Slashdot Mirror
Judging The Apple 'Sweatshop' Charge
jurgen writes "MacWorld summarizes an article published in the U.K., stating that Apple's iPods are made in China by women who work 15 hours/day, make $50/month, and have to pay half of that right back to the company for housing and food. The article also claims the workers live in dormitories where they are housed 100 per room, and are not allowed visitors." A Wired article looks at the same story, exploring the reliability of the Mail on Sunday's claims. From that article: "The situation is too murky for a rush to judgment on Apple's ethics here, and it may well meet minimum global standards. But for a company that has staked its image on progressive politics, Apple has set itself up as a potential lightning rod on global labor standards. Sweatshops came back to bite Nike after its customers rose up in arms; and Apple can expect a similar grilling from its upscale Volvo-driving fans in the months ahead."
- How much responsibility falls on Apple to encourage its contractors and subcontractors to significantly exceed statutory labor guidelines or governmental requirements in host countries? (Yes, yes, we can all say that "consumers" have the power to force companies to take up the banner. After all, you can't make China change, so why not go after Apple?)
- Reports about someone earning "X" per month are meaningless out of context. How much, exactly, do other workers in their locale earn? What is the overall cost of living? (Yes, I'm aware that the article makes reference to food and rent consuming "half" their salary.) If the pay is "dismal" even by China's standards, as one of the articles asserts, then why is anyone even working there?
- No one has to work at a Foxconn plant making iPods. No one. And if it's viewed as the best alternative by individual workers who choose to work there, then it's probably, well, the best alternative. (Arguments about how people have no choice, or assertions about how people may be "persuaded" to stay in the employ of such a company once "hired" are likely to not be very persuasive to me. And if it's Chinese police or governmental entities that don't let workers leave and/or don't let them have visitors, well...)
- Who cares if there are more female than male workers? What possible bearing does this have on the situation? (I'm trying to figure out exactly why this was mentioned, because it's clearly intended to imply something, though I'm not quite sure what.)
- How, precisely and specifically, has Apple "staked its image" on "progressive politics"? (And wouldn't more effective change come from the US being able to have a global position such that it can exert pressure on the Chinese government and other human rights abusers, rather than trying to mobilize consumers to target US companies?)
I guess it always pays to go after the market leaders. And I'm saying that in all seriousness: I'm sure people saw targeting Nike as the most effective way to fight sweatshops at large, just as some might say, "Free Tibet, and you free the world." I will say that it's rather unfair that, in campaigns like these, it's often that one target, however, that bears a hugely disproportionate burden of vilification, blame, and bad press. I can't blame them though; the iPod is certainly an easy and high profile target.
I'm fairly certain that this will be read by a number of people who think that corporations and corporate behavior are inherently "evil", and that the larger a company or business interest is, the more "evil" it is and indeed must be by definition, which is an awfully one-sided and half-blind way to look at corporations.
I'd expect and hope, from a supposedly intelligent group of readers, that the majority of the comments here will be examining China's labor laws and China's human rights record, and mechanisms via which those might be changed and how responsible governments of the world can affect that change, rather than thinking about ways that corporations that legally do business in China may be further targeted.
Like all large corporations, I believe it's now in their best interest to make the most ethical choice regarding human rights. Even if it means charging another $10 per iPod.
Apple should be given the chance to investigate and cancel their contracts before they're torn apart. Otherwise, if you wanted to ruin a company you could set up a shill business that has factories down in Latin America where the workers are beaten. Then route the parts you are selling to the company you want through that distribution center and alert the American media.
My work here is dung.
...then stockpile all the U2 iPods you can. They'll quickly become quite rare and collectible once Saint Bono gets wind of this.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Good christ, I pay a damned sizeable portion of my income for rent and food. I have two jobs, and my typical work week goes well into the 60+ hours range with no overtime. Where's the news story on that?
blog |
From this, I take it there are three possible realities:
1. Apple knew of the work conditions, and set up the "third party vendor" system so that they didn't have to hear how it was done - kind of like Ken Lay tried with Enron. "Oh, my goodness, I am shocked - shocked! - to hear that there are bad labor systems being used!" And then they can plead ignorance.
2. Apple didn't know about the work conditions. Their system was "Look - here's the work, let's go tour the plant, looks good - modern equipment, this will work. Quality of the iPods is good, so let's go with this." They didn't look into the work conditions - though I'd be curious to see if there was any kind of contract stating "treat workers kindly".
