[kaolti]

Who is disputing that there are clearly worse alternatives? Pick almost any part of history.

You're talking about alternatives to the status-quo. Sure, there's lots to be improved, that's not what the disagreement is. The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future, or - like the Guardian suggests - burning it all to the ground because capitalism = bad.

[jahaja]

> Who is disputing that there are clearly worse alternatives?

No one, and neither do I. That's why I added inevitable. Because the problem is the false dichotomy of Capitalism or Stalinism. It's obvious that the people calling for radical change are not even close to supporting Stalinism. But for some reason this is always assumed when just criticism towards Capitalism is presented.

> The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future

Moderates never ever find a "good" time for true change. It should always be delayed and slowed down until it eventually evaporates.