Again, I am not here proposing an alternative to capitalism. But -- even if it was the best system around -- its abuses are monstrous.
So it's amazingly easy to live RMS's ethics when you're given money to talk about living your ethics and those ethics are not impacted by most of the world around you.
No it's not. The mechanics are capitalism are fundamentally about mutual benefit. I give you money because having your product is worth more to me than having the money. You give me the product because having the money is worth more to you than having the product. Mutually beneficial exchange is the cornerstone of capitalism. At the end of the transaction, we are both better off.
That's not to say that there's not problems around monopoly and violence, but the latter is the failure of the state, not of the market. And monopoly is not exclusive to capitalism. Under alternative systems, everything is controlled by a monopoly (the state).
That's not capitalism by any definition.
That's extortion and it was a well known practice thousands of years before we invented (or at least understood) capitalism.
I'd argue capitalism is not even an ideology, it's just a simple understanding of comparative value and how to go beyond zero-sum economics.
In the example of "give me what I want or I'll shoot you", you could argue that "X prevents Y from being shot" and "Y gives X what he wants" is a benefit for both sides, but that ignores the first part, "X puts Y in a position where he is going to be shot" is not mutually beneficial, so the salient part of the example (the threat) is not actually an example of mutually beneficial exchange.
That is just trade, not capitalism. You are mixing them.
Actually, it's like this: I give you money because I want to make a profit and become richer. You work in order to survive.
Maybe those people are working because it offers better pay than other jobs, even if the conditions seem bad to you? (this may not be true in all situations)
(And it's not clear that capitalism is, in fact, the best of the bunch: it's bizarre that Silicon Valley, a culture that is so dedicated to pushing the boundaries of the possible that curing death is a completely pedestrian ambition, believes that /this/ economic system is the real global maximum.)
I guess that settles it.
P.S. Your family did not grow up “under communism” unless they grew up in Ukrainian Free Territory[1] or Catalan and Aragon countryside during the Spanish Civil War[2], which are the two only socio-economic entities in modern history to reasonably approximate communism. What your family grew up in is state socialist Bolshevik dictatorship. If you're going to get all worked up about ideological wars, you should at least learn what these words mean, instead of blindly reproduce vulgar, politically illiterate Cold War obfuscations.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production...