[flagged]
Also, one can be opposed to patriarchy while, at the same time, pointing out that the men who run capitalism fail on their own archaic and patriarchal terms. That these self-asserted "leaders" fail at being what they themselves want to be makes it all the more probable that they fail at being what we in society want or need them to be.
Fascism runs on a certain archaic masculine presence, and that is true whether we're talking about Mussolini's centralized variety, or the kind we see here where we live under the petty tyranny of a thousand employer-states. Toxic masculinity is at the core of old-style fascism and neofeudalist corporate capitalism alike.
If you meet the men (and, yes, they're mostly men) in charge, though, they're all lethargic and unattractive creatures who never had to fight for anything. The system largely exists because they need to compensate for this fact--it exists both to elevate their appeal to women and to dimininsh that of male competitors. Pointing out that they fail on their own terms (old-style masculinity) is useful, because it discredits them and brings to mind questions about what they are really doing.
Not even close. A relatively small amount of people with an outsize cultural influence were imagining a less stifling and less cruel world but it will take a lot more than just eliminating capitalism to do that, and nothing indicates that capitalism itself is the sole, or even main cause.
"We have to remind people at every opportunity that, not only is capitalism not sexy, but its reason for existing is to funnel disproportionate sexual access to repulsive men--I'm talking 400-pound oil executives with body odor--who otherwise would be unlikely to get any."
I assume it would be okay if said oil execs were fit, or women? As opposed to fictional non-elitist commissars? No, with attitudes like these, no one is any closer to curtailing the excesses or cruelties of capitalism and industry.