I hereby hear your argument and zap 500 sats. 

 I see your generous zap and return 210 sats back your way.  

 cringe 

 Oh boo hoo someone doesn't like voluntary transfers of wealth. I guess you'd rather have the state distribute our sats huh? 

 Yes.  When 130 countries have homeless children, all of which are capitalist countries then capitalism has failed.  You don't need to talk about marxism or socialism .  Address the provable present and epic  failure of modern capitalism everywhere around the world.  Socialism hasn't failed in a 130 countries.  Explain capitalism failure. 

 Capitalists zapping capitlaists while  class hard working people lose their jobs, become homeless and go hungry because the billionaire capitlaists own everything.  You can't just chose to be rich.  Its rigged.   A short walk down any street in any city in the world would help you know that. 

 It's called hard work and creativity. Dont be a bitch and try it sometime instead of complaining.

You may also want to run a spellchecker. Yikes 

 No capitalists own other people's labour.   Workers labour time is owned.  You'd know this by comparing pay packets and noticing the discrepancy in reward  or by seeing that unions exist, or that musk isn't actuall yworth billions more than you.  If people were rewarded hard work and hard labour, most women in africa would be  billionaires.  But they arent, because thats how capitalism works: it exploits everyone downward forever until there is on gazillionaire left. 

 You don't even know the definitions of the words you're talking about. Capitalism has nothing to do with owning other people's labor. You haven't completely backwards. No one's making you work for someone else. Capitalism doesn't force you to work for somebody. You are free to choose to work wherever you want and you are entitled to the money you get from the labor you provide. That doesn't mean you're entitled to ask for whatever sum of money you feel like earning.  

 I'm not free to just go work where I want.  I can't just rock up to a beach selling  buckets of sand.  I can't believe how delusional capitalists are.  I CAN  just quit my job, but I lose my home and go hungry. I can do some slave wage work, but I lose my time , energy and dignity, and my home.  Its such a asanine thoughtless thing to say you can just become anything and get rich by choice.  I am 100% sure you make lots of money by exploiting others.  Its the only way you would be able to believe such a thing. 

 Yes you are and yes you can You're just not entitled to make a billion dollars from it.  

 Nobody should have a billion dollars.  That would make everyones standard of living extremely high.  Only the very greedy ignorant, and selfish would opposes such a redistribution of billionaire wealth. 

 Why shouldn't they?  

 There is no legitimate argument for why people shouldn't be able to have an amount of value. Anyone trying to dictate how much value a person can hold is a supporter of tyrants or the tyrant themselves. 

 Capitalists determne how much value people can have.  Have you looked at the world today?   Can I have all your money?  Its a value I want. 

 What you are talking about isn't capitalism. It's central banking 

 Because greed is a sin.  Look around the slums of the world. And ask yourself if they deserve it. 

 Why does the amount of money you have, have anything to do with greed? They have that money because they earned it.  

 Yes there are no greedy wealthy people. 

 greed is an economic constant. Everyone is greedy.  

 Not true.  That is a myth peddled by capitalists.  Everyone is susceptible to bad behavior, that does not mean everyone is choosing to behave badly.  People are also highly keen on sharing.  Capitalists spend an enormous amounts of energy  trying to beat that instinct out of us through schooling and propaganda. 

 WTF are you on about? Capitalism is just what people naturally do. It's not some made up construct. Capitalism just means that you own what you make and are entitled to to any profit from your property.  

 If I put a gun to your head and say work for me for free for the rest of your life you are free to say  no.  

Is your defense of freedom under capitalism? 

 That's not capitalism at all... That's socialism... 

 Sounds like you're just a lazy bum who thinks he's entitled to a "living wage" for just existing and not providing anything to anyone else. ie You think your entitled to the labor of others.  

 It sounds like that to you because you are reductive and can't think properly.  I blame propaganda. 

 No.  Just no. 

 If children are going hungry and shoeless (as millions around the world do) , is that because THEY are lazy bums?

Capitalism fails when it fails children. It fails humanity.  I don't care about your financial arguments, Children shouldn't go hungry because of a system  they were born into that selfish adults obsessed with wealth have failed to address. 

 You realize the poorest people in CaPiTAlIsT USA are far richer than the vast majority of the rest of the world right? Our poorest people are still in the top 1% on a global scale.  

 what does this have to do with my question?  poor avoidance. 

 The point is that children DONT go hungry in capitalist systems...  