3. The situation is not as bad as it looks. I'm not counting out the original article, but since it does mention that there are several countries, including Japan (which I understand has decent employee laws compared to other countries), it could be this plant is an isolated incident - but 1 and 2 still apply about "What did Apple know, and when did they know it". It could even be that the rules of "employ mainly women" was used as a good point - "Let's give work to these women so they can earn a decent wage", which may now look bad. It's all about the intent.
Either way, I would suggest there is only one answer: That Apple take immediate steps to show how it "Thinks different", and insure that no matter what the conditions are *now*, that those conditions are up to par with good employee relations.
I have a lot of faith in Apple, but I'll find it very hard to purchase future products if these allegations are true, and the company that Jobs built is unwilling to take steps to ensure good living conditions for their employees.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
You want cheap consumer electronic goods? That's what happens i'm afraid. Their manufacture will be farmed out to the cheapest bidder. And don't just think it's Apple doing this, it's all the big electronics companies. Hell it's not even just electronics, take the dairy industry. Farmers want a fair price for thier milk, the big supermarkets want cheap milk so you shop at their shops. So the big chains force the farmers into taking less money.
Sweatshops came back to bite Nike? Last I checked Nike is still one of the largest shoe makers in the world and the bulk of their labor is more then likely still done in a "sweatshop." This notion that consumers care is BS. People want to get shoes, clothes, electronics, and whatever else they desire at reasonable prices. The fact is if most these companies used standard wage practices we would be paying more for items, and if they were made in more industrialized countries we would probably go broke trying to buy half the stuff we wanted.
In the end, most consumers really do not care where the products they purchase came from. They are just glad that they have their new HDTV, designer clothing, or iPod. This notion that people will do something about the sweatshop labor is absurd. A few people might not buy one, but trust me, most people who want one will still buy one without a second thought.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Can you imagine there are countries where women would NEVER be employed by local companies, and the only companies offering jobs to women are from outside the country? There are still countries where female workers are considered "inferior", to the point that, if they don't sell themselves considerably below standards, they don't get a job at all.
Why is anyone working there? Why is anyone working at (insert random fast food chain here)? It certainly isn't the best paying job in the world, the work hours suck but it is A JOB! It gets you money. Not much, but it's still better than NO money at all. It's not like jobs grow on trees in China either. If you can't get anything else, that's still better than starving to death.
That comment alone sounds a lot like Marie Antoinette asking the starving to eat cake if they can't get no bread.
Bottom line is, this kind of practice SUCKS. And I'm glad we hear about it, even if it is Apple this time that gets the unwanted spotlight. But this kind of sweatshop labour is, amongst other things, what makes outsourcing to third world countries and countries with very poor social standards very attractive to corporations. So it is VERY much in your interest that this kind of exploitation ceases to exist.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
> The situation is too murky for a rush to judgment on Apple's ethics here, and it may well meet
> minimum global standards.
What's a `minimum global standard` then? Something fair and reasonable, or just some law cobbled together by the WTO, IMF, UN and other completely fair, unbiased parties with no vested interests?
Being better than the worst thing imaginable (death by starvation) does not make something good. It makes it not the worst, which is an entirely different matter.
And no one can "work their way out of poverty" on sweatshop wages. It's living hand-to-mouth. You might as well recommend that someone "work their way out of poverty" by collecting 5c deposits on Cola bottles.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It still matters to me. I just bought a pair of New Balance shoes, and I only buy NB athletic shoes because they still make some in the USA (check the inside label, because they also make some models abroad). I'm also a bit of a woodworker/tool junkie, and I refuse to buy tools made in China. I'll settle for Japan, Europe or Mexico if USA isn't available. But nothing from Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, etc.
The only people to blame are consumers. Demand something else and you'll get it. Settle, and you get sweatshop labor. "Free Tibet" isn't just a bumper sticker slogan. If you really cared about it, you would change your ways.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Ever notice there is no crying over the fact that the US/EU/Etc allows trade with China even though its known that China (or insert any country of your choice) has labor practices which are no liked/lawful/etc where the product is eventually sold?
Why is that?
Simple, its far easier for these activist to pick on corporations than governments. Governments don't care. People call corporations souless but governments are too. Worse we put these people in power only to have them ignore us.
Plus one thing corporations do that governments don't do is pay you to shut up.
