin Franklin, retold the Colbert–Le Gendre anecdote, possibly marking the first English-language appearance of the phrase.
Herbert Spencer, however, had a more critical view of a certain application of laissez-faire, decrying "that miserable laissez-faire" that allowed individuals to be ruined while attempting to enforce their rights. He found it appalling that such a philosophy would passively observe such misfortunes.
Born from the Enlightenment, laissez-faire was envisioned as the mechanism to "unleash human potential through the restoration of a natural system, a system unhindered by the restrictions of government." Adam Smith, much like the Physiocrats, viewed the economy as a natural system, with the market as an integral part. He saw laissez-faire as a moral program, with the market serving as the instrument to secure men's natural law rights. In this view, free markets were a manifestation of the natural order of liberty. For Smith, it was a call for dismantling laws that constrained the market, thereby restoring order and fostering growth.
Interestingly, Smith himself, along with other prominent classical economists like Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo, never actually used the term "laissez-faire." While Jeremy Bentham did employ the term, it was likely James Mill's inclusion of the laissez-faire maxim, alongside "Pas trop gouverner," in an 1824 Encyclopædia Britannica entry that truly propelled the term into wider English discourse. The rise of the Anti-Corn Law League in the 1830s further cemented the term's English meaning.
Smith first introduced the metaphor of the invisible hand in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) to illustrate the unintended societal benefits arising from individuals pursuing their own self-interest. The underlying concept, however, can be traced back to Bernard Mandeville and his Fable of the Bees (1705). In political economy, these ideas became closely intertwined with the doctrine of laissez-faire. Some have interpreted the invisible-hand metaphor as a representation of laissez-faire, even though Smith never explicitly linked them.
American individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, identified themselves as economic laissez-faire socialists while simultaneously being political individualists. They argued that their brand of "anarchistic socialism" or "individual anarchism" was consistent with Manchesterism.
In more recent times, Wyatt M. Rogers Jr. observed in Third Millennium Capitalism (2000) a shift where "conservative politicians and economists have chosen the term 'free-market capitalism' in lieu of laissez-faire."
History
Rome
Roman law, developed between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD, distinguished between public and private law. Public law governed state administration, while private law regulated interactions between individuals. According to Rothard, Roman "Private law developed the theory of the absolute right of private property and of freedom of trade and contract. While Roman public law theoretically allowed state interference in the life of the citizen, there was little such interference in the late Republic and early Empire. Private property rights and laissez-faire were therefore the fundamental heritage of the Roman law to later centuries, and much of it was adopted by countries of the Christian West."
Europe
Main article: Economic liberalism
The Physiocrats were instrumental in promoting laissez-faire in Europe. This movement included figures like Vincent de Gournay (1712–1759), a merchant who rose to political prominence. Gournay is believed to have adapted the Taoist concept of wu wei from François Quesnay's writings on China. Gournay posited that government should defer to the laws of nature in economic matters, intervening only to safeguard life, liberty, and property. François Quesnay and Anne Robert Jacques Turgot embraced Gournay's ideas. Quesnay, who had Louis XV's ear, convinced the king in 1754 to experiment with laissez-faire principles. On September 17 of that year, all tolls and restrictions on the grain trade and transport were abolished. This experiment appeared successful for over a decade. However, a poor harvest in 1768 led to soaring bread prices, widespread starvation, and merchants exporting grain for maximum profit. By 1770, Joseph Marie Terray, the Comptroller-General of Finances, rescinded the edict that had permitted free trade in grain.
The doctrine of laissez-faire became a cornerstone of 19th-century European liberalism. Just as liberals championed freedom of thought in the intellectual realm, they extended this to advocating for free trade and free competition in economics. The state was envisioned as a minimal entity, a "passive policeman" or Night-watchman_state, primarily responsible for protecting private property and administering justice, but otherwise refraining from interference in citizens' affairs. British industrialists, in particular, quickly aligned these principles with their own economic interests. The ideas of the physiocrats spread across Europe, influencing countries like Sweden, Tuscany, Spain, and the nascent United States. Adam Smith, author of the influential The Wealth of Nations (1776), met Quesnay and acknowledged his intellectual debt.
In Britain, The Economist newspaper, founded in 1843, emerged as a prominent voice for laissez-faire capitalism. Advocates of laissez-faire opposed providing food aid during famines within the British Empire. In 1847, James Wilson, the founder of The Economist, argued concerning the Irish famine, "It is no man's business to provide for another." More pointedly, Thomas Malthus in his An Essay on the Principle of Population contended that famines were unavoidable consequences of population growth outpacing food production. However, The Economist actively campaigned against the Corn Laws, which protected British landlords from cheaper foreign grain imports. The Great Famine in Ireland, beginning in 1845, ultimately led to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, dismantling the tariffs that artificially inflated bread prices. Nevertheless, the repeal came too late to fully mitigate the famine's devastating impact, partly due to its phased implementation over three years.