 You are delusional. You must speak from a place of great wealth and privilege.  No wonder you blind to the ills of capitalism. 

 But who owns what?  where does the ownership begin? Also  Socialists own their labour but Capitalists own other peoples labour.  But materials and land are owned by everyone! Most capitalists inherit their wealth which means ownership is indefinite , and why rules made by 13c lords in England means their families own most of the land (real wealth) today.  Its rediculous.

Inequality is grwoing, that is the whole point of
 capitalism.  To grow your share indefinitely.   Its the 
law for companies to maximise shareholder profit.  Illegal if they don't.  Endless expansion is the law of capitalism.   And they are doing 
very well at it.The rest are not.  They can't play, they have no chips, no land, no resources.  Its rigged.  Socialism fixes this. 

 Capitalism most certainly does NOT mean you own anything you produce. Maybe if you own your own business, but if you have a boss, your boss owns all the fruits of your labor.

Capitalism means those with the wealth to do so are able to own the means of production, the space, tools, and materials needed to produce the things society depends on. It means you're free to sell your labor, but your boss owns everything that labor produces. 

 If I'm not free to sell my labor at my discretion, do I really own it?

If I own a business, doesn't that mean I privately own the means of production? 

 I think you'd be able to own what's needed for you to do your own work. I don't think you'd be able to own what's needed for many to work. So you could own a craftsman's tools, but you couldn't own a factory or a business in which many craftsmen work and you solely own the goods and labor they produce. You might be able to band together and form something akin to a modern day co-op where everyone owns a share of the business, though. I guess it'd depend on how the core ideas are implemented. 

 So in communism, I can't make anything of consequence without having a boss first? I can only make and own doodads? 

 I think you could do your own work and receive compensation for it. I think you could produce meaningful goods. I don't think you'd be able to own the work of others, so if you and other similarly skilled workers collaborated, you couldn't appoint yourself CEO and own the fruits of their labors. You'd have to form something more like a co-op where ownership is shared. 

 OK, so I can sell my work. How is that not the exact same thing as selling my labor? And that work can be more than doodads, it can be things people actually need. How is that not me owning the means of production? 

 You could be an independent laborer, or you could maybe work in something like a co-op where workers have a direct fair share of profits, but the business structure in which your boss completely owns the fruits of your labor because he owned the machines and paid you a wage related more to ease of replacing you than the value you produce would not be allowed, so there would be nobody to sell your labor to in the conventional sense, but you could collaborate and contribute your labor to something you actually got an equitable share of profits from. Communists would point out that you've sold your labor for less than it's worth in every single job you've ever held because that is the inherent nature of wage labor under capitalism. Your boss will only ever hire you if he thinks you will produce more value than the wage you agree to because that's the only way he can generate profits for himself. Anything else would make them no money or cost them money and therefore be bad business. 

 Would you invest your time in something, in other words sell your labor, for just your basic needs to be covered from it? Don't you want something extra for your time?

Isn't it my decision if I've sold my labor for what I think it is worth?

So all of this is just a way to keep people from making a profit? 

 Sure, I'd want more, but there's nothing central to communism that'd prevent me from getting it. A reason, successful implementation of communism would need to see your needs met AND enough surplus to pursue reasonable interests and goals in exchange for your contributions. You should be free to sell your labor, but communists view the capitalist system as inherently coercive because you're forced to sell your labor under threat of homelessness and starvation. I'd guess they'd want to provide basic needs so you were free to negotiate fairly and uncoerced to earn the surplus needed for those interests and goals. 

 So, how does a system provide for the basic needs of everybody? Who produces these basic needs? And then, if your basic needs are met such that you don't have to do anything for them, what do you do to get your extra? Produce someone else's basic needs and get a profit from that? So who pays that profit if not the guy who's basic needs are met?

Do you see how this concept doesn't hold water? 

 I don't think this seems that complicated. Imagine the same amount of work gets done, but we direct efforts towards ensuring basic needs are met first. Hell, say we lose a quarter of the work to inefficiencies and time off for workers. Stop producing most absurdly high end luxury items that 99.9% of society can't enjoy, cut back on producing frivolous shit nobody needs, and accept that having your every conceivable whim catered to for a price may not be feasible, but you'll live in quality conditions. I'm not saying it's the right call, but it's not that complicated. That's not the hard part. The hard part is running an administration for an entire country's economy and keeping the corruption out at that scale. It creates centralized points of failure, which are highly attractive to corrupt individuals.