[y4mi]

> Still, even without capitalism, you'll have to contend with the issue of how to cover operational expenses

You're still thinking in the framework of capitalism.

Let me be clear that I think that doing anything but capitalism is bound to fail while we're living in a resource restricted reality.

Nonetheless, if we want to think about it for arguments sake: there are no costs associated without capitalism, only necessary work and resources. It's really hard to think without the restrictions of capitalism for me, because that's the only way I've ever experienced and it's so effective at prioritizing resources and productivity. Anything else has historically always fallen short.

Though it's still a pretty fucked up and heartless system

[xboxnolifes]

> Nonetheless, if we want to think about it for arguments sake: there are no costs associated without capitalism, only necessary work and resources.

That's just redefining the term costs to not include work and resources. The term resources alone makes up nearly every operational cost possible: time, man power, CPU power, metals, environment, ...

Capitalism has nothing to with defining what something costs, it has everything to do with resource ownership and its distribution.

[nybble41]

> Nonetheless, if we want to think about it for arguments sake: there are no costs associated without capitalism, only necessary work and resources.

"Necessary work and resources" is exactly what is meant by costs. Scarcity is a property of the universe we live in. Capitalism doesn't prescribe or create scarcity, it just offers a framework for dealing with it. All other systems also have costs and operational expenses—they just aren't borne primarily by those making the decisions.