Either stop all trade with countries whose labor practices don't agree with your local or shut the fuck up. Want to see your economy tank, fine, try to apply your laws to someone else's country before dealing with them.
Hold Apple/Nike/etc accountable, yeah right. What a spineless concept. Requires no risk on those objecting.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Besides the 'optional' moral and ethical aspects, the real problem with more and more products being made in 3rd world sweatshops is that eventually Americans and Europeans will be affected too. Once there is enough unemployment due to jobs being 'outsourced' to foreign sweatshops the average westerner will have the joyfull choice between starvation or giving up on the little bit of civilisation we achieved and start working in a local sweatshop for food and healthhazards just like we did a century or two ago.
That's awful! It's like the people who are the worst off get all the jobs, because they're willing to do them for less. The fact that those jobs are much, much better than the alternative (starving, prostitution) is beside the point. The US should increase its tariffs so that companies can afford to make more things in the US, and then those poor people who are working for pennies per hour can go starve with dignity.
I did read the article, thanks.
How is using such images in a now- (and long-)defunct ad campaign staking the company's entire image on progressive politics?
Is the idea that if Apple has EVER used any such ideas, that it's entire image is permanently tied to progressive politics, and therefore can't honestly do anything counter to what, e.g., Ghandi and Chavez stood for? Is Apple currently capitalizing in imagery of Ghandi and Chavez?
I think my point is that Apple's alleged "image" isn't much different than anyone else's.
You might as well recommend that someone "work their way out of poverty" by collecting 5c deposits on Cola bottles
worked for mr burns. mmmm.... lisa slurry...
Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
Is there any evidence that children are working at the factory? Is there any evidence that people are being made to work there against their will? Were people lied to about the salary or working conditions before they took the job?
If not, then what's happening is adults are being told about a job, and they decide to take it. Presuming that they're rational human beings, this means that this is the best job they could find and they decided it was worth the drawbacks. Why are people clamoring to take away their choice about this? Do we think that we know better than these people do what kind of job they should take? That's paternalism, and it's highly misplaced. The Chinese aren't children. We have no right to tell them that should or shouldn't be willing to do a job.
It would be nice if Apple's subsidiaries could pay their workers more, but the reality of the situation is, the workers took the job knowing full well what they were getting into. If they thought the job sucked too much to take, they wouldn't sign up for it, and the price of labor would increase. As it is, presuming a free market, the workers consider the money the best they can get. This means that if the job weren't there, they would be taking even worse jobs. So, by all means, let's not pillory Apple into leaving China. Why? Because that's what would hurt the workers the most. They'd get stuck with even crappier jobs, but hey, we could all pretend global inequity doesn't exist and assuage the guilt of Western affluence.
They also had Einstein and Jim Henson, and I've never heard Apple is working on theoretical Physics or making puppets...
What really matters here is the relative human rights and conditions of the factory, not that the factory exists. If there is proper safety procedures on the job (workers aren't forced back into working immediately after an injury, etc) and, more importantly, if workers aren't required by the terms of their contract to live and eat on site, then the factory is actually doing a pretty good job in the scheme of things. If the workers are forced to live onsite, however, requiring that half of their paycheck go right back to their employer, this is something that deserves to be looked into more and vocally criticized. There is a fairly established convention of rules for what makes a third world factory "acceptable" and not, and the employee's ability to choose their own residence is one of these things.
So if you assume 4, 6-day work weeks per month, thats about 24 work days/month $2/day == $48/month.
So they're doing better than 46% of the population of China on total income. 50% of your pay on room and board is pretty reasonable.
And not having visitors can be a bonus if you're a young single gal worried about her virtue (which I'm told actually happens in China ;-))
I don't hear anything here about anyone being beaten, worked more than 50 hours/week, etc. And given the slant here, they would have mentioned it if they had a whisper of it.
And compare this to old U.S. "mining towns" where between rent and the company store for food you spent 90% of your income on room and board, it's really quite good.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Spoken like a true 'everything is Black-or-white' thinker. Asstard.
Actually, reviewing TFA, they do say the folks are working 15 hours/day. That is pretty steep. Sigh.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
make $50/month
Let's see...that would be 400 RMB...it's more like 1,000 ~ 1,500 (800RMB/100USD), and that holds with the norms around the country. To them, it is a significant amount of money, and much better than the $15.00 the entire family pulls down each month back on the farm (if they get lucky).
and have to pay half of that right back to the company for housing and food.
