[akramachamarei]

Hyperbole, sure. When you used the word "slave", you didn't mean it. When you used the word "freedom" just now, that's not what you actually meant either, is it? You're probably talking about something like the capabilities model, not actually freedom.

You seem to think it's so unfair that people work, or they starve. I focus on your usage of words like "slavery" and "freedom" because I want to get at what you actually believe. You're implying there's a better way to run the world than to have "capitalism", which is to say, property is enforced, contracts are enforced, and people are allowed to trade consensually without (much) interference from men with badges and guns. But, like your loaded use of the term "slave", the lede has been left implicit; like "freedom" your alternative is left nebulous.

Or is your complaint hyperbole too? Should I not take it seriously? Sure, you might be correct in a limited sense, that an uncharitable reading of OP's comment is wrong. But based on history, I don't see how the average person is going to get a better Return for their Work with some other system which doesn't respect property, contracts, free exchange, and if so, at what cost.

Finally, you're dead wrong about most people in the world. Ever heard of the rise of the global middle class? Poverty is falling on a global scale. That's not because of charity.

[thrance]

> property is enforced, contracts are enforced, and people are allowed to trade consensually without (much) interference from men with badges and guns.

Capitalism isn't about that at all. It is about private ownership of the means of production, and that's it. It says nothing about freedom to or freedom from. And indeed, most humans alive today have very little to their names, and they have very limited agency to change things.

> But based on history

Don't fall into capitalist realism.

[akramachamarei]

Forgive me for using my "personal" definition. It's a kind of colloquial meaning, perhaps not the "official" one. (As a side note I find "freedom from" to be an abuse of terms, and is better essentially expressed as a right to.) In the spirit of personal meaning and not attempting to litigate concepts which have been laboriously elsewhere, what is your vision of society? What does it look like when productive capital is not privately owned? And would private ownership of capital be in some sense prohibited de facto? Can this society be democratic? "Liberal"?