Is capitalism on the brink of failure?

As a self-declared capitalist, I still believe that capitalism remains the most effective economic model humanity has developed thus far. Its ability to drive innovation, reward risk-taking, and generate prosperity has lifted millions out of poverty and reshaped the world in countless positive ways. I say this not as an outsider, but as someone who has directly benefited from the opportunities that capitalism can offer. I started my journey in a poor and underprivileged neighborhood in India. From those modest beginnings, I was able to pursue an education, become a scientist, and later transition into a career as a lawyer. That path, that upward mobility, was made possible through the systems and incentives that capitalism creates. I know firsthand how capitalism can fuel dreams and help turn aspirations into reality.

But I also know that my story is becoming increasingly rare. Two of the most pressing criticisms of capitalism today, both of which deeply resonate with me, are the growing income disparity and the persistent failure of capitalist societies to provide for the basic needs of all their citizens.

One of the fundamental promises of capitalism is that hard work and ingenuity will be rewarded. In theory, everyone has the opportunity to succeed. In practice, however, that promise is slipping further out of reach for many. The gap between the rich and everyone else is widening at an alarming rate. While top executives, investors, and shareholders continue to accumulate immense wealth, wages for the average worker have stagnated. The cost of living keeps rising, but economic gains disproportionately flow to those already at the top. This isn’t just an economic issue; it’s a moral and social one. A society that rewards the few while leaving the many behind is on a dangerous path toward instability. 

Let me be clear: this is not a call for financial equality, nor for equal distribution of wealth. I’m not advocating that everyone should earn the same. But I do believe deeply in equitable access to resources, and in equitable wealth distribution in the sense that every honest job should afford a decent, dignified life. Anyone willing to give their best should be able to provide for themselves and their families without living in perpetual financial insecurity. Capitalism must be measured not only by how much wealth it creates, but also by how that wealth is distributed across the spectrum of labor.

Capitalist societies, particularly the wealthiest among them, pride themselves on progress and prosperity. They flaunt their economic data and talk continuously about fulfilling the dreams of their residents. Yet many consistently fail to ensure their citizens have access to life’s basic necessities: shelter, food, education, and healthcare. In nations brimming with wealth, how is it acceptable that so many are homeless, hungry, undereducated, or medically underserved? How can a wealthy nation tolerate anyone dying without access to necessary medication or medical treatment? The problem is that these essentials are often treated as commodities rather than rights. Those with resources can buy the best care and education, while those without are left to fend for themselves. These are not luxuries; they are fundamental needs. And when people are denied these, not because of laziness or lack of ambition, but because of systemic barriers, the system itself is failing or malfunctioning. The idea that market forces alone will meet these needs has proven inadequate. The market may be efficient in distributing goods and services, but it often does so without concern for equity or dignity, and this is where capitalism needs to step up.

This post is not a call to abandon capitalism, but to reform it. We must push for a version of capitalism that values fairness, dignity, and access. We need a capitalism that works for everyone, not just shareholders. No doubt organizations and their shareholders are important, but workers, families, and future generations also also equally important. This should not be just on paper or in slogans; our actions as a society must demonstrate this. That means rethinking tax structures, corporate responsibility, access to public services, and how we define progress and prosperity. That means ensuring that work is rewarded not just with wages, but with security. It means designing systems that open doors, not close them, and that lift up those who are trying to climb rather than trap them at the bottom.

Unregulated or indifferent capitalism is not sustainable. If we care about preserving this model, we must confront its failings with courage and clarity. Otherwise, the growing discontent and inequality will erode trust in the system and invite more extreme alternatives, some of which may do more harm than good. Capitalism has the potential to be a powerful force for good. But only if we recognize that its survival depends on its ability to evolve and act accordingly. My story is proof of its potential, but for that potential to be realized for everyone, we must demand a more just and inclusive version of the system that helped build it. That requires not idealism, but pragmatism—and the political will to make sure the system that has fueled so much progress doesn’t leave too many behind. Capitalism is standing at a very important juncture, and we cannot afford it to fail.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Why homemakers don't get employment benefits?