These factories fall at both ends of the spectrum. Either you get paid, and then you have to buy things such as the company newsletter, giving up something less than 50%, or you don't get paid at all. Having to kick back 50% is clearly an assumption of a writer making up stats where they don't have them in the first place.
The article also claims the workers live in dormitories where they are housed 100 per room, and are not allowed visitors.
More like 15 ~ 30 per room...unless it is a large hall, and then 100 seems too low, and visitors are kept out for two reasons... 1.) The worker's entire family would move in 2.)Evil doers would cruise around looking to steal anything not nailed down.
I was an Operations Manager at one of the better small factories (Shenzhen), with 300 line workers in 25 dorms, and believe me, inside the dorm was much more safe than outside. We had two murders in six months that both resulted from purse snatching episodes that went from bad to horrible. Are the dorms cramped...yes...unlivable - not by local standards over the years, no. Some college dorms are no better. Being cramped is not the issue...safety is.
Apple has always taken pains to insure they stay on the politically correct side of international law when dealing with vendors in developing countries such as China, India, etc. The factories today are far better than they were just five years back. This particular factory style originated from when the Taiwanese firms came in 15 ~ 20 years ago. Back then, there was nothing between Dongguan & HongKong but salty marshes. Today, as mentioned, Foxconn, Kodak and others have moved in and things are changing very fast. Guangdong province set up toll-free hotlines so that workers can blow the whistle on any factory not making payday, etc. Want bad? Look at the coal mines in the North...
What part of "Made In China" was unclear? Have people been imagining that iPods were made in some special part of China where labor conditions aren't shitty?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Exactly!
You want your IPod cheap, reliable, and with as few scratches on the screen as possible. You don't care about the labor behind it.
The same labor problems exist for just about anything that has "Made in China" on it.
It's just a smear campaign.
Note: This message types on a microsoft keyboard made in Mexico.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Don't generalize volvo drivers as either members of the "ownership" class or the "liberal" movement.
I'm a developer and I saved up my pennies for a volvo s60r because I wanted something with a lot of kick and yet different, ie, not a glorified toyota (Lexus) or some car made by former Luftwaffe contractors of the Third Reich. I think this same type of thinking made me get my Powerbook in early 02 (well before the "Think Different" campaign).
Also keep in mind, people who buy volvos understand *part* of the cost is due to the European (primarily Swedish)labor costs.
Sure, you can disagree with me on why I got my Volvo, but I paid for it, not you.
Now, back to the article. I think this is appalling, and if it holds true, I will gladly get rid of my iPod. I find it disgusting that such a pricey piece of hardware shouldn't cost so much especially if the technology isn't really anything new nor if the labor is so low in cost. It's a total rip!
Oh, and a final thing to this parent: Kindly fuck off for generalizing me into something like that, thanks. Ownership class my ass.
The commie do-gooders would have accomplished nothing if it weren't for the market system. People started seeing this (child labor) as immoral only when they were at the point when they would not starve if they children didn't work.
Your ad could be here!
Conditions in sweatshops are bad, but they are better than the alternatives by a long way, and unlike the alternatives they mean that people do not starve due to state imposed restrictions on labour or trade.
These increase wages, increase skills, enable people to learn how to use new technology. Those who wish to will leave and set up their own businesses, and then employ more people. As competition for workers increases so do wages.
And at the same time, it means that we in the west get cheaper produce, and can spend our time doing the things we're good at like designing iPods, or writing software.
The simple fact is that people would not work there if it wasn't worth their while. To treat them otherwise borders on racist, they're foreign or poor and don't know what's good for them and just won't do what's best unless we tell them to or make them...
It makes me sick that people would rather have people starve than be able to take control over their lives. We should be celebrating greater employment opportunities, greater opportunity to trade. It is what made the USA and the UK rich nations, why do we seek to deny others those opportunities?
If there was no prospect of progress, I'd join in with criticism of sweat shops, but the truth is they are a step on the ladder to greater prosperity and a better future, a future which they are rapidly progressing towards.
(just think, an estimated $60 million people starved to death in China after Mao's 'Great Step Forwards', the economy was in tatters, look how far China has come).
Freakin' echo chamber. One person says something, others repeat it, whether it's right or wrong.
_ ld_1118ipod.html) makes iPods for Apple (Foxconn does too).