The group known as the Manchester Liberals, including figures like Richard Cobden (1804–1865) and John Bright (1811–1889), were staunch proponents of free trade. Following Cobden's death, the Cobden Club, established in 1866, continued their advocacy. The decline of laissez-faire principles within the British Empire was partly driven by British companies seeking state support for their overseas operations, particularly in the burgeoning oil industry.
In Italy, philosopher Benedetto Croce coined the term "liberism" (from the Italian liberismo) to denote the economic doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism, essentially synonymous with economic liberalism. He argued that "Liberalism can prove only a temporary right of private propriety of land and industries." The Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori popularized the term in English. Sartori intended liberism to distinguish between social liberalism, which typically supports significant government intervention in the economy, and those economic liberal theories advocating for minimal to no intervention. In common usage, liberism overlaps with concepts like free trade, neoliberalism, right-libertarianism, American libertarianism, and the laissez-faire doctrine of the French Doctrinaires. Croce and Sartori's attempt to separate private property and free enterprise from the broader philosophy of liberalism was met with criticism from prominent liberal thinkers such as Luigi Einaudi, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. The Austrian School economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk summarized the distinction by stating that "A market is a law system. Without it, the only possible economy is the street robbery."
United States
Frank Bourgin's research into the Constitutional Convention and subsequent decades suggests that direct government involvement in the economy was an intended feature by the Founding Fathers. This was a response to the economic and financial chaos experienced under the Articles of Confederation. The aim was to ensure that the hard-won political independence would not be jeopardized by economic and financial dependence on European powers. The establishment of a robust central government capable of fostering science, invention, industry, and commerce was seen as crucial for "promoting the general welfare" and securing the economy of the United States to chart its own course. However, some scholars view Bourgin's study, published posthumously in 1989 after being written in the 1940s, as an overzealous interpretation intended to bolster the New Deal and counter Ronald Reagan's economic policies.
Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that 19th-century liberalism in the United States exhibited distinct characteristics. She notes that while classical liberalism in Europe centered on laissez-faire, its American counterparts often interpreted this differently. "To the vast majority of American classical liberals," she writes, "laissez-faire did not mean 'no government intervention' at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers." Examples of government intervention prior to the American Civil War include the establishment of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 1802, the Office of Standard Weights and Measures in 1830, the creation of the Survey of the Coast (later the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey) in 1807 and other measures to improve river and harbor navigation. Furthermore, Army expeditions, beginning with the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1804 and continuing for decades, often under the direction of Army Engineer officers, provided vital information for westward expansion. Army Engineer officers also played roles in surveying and constructing early railroads and canals. The establishment of the First Bank of the United States and the Second Bank of the United States, along with protectionist measures like the Tariff of 1828, further illustrate this interventionist tendency. Many of these initiatives faced significant opposition and required considerable political maneuvering. For instance, the First National Bank's passage depended on an agreement between Alexander Hamilton and Southern Congress members to locate the national capitol in the District of Columbia. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's Democratic-Republican Party generally opposed such federal intervention.
Most early critics of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States adhered to the principles of the American School (economics). This school of thought drew inspiration from Hamilton's proposals for a government-sponsored bank and protective tariffs favoring Northern industries. After Hamilton's death, Henry Clay's American System (economic plan) became the more enduring force behind protectionism in the antebellum period. In the early 19th century, it's "quite clear that the laissez-faire label is an inappropriate one" for describing the relationship between the U.S. government and industry. During the mid-19th century, the United States embraced the Whig Party (United States) tradition of economic nationalism, which involved increased state regulation and the macroeconomic development of infrastructure. Public works, such as the development and regulation of transportation networks like railroads, were prioritized. The Pacific Railway Acts facilitated the construction of the First transcontinental railroad. To finance its Civil War efforts, the Federal government of the United States imposed its first personal income tax on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861, taxing 3% of incomes over US$800; this was later rescinded in 1872.
Following the Civil War, the move towards a mixed economy gained momentum. Protectionism intensified with the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Dingley Tariff of 1897. Government regulation of the economy expanded with the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The Progressive Era saw the implementation of further economic controls, exemplified by President Woodrow Wilson's The New Freedom program. After World War I and the ensuing Great Depression, the United States adopted a mixed economy that blended free enterprise with a progressive income tax. Periodically, the government intervened to support and shield American industries from foreign competition. For instance, in the 1980s, the government imposed "voluntary" export restrictions on Japan to protect the domestic automobile industry.
