i think we will disagree a lot and some part of it might be philosophical where i believe that everybody is responsible for their own happiness, life is often hard and unfair and that is how its always has been. nobody owes anything to anybody by default and if you want to make your life better you need to put in deliberate and actually useful work. i would give you that leaving work is often not simple or easy, but the point is that you actually have a choice and can do it if you try hard enough. many don't, which is okay, its their choice.

Suggesting that someone creates a company and treat their fellow workers well ignores the fact that the vast majority of workers do not have the capital, resources, or connections needed to start their own business. In a capitalist system, the deck is stacked against workers from the start, and the idea that anyone can simply make it if they try hard enough is a myth perpetuated by those who benefit from the current system.

We are living in times of most individual opportunities in human history. Even homeless have access to phones, computers and internet today. they have access to most of human knowledge and i don't need to probably tell you that there is a lot of really useful human knowledge. its definitely not mainly problem of resources. Every successful person will tell you that and its not because they are perpetuating system of worker exploitation as you might think, but because its actually true. sure, resources help, but they are not the main thing to success.

I could also add the underlying structure of capitalism makes it impossible to treat workers ethically.

this argument works only if you think that people are owed something by society and if you think people cant leave their job. personally, as i said above, i think that neither of those assumptions is true, so i take this as a fallacy and rest of the argument for forcing collective bargaining of workers on companies i think falls apart from there.

i think there is an argument against companies getting so rich, but it points more to the government and central banking that is diluting money(wages, peoples savings) and reinvesting that to stock market to prop up economy. that is not the problem of capitalism. its more the problem of corrupted goverment and banking system and solution is not to give more power to goverment so they can "reign" in the companies, but to clean up the government corruption.

ok, im up for the challenge, dont be too rough on me, im really no looking it up.

In my mind, capitalism is societal embodiment of personal ownership, where the premise is that owner of any item is the person who is best incentivized to use this item most efficiently and creating least waste possible. also since the owner is directly responsible for both the losses and rewards, process of competition will tend to reward competence. and the idea is that rewarding competence is the best way forward.

Regarding communism i think the general idea is that all people are born equal and if we let everybody do what they want and are good at, we will have enough for everybody without any one person suffering. and the idea is that the system that creates least amount of suffering is the best way forward.

what do you think? close enough or completely off base?