The original article claims the iPod factory is 200,000 people, despite the fact that Foxconn only employees 211,000 people total. The Longhua campus has about 200,000 people. Not all of them make iPods.
Then the Wired article repeats two paragraphs almost word for word and adds a little more info, like Invatec (giving a horrible link) makes iPods for Apple.
Except they don't. Inventec (http://www.forbes.com/personaltech/2004/11/18/cx
These stores are nearly-fact free. And as to people being surprised about this, did they look at the back of their iPod? They didn't see the "Made in China" mark? Or they thought perhaps it was made in China, but Apple still paid employees $50,000 a year?
These people make decent money. That's why it is difficult for Chinese to get one of these jobs, many people compete for them. People just don't have any idea of the cost of living in other countries. Heck, look at me above, putting down $50,000 a year for factory workers! That's my Bay Area experience messing me up, where I grew up in the Rust Belt, it would be more like $38,000!
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I teach English at FoxConn Beijing, I actually used this article in my class today.
The kids I teach are mostly engineers and marketoids in their early 20s who work 10 hour days for 2000 RMB (135 pounds or 250 USD). They don't believe this article because the minimum wage in Beijing is 600 RMB a month (40 pounds... why does this have to be in pounds).
I have a list of how much things cost in China, but I'd estimate a 330 RMB/month lifestyle (after rent) has a 128meg MP3 player and eats meat almost every day (a frozen chicken breast is 20 cents, and I live in the city).
Oh, they also think "women are more honest" means honest as in diligent and steady workers, nothing to do with stealing like I thought.
My students all tell me they work 8 hour days, so I surveyed the class, the average working day yesterday was 10 hours + 1 for lunch. They were as shocked at the idea of a paid lunch as anything you read in this article.
Unfortunately it seems I don't have enough pull to get to visit this factory when I'm down there in a few months, which is a shame, I really wanted to see a 200000 man factory.
My list of multiplayer
If you don't like the wages, don't work for the company. Enough people not working for the company, they have to raise wages. That's how it works. Your labor is worth what someone will pay you for it, or what you can create and sell with it. TANSTAAFL.
And if Apple (or some other corp) weren't there, what would they do? Farm?? Like you can make any money doing that with western subsidies glutting agriculture markets.
Hey, there's always the sex trade...
My God. I can't recall the last time that so many people lined up to actively support sweatshops and exploitation. What does this tell us about Apple fans?
It tells us that we understand market economics?
It's a simple equation. In a global economy we can try to raise everyone's wages and standards of living, or we can choose to lower everyone's wages and standards of living.
Uhhh, no. We don't choose any of that, there's no choices, it's all determined by a chaotic market system where many variables (such as education, population, demand, automation, etc) are in play. The last time some people tried to impose order on that chaos, it ended quite badly, though some folks haven't learned. Embrace the goddess, learn to live with and love chaos.
The Chinese worker being paid $50 a month is dragging your income down. Decently paid unionized workers in Europe or North America drag the wages paid to Chinse workers up
Uhhh, no. The fact that there are so many folks qualified to do that work globally drags the value of that level of labor down to that level. Because that is what the labor is worth: what employers have to pay for it. What will drag Chinese wages up? Local demand for those products. And when wages get too high? Robots. Get those wooden shoes ready!!
Look at it this way. If you work in North America your real income is probably in decline. What happens if in five or ten years the cheap Chinese labor pool unionizes and strikes for higher wages?
Then the ChiComs will crack down and imprison the leaders (or kill them) since the Communist Party will not brook any form of political organization that it doesn't wholly own and operate. And if they want more money than the work is worth, I'm sure some Cambodians will take up the slack, which'd be better than sex slavery at any rate. Better fucked in the wallet than in the 12-year-old vagina by sweaty German tourists, don't you think?
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, not far from Apple worldwide corporate headquarters. I work as a software engineer, sometimes 15 hours a day.
More than half of my salary goes to my lodging and food.
$50 a month, or $600 a year is low, even in China. If you look at the difference between China's exchange-rate GDP ($2.25bn) and its purchasing-power-parity GDP ($8.86bn), you can derive a factor of 4 conversion rate between the exchange rate and the equivalent purchasing power. That means $600 USD gives you a purchasing power equivalent to $2400 USD in China, which is still low. For reference, the per-capita GDP in China is $1700 (exchange rate), equivalent to about $6800 in equivalent purchasing power.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
"MacWorld summarizes an article published in the U.K., stating that Apple's iPods are made in China by women who work 15 hours/day, make $50/month, and have to pay half of that right back to the company for housing and food. The article also claims the workers live in dormitories where they are housed 100 per room, and are not allowed visitors."
