You haven't lived in the USSR or in the Eastern Bloc, have you? So far, there wasn't a way of living invented where there were no abused and/or abusers.

How can you argue against the statement "capitalism incentivizes abuse" by talking about communism?

Note that I don't disagree with your notion that abuse is abundant in all human societies.

No traces of capitalism there, yet abuse was deeply engraved. Conclusion: abuse has nothing to do with the type/philosophy of the market.

That makes sense if the original statement was that capitalism is the only thing that can ever incentivize abuse.

If you assume that abuse can be caused or influenced by more than one thing -- which I believe makes sense but you might disagree -- then it doesn't matter what communism was doing if we're talking about capitalism.

There's nothing inherently profitable about abuse. Making your workers miserable generally makes them less productive.

The thing with banks is that they aren't productive in the first place. They're scalping off whatever they can get, with fierce competition. If you're fresh out of college and get hired into these places, you can't just walk away without risking your whole career. It's a monopsony. That's what enables abuse, human nature takes care of the rest.

Non-capitalistic societies have historically been brutal and devastating for the unfortunate population experiencing it.

While I don't exactly agree with this, I'd like to remind the sibling comments that simply saying communism is worse isn't a valid argument for capitalism.