> both systems [capitalism and communism] are technically failures because they both have not lead to a scenario where the cost of ensuring that the base physio

> both systems [capitalism and communism] are technically failures because they both have not lead to a scenario where the cost of ensuring that the base physiological needs of every member of society has dropped to a point where it's just a given that every member of society will have access to three meals a day and a secure and warm shelter. What? That's a very weird take. Firstly, your goal might be way too high. Even in theory, a system can be optimal without being good enough. If there isn't a way to produce enough food (for example) no matter what, then a system that produces the maximum amount of food that is possible wouldn't be a failure in my eyes. Secondly, this makes an implicit comparison between the two systems and finds them both similarly wanting. But capitalism almost completely solves the problem of "three meals a day and warm shelter", whereas communism famously doesn't solve it at all. Under capitalism, a tiny minority of people starved. Under communism, millions starved. It's not even close. And while yes, the fact that we throw away so much food is terrible, but it's definitely better than not having enough, and that happens because of capitalism, for the most part.