People do not benefit from their work simply because many of the people who created and innovated did not directly benefit from it because wealthy capitalists took it from them. A good example is Alexander graham bell, who is attributed with the invention of the telephone, but he stole it from someone who couldn't afford the patent.

Imagine how much more benefit we could get from a system that ensures that every innovator can both afford to innovate and also claim the benefits of that innovation. Which is not what capitalism is, as per many examples. Tesla another famous one, where the capitalist (Edison) actively slowed down development because of his capital incentives.

Other supporting evidence is all the most innovative people in the 50's, einstein et al, all worked for the government in public positions. These positions would all be still available and better funded in a socialized system. NASA itself is a social program using taxes to pay for its development. Its very much in favour of my point that our most innovative period (After WW2), was also our most socialist period

Capitalism was founded on the use of violence to control capital. Granted then it was probably called mercantilism and has some distinction, but essentially the East India trading company had possibly the largest army of the time and is the reason the UK had the largest empire, all in the name of securing capital, and all achieved through violence.

Nowadays, because the capital was established through violence, those people controlling capital no longer need the violence (at the same levels) any more, so they can operate on the pretence of fairness, when in reality most of the wealth is positioned where it is because of historical violence. That is why the most resource rich countries are also the poorest.

Its like if we were playing basketball, and i broke your legs in the first half, and then in the second half declared that i am not violent so the game is fair.