Based on the sources, the prevailing critiques of capitalism are varied and touch upon its economic, social, political, and cultural dimensions. Rather than presenting a single, unified challenge, these critiques highlight different facets of how capitalism is seen to function, its impacts on individuals and society, and the difficulties in imagining or achieving alternatives. One significant line of critique focuses on the **ideological underpinnings and manipulative nature of capitalism**. According to some perspectives, capitalism promotes pernicious ideologies, such as meritocracy and free will, which serve to support the system. These views encourage individuals to believe they are entirely in control of their own success or failure, regardless of external or systemic factors. This can lead people to blame themselves for their lack of upward mobility or failure to achieve wealth and fame, rather than recognizing how the system might be "rigged" against them. This perspective suggests that the choices and freedoms offered by capitalist society are sometimes superficial, serving to legitimize the system while behind-the-scenes forces work to maintain the stability and power of the upper class. Furthermore, this critique highlights that unlike voluntary activities like gambling, participation in the economic market is often necessary for survival in modern society, making the control held by the upper class all the more problematic. Notions of human nature under capitalism can also mirror and justify the system, promoting selfish, aggressive striving and dominance as natural behavioral baselines. Another key critique concerns the **impact of capitalism on values, social relations, and everyday life**. It's argued that capitalism increasingly prioritizes economic self-interest and organizes the moral order according to economic principles. This process can lead to the social world, which enables capitalism, being taken for granted rather than being treated with care. This relates to the concept of the "colonization" or "rationalization" of the "lifeworld" (our shared sense of community, cultural practices, and attitudes) by "systems organizations" (bureaucracy, impersonal efficiency). Jürgen Habermas, among others, has observed this trend, suggesting that irrational and absurd contradictions of modern life result from the infiltration of our culture and attitudes by the bureaucracy of the system. This systematic reorganization is seen as distorting and disrupting traditional social attitudes. Some critics, like Henri Lefebvre, contend that everyday life under capitalism becomes increasingly degraded, routinized, and 'cretinized' as individuals' capacity for autonomous action and creative self-expression is diverted into the pursuit of commodities. They argue that the contradiction between the potential for freedom offered by material and technological advancement and the reality of alienation experienced subjectively and objectively is particularly acute under capitalism. Capitalism can also lead to a situation where norms and values are undermined or become ambiguous. It's argued that the coherence of capitalist societies is significantly produced by the "dull compulsion of economic relations" rather than shared ideology in late capitalism, implying a lack of deeper social cohesion beyond economic necessity. Even concepts like authenticity, which might initially critique commodification, can themselves become assimilated and commodified within capitalism, particularly in its later forms like "network capitalism". This form of capitalism emphasizes connection and flexibility but requires individuals to view their abilities as commodities needing entrepreneurial development, turning workers into "entreployees" who prioritize employability as personal capital over traditional job security. The issue of **inequality and exploitation** is a central critique with deep roots in Marxist thought. Critics highlight that capitalism inherently involves the production of surplus value, often viewing art as a site for the playing out of symbolic class struggle. While there was a traditional Marxist idea that capitalism produces its own "gravediggers," creating the conditions for its own overcoming, later critics have debated how this plays out, particularly questioning the central role of the proletariat in contemporary society. A powerful critique, echoing Rousseau and Marx, denounces capitalism as the source of corruption, greed, and materialism, viewing the establishment of private property as a historical tragedy. Despite promises of progress, capitalism is seen by some as failing to deliver and instead producing inequality, pollution, unemployment, and a degradation of values. It's argued that capitalism produces not only the fetishism of commodities and a sense of vacuity but also massive poverty and subsistence living, meaning that "use values" remain crucial for a large portion of the world's population, contrary to analyses focused solely on the spectacle of consumption. The presence of spectacular consumption of useless commodities alongside subsistence living highlights the massive inequality generated by the system. Some critiques suggest that the system is not failing in these aspects, but perhaps succeeding in producing these outcomes. The rise in economic inequality, especially since the 1980s in many Western countries, with a disproportionate share of wealth going to the richest percent, is a significant focus of contemporary criticism. The **role of the state and the nature of power** under capitalism also draw significant critique. While traditional Marxist views sometimes saw the state as merely reflecting the economic structure, some analyses, including Chomsky's, argue that the state is actively and instrumentally involved in supporting business interests in so-called market economies. This involves not only political support but also an essential economic role through subsidies and purchasing. The state is seen as having a proactive role, particularly in international relations, where force and repression may be used to secure markets and resources for private interests. This perspective suggests that analyses focused solely on economic dynamics may reify the economy and miss the crucial role of political power exercised through the state. Critiques also highlight the transnational character of late capitalism, which complicates the idea of a simple national bourgeoisie and creates contradictory positions regarding issues like nationalism. The apparent internationalism of big business is argued to still rely heavily on the support of specific states, particularly powerful ones like the US, which actively work to advance their business interests globally, often through methods that might be seen as illiberal or repressive. This suggests that the "international framework" often favors certain nationalisms while rendering others invisible. Furthermore, critiques address the **changing forms of capitalism** and their specific problems. Neoliberalism, for example, is analyzed not just as an economic program but as a form of governance that seeks to generalize the economic form throughout society and produce a particular type of subject – an atomized, self-interested, risk-taking, competitive individual. This form of governance is seen as restricting thinking and discussion primarily to market efficiency, thereby ruling out consideration of fairness, justice, or other alternative approaches. It's argued that economic theory under neoliberalism actively constructs the truth of the subject it claims to discover, particularly through the increasing insecurity of work. The concept of "fractal economy" in postmodernity suggests a de-territorialization where capital becomes a "thermodynamic force" dissipating traditional structures into fragmented bodies and differentiated individuality, effectively usurping state power and prioritizing 'having' over 'being'. Finally, many critiques point to capitalism's **failure to adequately address fundamental social and environmental problems**. While capitalism has demonstrated significant capacity to manage or transform economic crises, it is seen as having eliminated crisis potentials without eliminating systemic irrationalities. These irrationalities no longer necessarily manifest as overt social crises, partly due to transformations in culture. Critics argue that complex contemporary problems like climate change are often reframed in purely technical or economic terms (cost-benefit analysis, consumer incentives), thereby obscuring underlying political, ethical, and moral questions about fairness and the distribution of risks and burdens. This approach is seen as a variation of technocratic consciousness that avoids addressing the deepest roots of failures and the social implications of growth, often promoting top-down, authoritarian solutions that benefit powerful interests. The notion that it is easier to imagine the "end of the world" than a change in the mode of production under capitalism highlights a perceived ideological barrier to confronting fundamental systemic issues. In summary, the prevailing critiques of capitalism, as presented in these sources, are multifaceted, addressing its role in shaping ideology and consciousness, degrading everyday life and values, perpetuating inequality and exploitation, influencing and being supported by state power in complex transnational ways, evolving into problematic new forms like neoliberalism and network capitalism, and failing to provide adequate frameworks for addressing critical social and environmental challenges. These critiques often stem from Marxist traditions but have evolved to incorporate insights from other fields like sociology, political theory, and cultural studies.