Let's be honest, this is just navel gazing. At heart it's a simple question of ethics: Do you prefer a system that affords a very small number of people a life

Let's be honest, this is just navel gazing. At heart it's a simple question of ethics: Do you prefer a system that affords a very small number of people a lifestyle of exuberant luxury and wasteful excess at the cost of exploiting the labor of the vast majority and condemning a large number of people to abject poverty to one that distributes resources based on how much every single person can contribute and how much they need and sharing the surplus, even if the luxuries this affords everyone can at best approximate the mean of the system built on exploitation? Generally, people like democracy because they like the idea of everyone having an equal say. Generally, people like socialized healthcare because they like the idea of everyone being cared for in times of crisis. Generally, people like public services because they like the idea of everyone having access to vital infrastructure and emergency services. Generally, people like the minimum wage because they don't like to see people being taken advantage of. But the very idea of capitalism contradicts this. Under capitalism, democracy is defined in terms of the free market. Socialized healthcare is seen as wasteful. Maintaining infrastructure beyond what is immediately necessary is inefficient. The minimum wage is seen as hindering market flexibility. All can be property and all property must be subject to the market and the market must allow for the accumulation of property in order to allow it to find a stable equilibrium over time, humans are an afterthought. Generally, people don't like this. That is why it's always wrapped in conditionals: "capitalism but in a democracy", "capitalism but regulated", "capitalism but social market economics", "capitalism but woke". But those are always contradictions and at the end of the day the market demands privatization and absolute capitalization. Capitalism tends towards "anarcho-capitalism", a minimalist state reduced to its mechanisms of enforcement but at the full control of moneyed interests where every social interaction is a market transaction. Capitalism puts markets first. Everything is capital, every interaction transactional. Conveniently this benefits those who already have state-enforced claims over massive amounts of capital going in. Inconveniently it can be literally life-threatening to those who have nothing and hazardous to those who only have their own labor to sell. Anarchism puts people first. The systems arise from it as needed and are kept in check by everyone's willingness to participate in them. A real-life version of the fiction of the "social contract" state theory uses to justify its steel grip around its subjects' necks. Under a state there is literally nowhere you can go because all land is property and property can be ceased or held by the state. Under a state there is literally nothing you can take with you because all you have is property and all your property is only under your control as long as the state permits it. The state exists as a golem manifesting and voiding property claims and transactions while following the faint calls of whoever holds the most of it, be it the democratic majority or a minority of moneyed individuals. For me, that goes deeply against my idea of ethics. We can't aimlessly tear down the systems we have, yes, as long as other systems exist that will fill in the gaps. But we can build horizontal structures in the spaces those systems allow it or where they can't stop us - yet. Once you tear down one system, the others will fill the gaps. It's on us to ensure those that remain will be in favor of us once those that exist in contradiction force their own inevitable destruction as their necessary resolution.