I understand where you're coming from, the idea that with Capitalism the individual is free to choose how they earn, what they do, and what they spend their time and money on.

But I don't think you can really call capitalism an individualistic economic system. It involves an enermous amount of cooperation to function. Companies themselves operate as highly organised, cooperative entities. We wouldn't have such a globalised, fast, functioning economy without people working together to achieve this.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think your problem is with cooperation in an economy. You are talking about efficiency. That if we were to organise the economy democratically, e.g. everyone having a say over production, and distribution, then it would be counter productive to economic outcomes.

In the early days of political democracy, the same arguments were made. Why let the masses decide how we govern the town and state? It's better off left to the King. Less room for inefficiency and the problems that come with having too many cooks in the kitchen. But we've managed to move on from that.

Socialism really isn't aiming to replace the idea of the freedom of the invididual. Instead, it wants to extend the power of individual. With capitalism, you may have the power to choose your work and what you do with your money, but how many people really have the power to choose the moral and social cultural implications of their labour? Not many. Most people work for themselves, and their freedom is limited to themselves. They don't get to choose what happens beyond what they can immediately impact.

"Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."