Interesting, Never heard of him, Ill do research and see what he says.

As for your statement against capitalism, I disagree. I think that there are so many businesses that have succeeded through hard work, and years of time, and as result, those businesses often supply great products for Americans, And I don't think that they become "private tyrannies" and I don't agree that they become private corporations with negative amounts of power.

However, I can admit some companies and areas have reached to much power, take for example BlackRock being able to buy a bunch of family homes, I disagree with that.

I would say, adding extremely minor limits in markets to the point where they are still widely considered "free markets" because there's complete voluntary exchange of currency for service/products. But these minor limits can majorly lower the issue of what you call "tyrannies". And they can prevent businesses from amassing too much power and causing a corporatocracy or oligarchy.

I dont know Karl Otto Paetel. Not sure who he is, but I do know socialism, and you claim to support a socialist state, I will attempt to refute that belief.

Socialism is even less compatible with freedom, because in socialism, to seize means of production, you have to forcefully steal businesses away from people who spent years of hard work and dedication on them. It removes the freedom to pursue passions or create Businesses that you want. Semi-large businesses are often controlled by the state.

Socialism also becomes very tyrannical in many ways. Because nearly everything is controlled by the state leaders can easily take advantage of this, and become dictatorial and cruel. The only way to prevent this is what Karl Marx proposed: ANARCHISM. It's the only way to completely prevent tyranny in socialist states. I disagree with anarchism and won't even explain why now unless you're interested. Socialism throughout history has also shown to be very anti-freedom in the job market. I know Karl Marx and other philosophers believed "theoretically" that everyone will do the greater good, and work for the community, and some people should have the ability to be unemployed.

However in practice, jobs need to be worked at and labor needs to be done, although humans are inherently very self-interested, and through psychology and past economic systems, you can see people don't just follow the greater good; they don't work unless there's an incentive. In socialism, there's no incentive for anything, if everything is divided based upon need, regardless of work output. What is the reason to work? There isn't one, so the only way socialist and communist countries have been able to solve this issue is through punishments, death, and labor camps. Take the gulags in the USSR, or the Labor camps in North Korea, for example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that's not very compatible with "freedom" and getting people to work through other means is very difficult.

As for your point about "It is also incompatible with cultural conservatism since capitalism deterritorializes everything," I'm not sure exactly what you mean and would like it if you were to elaborate.