Capitalism in of itself is an incredibly small and simple concept. It’s neither sufficient as a tool of observation nor as a economic system. It’s a framework for exchange and ownership in a very primitive, not in a holistic sense.

Sure, yes. Capitalism is private ownership and markets. I get that. But when you extrapolate that core idea out, you realize that private ownership means by definition that people get left behind. Poverty and exploitation are built into the system - “i own this means of production and i can pay you whatever the market will bare”

Socialism, shared ownership, implies a sharing of profits. If we are all owners, why should you suffer while i profit?

We generally all agree that capitalism has no place in specific areas. E.g. we don’t allow markets for human organs. Most countries besides the US extend that out to their entire medical system. I see a lot of places where these ideas could reduce suffering and limit labour exploitation. E.g. housing, food, health care, and education. I’d never stand here and argue for all out socialism, but i’d like to slide down that slope a while until we arrive somewhere where there aren’t homeless encampments filling the margins of our cities and people working full time while living in their cars.

Well said, I think there is a tendency to elevate these economic concepts way beyond their usefulness.

My intuition is that politics has to grow beyond ideology and religion.

Poverty and exploitation were built into socialistic systems as well. And I think USSR and China never shared profits, but on the contrary - exploited their citizens to the maximum.