I am not interested in descending into an idealogical argument here, but most (serious) anti-capitalist criticisms will acknowledge that capitalism has brought the hitherto highest quality of life, just that it is self-constrained by the necessity to produce for profit.
Socialism is then understood as the overcoming of this constraint, but as always if you ask n socialists/communists you get m answers, where m > n.
It is messy and tiresome to discuss, especially when everyone insists that their personal understandings of what terms mean are the only real ones. More so when you've heard every position a dozen times already...
> it is self-constrained by the necessity to produce for profit
That's a constraint imposed by nature, not by capitalism. Capitalism tries to optimize the amount of profit per unit labor so as to elevate society out of poverty.
Indeed, it seems like the parent thinks that if it weren't for capitalism no one would need to work for their food, shelter, healthcare, etc. When in reality "in order to have basic necessities one must labor" is a natural law and capitalism seeks to minimize the amount of labor required to achieve that decent quality of life. Further, the parent describes himself as participating in capitalism precisely because it is the easiest way to achieve his "decent quality of life".
This seems like the fundamental misunderstanding that anti-capitalists make--everyone wants to minimize the labor required to achieve a decent quality of life, but anti-capitalists uniquely (seem to) believe that capitalism is the reason we have to labor in the first place.
Socialism is then understood as the overcoming of this constraint, but as always if you ask n socialists/communists you get m answers, where m > n.
It is messy and tiresome to discuss, especially when everyone insists that their personal understandings of what terms mean are the only real ones. More so when you've heard every position a dozen times already...