Because capitalists do not earn their money. Their laborers do the lion's share of the work in a cooperative nature.

Most companies don't succeed, leaving the exploiting capitalist pigs with a loss.
And yet for as long as the company operates, the workers get wages.

Even without considering that without companies to work on, there wouldn't be paid jobs. There would be self employment, I guess, but self employment, even in manual labor, is entrepreneurial, not hired labor in the sense company's employees are.

One of the problems of capitalist supporters and pundits is that they base wealth and success of a nation on what that tiny handful has, not what the vast majority has. 

Because what the 1% has is the peak of material advancement? Because for 100% to have something, it has to arrive at all first, even if it arrives at different times to different people?

Poverty is the default state. It's entirely normal and should be expected to measure the most removed from it as what the system can achieve. True enough that this doesn't measure how removed from it are the rest, but it is a good start in spite of that.

just as we did in the American Revolution, when the new nation dispensed with the previous economic world order that had similarly outlived its usefulness--feudalism.

England was feudal sometime. British North America was never feudal.

Sorry, these were social democratic ideals--i.e., liberal capitalism--not genuine socialism. I'll correct this dishonesty of yours every time I have to, sorry (well not really!). 

Would you say those unsocialist measures were a step in the right or the wrong direction?

Why can you not own it?

If Bernie was the Democratic candidate, versus someone more free-marketer than Trump on the GOP, would you vote against him because he was not socialist enough? Wouldn't you consider him a step in the direction you want, even if it isn't long enough for you?

And are you seriously saying that totally unregulated capitalism, with no social safety net and a price tag on just about everything, would enable these people to rise out of poverty, rampant crime, and the brutal competition that causes the violence you mention? 

Yes.

OK, the rise in crime has a little bit more complex, though still political, reasons, and I don't think simply restoring a kapitalist system would be enough in the short term. But still...

Since when has unregulated capitalism ever allowed anything resembling prosperity for the vast majority? 

My time to No True Scotsman. Unregulated kapitalism has never existed. :D

And the general public outside of the few who control the corporations that take the lion's share of that wealth are certainly doing well! 

Well at least you admit that.

I can certainly praise your honesty!

Only those few who own do not produce. Those who work produce, and they are the vast majority. 

Well, technically, those who own could rent the premises to those who work and let them keep the stuff produced and sell it themselves. You'd probably be happier from that arrangement because the owner wouldn't keep anything of what workers worked for. The name of that system is feudalism.

When I write a story, I produce it, not the publishing company who publishes it. They just provide the money, not the labor. Let us not forget that. 

Whoa there!

Aren't you forgetting someone?

Don't you think the workers who made the pen with which you wrote deserve their share too?






Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail