>>105561977firstly, you have to understand when those anons say "capitalism", they don't mean "capitalism" as a specific ideological formulation that you're thinking of.
secondly, capitalism is problematic in one crucial area, a rather awful blindspot in how unrestricted "property rights" can have deleterious effects on society, particularly in a post-industrial society (he predates the industrial revolution after all.)
basically capitalism as you and i understand it, does not recognize any issue with the idea that you can "own" something while having no interaction with it. no skin in the game. this is as simple as "owning" a company, but you don't actually work within the structure of the company.
this is problematic because you're more or less completely insulated from the actual implications of your ownership. because you own the company, you decide what it does, and the government exists to enforce that. if you're not actually present on the ground, you're likely to just make retarded decisions that fuck over everybody. what's worse, is that the logical conclusion of this arrangement is that the company ends up being nothing more than an abstraction for making your wallet fatter. and because the fatter your wallet, the more power you have (capital is an abstraction over power after all), you very quickly end up in a feedback loop where you end up affecting society at large with your retarded decisions.
that's at the extreme end of things, but the spectrum of stupid bullshit that arises out of overly-flexible ownership rights is vast. you ever have a corporate executive stomp all over you and make the most retarded decisions you've ever seen, thus making your life hell? same concept at play.
marxism and communism aren't in actuality successors of capitalism. syndicalism was the proper evolved state of capitalism. marxism pulled from syndicalism, but at it's core it's really more about rhetoric, hence they redefined capitalism to be a meaningless boogeyman.