when knocking something it is always reasonable to ask what the alternatives are and how these alternatives might be better.
Absolutely, hence the call for an honest debate.
The alternative to capitalism, which has lifted millions out of poverty, is a socialist/communist utopia which has only ever resulted in tyranny, corruption and poverty for the man on the street.
Is that the only alternative? I suggest it is not.
Luckily for us here in Ireland the people who advocate such a system are, rightly, in a tiny minority.
True. But those of us advocating an alternative to the current capitalist system of plunder and profit by way of environmental destruction are growing in number.
A true democratic socialist republic to enshrine the rights of each individual in equal measure affording the freedoms to trade, engage, assemble and prosper without fear or favour, in an ethically and environmentally sustainable way, is one other alternative.
I have some ideas of my own of how that can be achieved, such as maximum income. On this site, that concept doesn't receive any support. Fair enough, but the point is that ideas need to be forthcoming and examined.
To simply disregard alternative viewpoints, as you consistently do, and automatically revert to your default position that the system you live in now is favourable to other systems (e.g NK, USSR), even though nobody is advocating those systems, shows a shallowness in actual thinking.
Here is what Theresa May says about free market capitalism, to which I broadly agree with as I am sure you do too?
"When countries make the transition from closed, restricted, centrally-planned economies to open, free market policies, the same things happen.
Life expectancy increases, and infant mortality falls.
Absolute poverty shrinks, and disposable income grows.
Access to education is widened, and rates of illiteracy plummet.
Anticipation in cultural life is extended, and more people have the chance to contribute.
It is in open, free market economies that technological breakthroughs are made which transform, improve and save lives.
It is in open, free market economies that personal freedoms and liberties find their surest protection.
A free market economy, operating under the right rules and regulations, is the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created."
That's the good stuff. The underlined however points to the bad stuff.
As much as societies have prospered and developed under capitalism, it comes with a massive cost. In case you aren't aware, there is a train of thought, scientifically supported, that suggests that the capitalist system as currently modelled is responsible for an adverse change in the planet's climate with potentially disastrous consequences.
There is also another train of thought, with good reasoning in my opinion, that this system is sustained on the might of the US military industrial complex and its use of force around the world. Projecting the greatest tyrannical empire in the history of humankind.
And if that is not bad enough, it is all for a capitalist systems as currently modelled that is prone to collapse again and again. The 2007/8 financial collapse being the obvious case in point, but also the Weimar republic of Germany with its subsequent disastrous consequences. And of course the great Depression in the US from 1929, a failed capitalist market system by itself.
I refer to Mays speech again, talking about solutions;
"It consists of an open market place, in which everyone is free to participate, regulated under the rule of law, with personal freedoms, equality and human rights democratically guaranteed, and an accountable government, progressively taxing the economic activity which the market generates, to fund high-quality public services which are freely available to all citizens, according to need.
That is unquestionably the best, and indeed the only sustainable, means of increasing the living standards of everyone in a country.
And we should never forget that raising the living standards and protecting the jobs of ordinary working people is the central aim of all economic policy."
When hospital waiting lists, housing lists, mortgage defaults are increasing, when suicide rates are all time high, when house prices and rents are out of reach for ordinary working people, then the system is broken and it is unsustainable.
When public finances are reliant on increasing debt, when personal debt is to be carried into retirement, when pension schemes are simply not going to deliver, do you think that fits with what May has touched on? I certainly don't.
Finally, if the last part of Mays speech that I quoted came from Jeremy Corbyn instead, would anyone be surprised? Or would they just take the automatic default position and continue to babble on about NKorea and USSR?