[nkozyra]

I'm sorry but this still treats capitalism as some ridgid, immutable force. This is demonstrably untrue. We, today, have capitalism shaped by the will of the people. The degree to which we allow it to be shaped is the actual point of contention, not the malleability itself.

I also find it unfortunate that you'd choose to represent such potential flexibility in the system as "meaningless socialist slogans." That makes it feel like you're not engaging in good faith with the central argument.

[lightgreen]

> That makes it feel like you're not engaging in good faith with the central argument.

There was no argument besides that socialist slogan.

I could get arguments like:

Large companies are inefficient under capitalism, they provide less value than they take from the society.

or

Capitalism is a very inefficient system of distribution of goods and services.

But there were none.

[nkozyra]

The argument is pretty clear to me: without holding corporate feet to the fire, we will suffer to varying degrees by their will.

If that's your definition of socialism, well, I'd argue that you do not actually know what socialism is.