Without passing judgement on whether it's good or bad, I have been to Beijing, and seen the living conditions of the lower classes up close. What is described above would be an upgrade for some. So while it may be a bad thing, don't get the impression that it is slave labor or indentured servitude - the people who work there are problably happy to have the job.
Finding a way to improve labor practices in China would be good. But if it leads to those people losing their jobs, it would (at least in the short run) be a bad thing.
Again, not saying the present state is defensible or good, nor that there are not good paths to improvement, just adding some information for thought.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
There are two different social factions in China. Let's call them the "City-Dweller" and the "Country-Bumkin".
The City-Dweller is the social type that gets taken care of. Lives in the city, makes a decent living, and is required to retire at a certain age. They are also paid to retire as well.
People who don't live in the city have it much worse. It is these rural areas that really feel the brunt of China's economy. It can take several "Country-Bumkins" their entire lives to earn enough money to become a "City-Dweller". These folks are very poor and are the type that are usually happy to work in a sweatshop.
So, to make this clear. People in the City would never work in a sweatshop. Rural folks who can't afford food are really happy to work at these places. Sweatshops suck, but they are still an improvement for many people around the world. Personally, I avoid Walmart and buy USA-made products whenever I can.
which people have attempted to implement again and again with tyrannical results must be flawed on some basic level. Saying "That's not what he meant" when the outcome of attempts to apply his philosophy are consistently dehumanizing is meaningless. IMO, marxists are insane by the old definition: They keep trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Not that there would be anything wrong with Marx's ideas in a perfect world, he just failed to take into account the world that we really live in.
Unfortunately for radicals on both sides (Marxists and Capitalists) the only workable solution in a world populated by flawed humans is a balance between the "100% free market with no government controls" and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" points of view. Those of us who are rational realize that a system based on greed must be regulated since enlightened self interest isn't a sufficient control for everyone, and that a system that fails to reward based on merit inevitably leads to stagnation.
As with most things in life, there are shades of grey here.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I think the point is though, that capitalism has everyone acting in their own best interests, instead of trying to act in the best interests of everyone else (which is impossible to plan and know).
Of course. That's where the human element ruins things. If every one had community-minded best interests or at the very least a modicum of empathy, capitalism would be almost perfect. You don't actually have to know what everyone else's interests are. The Golden Rule is generally sufficient -- don't do to others what you'd hate having done to you. Unfortunately, capitalism is a dog-eat-dog competition where you are encouraged to do unto others before they get a chance to do unto you.
No one sane can take seriously the idea, "Everyone acting in only their own best interests produces an ideal society." All you have to do is look at the use of force. If laws didn't prevent everyone from using physical force in their own best interest, you'd have tribal/gang warfare everywhere. Force could be used only for good if -- you know -- people were almost all decent and never succumbed to the temptation to harm others for profit.
When it's economic force that's used, the effects are far more subtle. However, there are plenty of clear examples of predatory behavior in the financial world that should show that unchecked capitalism is quite destructive thanks to the sociopathic lack of empathy of its primary actors, the corporations.
Take credit for example. Credit cards could run their fee schedules to simply hedge against bad behavior by their customers and use sticks and carrots to promote good financial habits while turning a profit and building customer loyalty. Alternately, they could run their fee schedules to squeeze maximum profit out of the weakest customers, heavily target the financially desperate, and choose to punish financially sensible customers for not making them enough money by not screwing up constantly. After all, there's always more rubes to take advantage of.
Guess which path credit card companies have taken in recent years.
Communism fails because it fails to motivate exceptional effort. Capitalism fails because it fails to motivate people not to prey on those weaker than them. Communism's sins are the sloth of the workers and the temptations of those in control of the state's property. Capitalism's sin is the callous indifference to those one hurts to get ahead. Neither are particularly democratic systems because they both concentrate power in the hands of a few, and only a mixed model system that ensure that no class of people stays entrenched on top without earning it can offer hope for democracy and thus for freedom.
Unfettered capitalism is little more than predation without the ability to strike a blow physically. It's the law of the jungle and not the law of a decent and civilized society, in my opinion.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").