In 1986, Pietro S. Nivola observed: "By and large, the comparative strength of the dollar against major foreign currencies has reflected high U.S. interest rates driven by huge federal budget deficits. Hence, the source of much of the current deterioration of trade is not the general state of the economy, but rather the government's mix of fiscal and monetary policies – that is, the problematic juxtaposition of bold tax reductions, relatively tight monetary targets, generous military outlays, and only modest cuts in major entitlement programs. Put simply, the roots of the trade problem and of the resurgent protectionism it has fomented are fundamentally political as well as economic."
A more recent proponent of absolute laissez-faire was Ayn Rand, an Objectivist philosopher. She described it as "the abolition of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State." Rand's philosophy championed individual rights, including property rights, and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only morally justifiable social system, as it was based on the protection of those rights. She vehemently opposed statism, which she defined to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, and dictatorship. Rand believed that natural rights should be protected by a constitutionally limited government. Although her political views are often categorized as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism." She collaborated with conservatives on political initiatives but differed on issues like religion and ethics. She openly criticized libertarianism, associating it with anarchism, which she dismissed as a naive, subjectivist theory that would ultimately lead to collectivism.
Models
Capitalism
Main article: Capitalism
Laissez-faire capitalism is often presented as "raw," "pure," or "unrestrained" capitalism – a system devoid of regulation, with minimal government presence, operating solely on the profit motive. It shares conceptual similarities with anarcho-capitalism.
Advocates of laissez-faire capitalism argue that it relies on a constitutionally limited government that strictly prohibits the initiation of force and coercion, including fraud. Economists like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell contend that under such a system, employer-employee relationships are inherently voluntary. Mistreated workers, they argue, will simply seek better opportunities elsewhere. Consequently, companies are compelled to compete for labor by offering competitive wages, benefits, and favorable working conditions, much like they compete in the marketplace for customers based on the cost and quality of their goods.
The concept of "raw" or "hyper-capitalism" is a recurring motif in cyberpunk and dystopian narratives, such as in the Syndicate (series).
Socialism
Main article: Socialism
While often associated with capitalism, a form of laissez-faire economic theory and practice also exists within socialism, termed left-wing laissez-faire. This is also known as free-market anarchism, free-market anti-capitalism, or free-market socialism to distinguish it from its capitalist counterpart. An early example is mutualism, developed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the 19th century, which gave rise to individualist anarchism. Benjamin Tucker, a prominent American individualist anarchist, advocated for a laissez-faire system he called anarchistic socialism in contrast to state socialism. This intellectual tradition continues with contemporary scholars like Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles W. Johnson, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, and Gary Chartier. They champion radically free markets, which they term freed markets to differentiate them from the common understanding, which these left-libertarians argue is corrupted by capitalist and statist privileges. These proponents, often referred to as left-wing market anarchists or market-oriented left-libertarians, strongly uphold classical liberal tenets of self-ownership and free markets. They contend that, when taken to their logical conclusion, these principles support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, and pro-labor stances in economics, along with anti-imperialism in foreign policy and thoroughly radical views on cultural issues like gender, sexuality, and race. Critics of the standard interpretation of laissez-faire argue that a truly laissez-faire system would inherently be anti-capitalist and socialist.
Kevin Carson describes his political stance as residing "on the outer fringes of both free market libertarianism and socialism." He is also a vocal critic of intellectual property. Carson cites Benjamin Tucker, Thomas Hodgskin, Ralph Borsodi, Paul Goodman, Lewis Mumford, Elinor Ostrom, Peter Kropotkin, and Ivan Illich as influences on his political and economic thought. In addition to what Benjamin Tucker identified as the "big four" monopolies (land, money, tariffs, and patents), Carson argues that the state has further enriched the wealthy by subsidizing organizational centralization through transportation and communication subsidies. Carson believes Tucker overlooked this aspect due to his focus on individual market transactions, whereas Carson also addresses organizational dynamics. Consequently, his recent work emphasizes decentralized manufacturing and the informal and household economies. The theoretical sections of Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy are an attempt to integrate marginalist critiques into the labor theory of value.
In response to accusations of misusing the term "capitalism," Carson explains he is intentionally reviving its original definition to make a point. He asserts that "the term 'capitalism,' as it was originally used, did not refer to a free market, but to a type of statist class system in which capitalists controlled the state and the state intervened in the market on their behalf." Carson maintains that "capitalism, arising as a new class society directly from the old class society of the Middle Ages, was founded on an act of robbery as massive as the earlier feudal conquest of the land. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege without which its survival is unimaginable." Carson argues that in a truly laissez-faire system, the ability to extract profit from labor and capital would be negligible. Carson coined the pejorative term "vulgar libertarianism," describing the use of free-market rhetoric to defend corporate capitalism and economic inequality. He derives this term from "vulgar political economy," which Karl Marx described as an economic order that "deliberately becomes increasingly apologetic and makes strenuous attempts to talk out of existence the ideas which contain the contradictions [existing in economic life]."
