The non-capitalist moves that stopped that nonsense were union moves, not socialistic or communistic.

> ... we'd still have voting as a reserved right for rich landowners. That's capitalism.

That's feudalism, not capitalism. It was democracy that undid that nonsense, not socialism or communism.

The rest of your rant shows that you are very bitter, but it does nothing to either enlighten or persuade.

Also capitalism is in no way in opposition to other individual freedoms such as unionism, liberal democracy, etc. You can have capitalism without them, just look at China, but I would argue that as a freedom, capitalism is most naturally aligned with other such personal freedoms.

As you point out rubber baron and oligarchic systems are based on suppressing freedoms, including often individual rights over capital. Corporate scrip isn’t capital, so clearly it’s iuse is actually anti-capitalist by restricting individual rights over capital.

The distribution of resources according to what will make the rich richer is not the best way. The private ownership of means of production is simply theft, there's no need for it and no moral justification.

Ultimately we're greedy by nature; capitalism rewards that greed, feeds it and deifies it.

I haven't set out to persuade you; if you seek to persuade yourself of what is just I have no doubt you will reject capitalism.

If I have some money, and you have some money, and I buy a tool and you buy some beer, I have a tool and you don't - so I'm stealing from you? [Edit: Note that the "means of production" can be as simple as a wrench, or a sewing machine, or a welder.] Step away from the marxist koolaid, you've had a bit much...

And you're only a half step away from theft yourself. Stating that "the private ownership of means of production is theft" leads almost inevitably to "therefore the public need to take back the means of production from those who have them". That's theft.

> I haven't set out to persuade you

You sure haven't. Stating as fact things that are completely outrageous from the other person's perspective is not a very good tactic of persuasion.

> ... if you seek to persuade yourself of what is just I have no doubt you will reject capitalism.

You should doubt. You should also find a better line; "if you really seek truth and justice you'll agree with me" is a manipulative cop-out. You want me to be persuaded? Make a convincing argument that makes sense to someone who doesn't already agree with you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

I think it's disingenuous to think the only way workers can own the means of production is to take them from someone else.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

I think it's disingenuous to think the only way workers can own the means of production is to take them from someone else.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."