>When only the state has a stake in all of companies and everybody is an employee of the state, there is zero interest for things to work out the way they were

>When only the state has a stake in all of companies and everybody is an employee of the state, there is zero interest for things to work out the way they were intended to. This can easily be rephrased to: "when all the major politicians have stakes in all the major companies, there is zero interest for things to work out the way they were intended to." And now there's no actual argument to what you're saying. Both systems have flaws. That does not prove one's better, you need more then that. Seeing the flaws is the first step to asking yourself the question, "is there a better way to do this?" Do you think we're better off because our corporate funded politicians have all the power, and we're just living in their fiefs? Is that the sign of a good system? Capitalism uses minor successes in it's lower classes like bread and circuses. They're distractions. Don't say to yourself, "at least I'm not starving in some South American country", ask yourself "why can't we all be doing better?" Is this system really the best mankind can do?