Posting what are logical conclusions of your...
I simply pointed pointed out that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you responded by posting irrelevant links and insults. If you're not a troll, you're certainly acting
like one, and I grow weary of your shenanigans.
Good day, sir.
We know that Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems and not political ones. You can have Socialist Democracies and Capitalist Dictatorships.
And that's actually what a lot of people don't get. Down to the core, the key difference between capitalism and socialism is essentially "Who do the farmers work for?"
In capitalism, the farmers work for businesses to whom their land belongs.
In socialism, the farmers work for the government to whom their land belongs.
The various sub-tropes of each are variations on a theme. Even Libertarian Socialism -- that bizzare stateless fever dream of deeply confused Marxists -- really just replaces the state with a large amorphous dis-unified entity that nevertheless remains a state.
Under capitalism, we call those farm hands
or employees. Our farmers overwhelmingly own their own land...
And therefore own the business to which that land belongs (which is to say, it is THEIR business and THEIR land).
That's all just a complicated way of saying "private ownership."
That is in contrast with social
ownership, which is understood to be the ownership of the land by a state, a government, or some other body empowered to act on behalf of large groups of people who share a common community or other similar grouping. THAT term is only as vague as it is because socialism is designed to be applicable to just about any political structure, from various levels of government up to and include the state itself.
Where it gets interesting, IMO, is where libertarian socialism sort of dovetails into anarcho-capitalism. Arguably, the only difference between them is their initial starting point; when giant corporations buy out your entire government and private enterprise BECOMES the state, it is essentially the same outcome as socialism: a single entity (or collective group of them working together) owns the means of production while those who do the actual work are completely shut out. All that really means that is that socialism and capitalism fail for the exact same reasons, and in the exact same way
Which brings us full circle back to where this debate started. Capitalism is NOT the only system on the planet that can work, and it is prone to collapse, in some cases spectacularly. Those instances of economic collapse are usually caused by the removal of limiting factors on capitalism, allowing the sort of monopolistic tendencies that lead to the centralization of economic power so that a very small number of people control the majority of the wealth. Every time an economy becomes that top-heavy and unbalanced, it begins to shake itself apart, and the shellshocked locals pick up the pieces and try to reform the industry, reinstall the existing safeguards to prevent it from happening again.
The OP's study is going a bit further by predicting a systemic collapse BEYOND mere economic models, particularly social and environmental problems resulting from over-consumption and shortsighted policies. He's clearly overstating his case, but there's something to be said for long-term stability (at least in comparison to the "Constant Growth is Good" paradigm in modern economics). Capitalism alone doesn't provide stability... not because of the nature of capitalism as a system, but because of the nature of people
: we have some, we want more, and we don't like to be told that we can't. Capitalism is an economic system that rewards behaviors that, in any other context, would be described as "being a greedy fuck." Since socialism obviously isn't a viable solution, it seems to me we're long overdue for a new option.