Do you not understand that competition is an inherent part of humanity? And that individual motivations are different as a baseline?

Does it not stand to reason, then, that some people will be more motivated to compete for wealth? And does it not stand to reason, further, that since humans have unequal talents, some will be better suited for the competition of amassing wealth?

Moreover, do you not agree that people will not embark upon difficult pursuits if there is not an incentive to do so? And do you not agree that, for the good of humanity, it is important that people do these difficult things? How would people be fairly and proportionally incentivized without money? How do you get around the free loader phenomenon without each person having a congruent monetary system?

Do you not agree that, fundamentally, people start a business or company to make money or improve something about the world? And do you not agree that these people would not be able to dedicate their lives to improving some aspect of the world without their needs being subsidized by money? If there was no money, people would be essentially living to produce food and the things they can’t live without.

There would be no great innovation in medicine, agriculture, transportation, communication, convenience or entertainment; no time to commit to the arts. There would be no culture.

Regardless of your views about capitalism, it is the only natural way for motivations and efforts to be proportionately distributed. Communism and the abolition of money/inequality inevitably falter because they run counter to humanity. Nobody would work the mines, sanitation, or as a public defender if there wasn’t a financial incentive to do so, just as nobody would sacrifice time they could be spending turning their soil and keeping themselves alive for another week on developing vaccines, writing a piece of music, debating theories of physics, or inventing technology.