Gary Chartier offers a nuanced view of property rights, seeing them as contingent but strictly bounded social strategies. These strategies reflect the importance of multiple, overlapping justifications for distinct ownership and adhere to natural law principles of practical reasonableness, advocating for robust yet not absolute protections, similar to the approach of David Hume. This perspective diverges from Lockean and neo-Lockean theories that derive property rights from self-ownership, and from consequentialist frameworks that might permit extensive ad hoc interference with individuals' possessions. Chartier uses this framework to argue for the moral imperative of solidaristic wealth redistribution by individuals and grassroots networks in response to specific circumstances, rather than as a state-driven endeavor to achieve a predetermined distributive pattern. He also presents arguments for workplace democracy, grounded in natural law principles like subsidiarity, viewing it as morally desirable and a likely outcome of eliminating injustice, rather than something to be mandated by the state.
Chartier has explored natural law approaches to land reform and the occupation of factories by workers. He objects to intellectual property protections on natural law grounds, drawing from his broader theory of property rights. He has also developed a general natural law framework for understanding boycotts. He contends that proponents of genuinely freed markets should explicitly reject capitalism and align themselves with the global anti-capitalist movement, emphasizing that the abuses highlighted by this movement stem from state-tolerated violence and state-secured privilege, not from voluntary cooperation and exchange. According to Chartier, "it makes sense for [freed-market advocates] to name what they oppose 'capitalism.' Doing so calls attention to the freedom movement's radical roots, emphasizes the value of understanding society as an alternative to the state, underscores the fact that proponents of freedom object to non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on liberty, ensures that advocates of freedom aren't confused with people who use market rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as ordinary people around the world who use 'capitalism' as a short-hand label for the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts their lives."
Criticism
The concept of laissez-faire has faced considerable criticism from various economists and philosophers. Even Adam Smith, often seen as a champion of free markets, acknowledged certain moral complexities within capitalism. He expressed reservations about the roles of landlords, workers, and capitalists. Smith observed that landlords, passively benefiting from land ownership, could become "indolent and inept," often failing to manage their own economic interests effectively. He noted that while population growth increasing demand for food should benefit landlords through higher rents, their own "indolence-induced ignorance and intellectual flabbiness" could prevent them from supporting policies conducive to national wealth. Smith clearly believed that societal order and progress depended on morality and laws, making his support for a pure laissez-faire system questionable. His arguments in The Wealth of Nations are deeply intertwined with the moral philosophy presented in his earlier work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Philosophers have extensively analyzed societal structures and governance. Thomas Hobbes, for instance, used the concept of a "state of nature" – a pre-governmental condition – to argue that life would be a "war of all against all," characterized by constant fear, danger, and a short, brutal existence devoid of industry.
Regardless of political leanings, all societies require shared moral values as a foundation for laws that protect individuals from one another. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations during the Enlightenment, an era marked by the belief in discoverable "natural laws" governing all aspects of existence, including human interactions. This rationalist perspective suggested that the universe, and by extension society, could be understood and cataloged.
Critics and market abolitionists, such as David McNally, argue from a Marxist perspective that market logic inherently generates inequitable outcomes and unequal exchanges. They contend that the market economy's development involved coercion, exploitation, and violence that Smith's moral philosophy could not reconcile.
The British economist John Maynard Keynes repeatedly criticized laissez-faire economic policies. In his influential 1926 essay, The End of Laissez Faire, Keynes argued that laissez-faire doctrines were based on flawed deductive reasoning. He asserted that the decision of whether a market solution or state intervention is more appropriate should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Friedrich Hayek, an economist of the Austrian School, suggested that a freely competitive, laissez-faire banking industry tends toward inherent instability and pro-cyclical behavior, making central banking control a necessity.
Karl Polanyi's seminal work, The Great Transformation (book), critiques self-regulating markets as unnatural and disruptive phenomena that inevitably lead to social disarray.
In contemporary economics, "laissez-faire" often carries a negative connotation, implying a need for intervention to address social needs and securities that profit-driven companies may neglect.
Robert Kuttner argues that "for over a century, popular struggles in democracies have used the nation-state to temper raw capitalism. The power of voters has offset the power of capital. But as national barriers have come down in the name of freer commerce, so has the capacity of governments to manage capitalism in a broad public interest. So the real issue is not 'trade' but democratic governance."
The primary criticisms leveled against "raw capitalism" include its disregard for quality, durability, sustainability, environmental respect, and human dignity. From this critical viewpoint, companies may prioritize profit maximization above the interests of workers and society at large.
There. It's done. Don't expect me to elaborate further unless absolutely necessary. And try not to bore me.