>>212136791To have an honest discussion, first we have to agree to certain definitions, and if you ask them about what is capitalism for them then they will mainly give a generic answers such as "A system which exploits its workers for profit and in order to individualistically accumulate resources". I'd like to know an instance when you dont use the workforce to gain a profit, it is essential in order to have an economy in the first place, even the communist countries had an internal one and had to trade with other nations. It is insane to think you can achieve to live in a society where everybody does its job just for the sake of contributing, go try to convince people to do a shitty 9-5 job where you assemble mechanical pieces in a factory, let alone the ones that inevitably require longer hours to keep up with the quality level of the product or service offered. Maybe you can achieve that in a dystopian society where you are 1)forced to work and 2)forced to do a specific one, therefore inevitably an extremely authoritarian one. It will never work on a big scale, maybe in small communities and communes, but you will always have to depend on the big industries outside for certain equipment and services if you dont want to abandon technological progress.
I'd also like to know an instance when you dont have to accumulate resources and inevitably reinvest them, it is the basis of progress and we've been doing it since the dawn of civilization, and it happens even communist states but the difference is that it's the state itself doing it instead of the private citizen, and it proved to do it very inefficently judging how free market and competition provided better services and products compared the communist countries during cold war.
The moment you switch to having a state with full control then productivity decrease, everything is less efficient, corruption and nepotism skyrockets, and you end up having worse quality of life just for sake of owning the rich.