Household management is not an easy task. It takes a lot of time, effort, and dedication. Apart from a regular and stable income to support various needs and activities, a family also needs a person who can take care of many other day-to-day responsibilities. The management of these things can test a person's limits as these tasks vary in their nature and difficulties, tasks like cooking, house cleaning, making sure everything is in its place, and taking care of guests, not only require various skills but are also physically exhausting and time-consuming. Anyone who has tried their hand at this work will agree with me when I say that it is not easy to manage an entire household single-handedly. But this work doesn't generate any official income, no one gets paid for taking care of their own family members. Household work, no matter how important it is doesn't generate any official salary or other benefits for the person who does it for their own family. Official income tax returns of all families where only one partner is officially employed and the other partner is a homemaker contain income details of that 'employed' person even if that return is filed jointly by both partners. I always wondered why the work of a person who is a full-time homemaker is not valued in monetary terms as much as other types of work? Why there is no mechanism to attach a monetary value to the work of countless housewives and househusbands? In most countries, including many developed countries this workforce mostly consists of women who tirelessly work towards the welfare of their families. Some of them even sacrifice their careers to take care of their family. Some of them have to do this work even after doing a full-time regular job. It is good to see that there is a growing trend where both partners try to share equal responsibilities towards the housework, especially in cases where both have a full-time job. If the same work is performed by someone outside the family like a maid or nanny they get paid but this work has no monetary value if it is performed by a family member. Women get a lot of praise, they are hailed as epitomes of sacrifice, kindness, dedication, and love for taking care of their families but beyond such emotional lip service, this very important work doesn't receive any recognition. It is not enough to say that this is a great service to their family or value of this type of work can not be measured in monetary terms because these workers also should get rights and benefits like other workers, at least within their own families. Someone needs to speak for their rights like they speak for all other workers. They are not organized that doesn't mean they don't have a voice. There is no retirement benefit or social security or any other benefit offered to these people that comes with most full or part-time jobs, why? If we don't see this as a problem then we should reexamine our understanding of value-added work and try to change its definition if necessary. We have neglected these people for a very long time, and just because they don't complain about this discrimination we should not allow this malpractice to go on. This work needs some official recognition to empower millions of homemakers. Homemakers and their work are critical for the betterment of our society, it is equally important as any other type of work therefore should be entitled to compensation and benefits like any other type of work.

I understand that this can introduce a lot of technical and legal difficulties but our society has dealt with more complicated and sensitive issues successfully. So, I don't think that this issue is so complicated that we can't come up with some practical solution for this. Why don't these women (as well as men) claim half or some percent of their family income amount as their own wages in joint income tax returns? Why can't they get half a share of the Social Security and Medicaid tax so that they can generate their own benefits rather than depending on benefits as a spouse? It is unfair for them to depend on their spouse's social security benefits when they also work equally hard to support the spouse who generates the income. These people offer a great amount of support to their partners so that they can work out of home.

One may ask, why it is necessary to attach a monetary value to housework? A very short and quick answer to this can be, simply because it is also a work, a very important work that requires a lot of effort, time, and energy, therefore, it should be treated as any other type of value-generating work. The lack of any monetary value has generated a very wrong perception of this work, so wrong that this work is not at all considered value-generating work. If someone says that his or her partner is a homemaker, then it is assumed that they don't work or are not employed or they are a stay-at-home parent, which is a very wrong perception. The main reason for this perception is the lack of any monetary value attached to this work. We need to change this perception and attaching some monetary value to this work might help in changing it. The statement, "I am a stay-at-home parent" doesn't actually reflect the amount of effort that person takes to maintain that home. I request all concerned agencies to look into this matter with all sincerity and try to come up with some practical way to remove this shortcoming. For centuries this work did not get its deserved due and if we can do something to change, it will be a great achievement. It will definitely strengthen our social fabric, and this will also bring dignity and respect for all these dedicated homemakers which they totally deserve.  

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright : Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]