> I mean, we have attempted (at least in part) to create a system where acting selfishly in pursuit of money forces you to create value for society. That's literally the intent of the idea of capitalism.

No, it's not; that's an after-the-fact rationalization.

I mean, we were a few centuries into the feudalism-capitalism transition before anyone started even talking about property rights in those terms in general, at least another century before capitalism as a system was even described (and by it's critics, not it's supporters), and I think several decades later till this excuse was cited specifically as a justification for capitalism as such.

Capitalism was created, incrementally over time, because rich merchants decided to use their wealth to force feudal overlords to cede progrrssively more power and influence to the rich merchants. Not as a manner to harness greed for the public good. Just as a matter of greed, pure and simple.

Yes, I'm talking about how we justify it now and why we continue to try to use it as our primary system. That is at the very least the sales pitch. I believe it's a sensible idea - trying to ignore or change human nature seems unlikely to work, trying to harness it and direct it seems viable, and works to at least some extent in our current system.

My point was that, while that may be the aim of the system, it's not inherent to it - you are backing up my point by saying that it was not always used that way.

>I mean, we have attempted (at least in part) to create a system where acting selfishly in pursuit of money forces you to create value for society. That's literally the intent of the idea of capitalism.

No that's completely false. Capitalism is the replacement (and logical continuation) of feudalism, after its collapse, as a system of social stratification. Saying that is trying to validate your thinking and ignoring the history of the matter.

I am talking about the idea as it exists now, not the historical thing. I accept that it didn't spring up as it stands, but the idea that it is a system to create the society we want is at the very least the current claim for why we use it. I believe it's a system that can be made to work well, given the right setup.

My point was that, while that may be the aim of the system, it's not inherent to it - you are backing up my point by saying that it was not always used that way. (You may argue it still doesn't, although I'd say it does at least to some extent).