I'm going to quote some Steinbeck back at you. If you haven't read the Grapes of Wrath, do.
I'll see that and raise you a passage from Atlas Shrugged ... the beginning of part 2, chpt 10 ... Dagney's discussion with the tramp on what happened at the 20th Century Motor Company (a micrcosm of a collective society but the passage is much too long to quote here). I don't think you need to read the book up to that point to get the gist of the passage but I do recommend the book obviously ... big reading investment though to be fair.
Really though what I was trying to argue was that given that humans are imperfect (whether they make honest mistakes or just are plain bad), the system of capitalism with its emphasis on individual property rights
is the best for people, by and large
, to improve themselves and consequently society in general. I may read Grapes (at least you quoted a classic and not some obscure treatise) but there's nothing in that passage imo that condemns capitalism per se. Were agreements freely entered into? Did bankers have alternative business arrangements to pursue, and if not is that the failure of capitalism or the banker? There are 'winners' and 'losers' in every system, and people who lose one day and win the next. I just believe that a system that rewards individuals for their own hard work (however they define reward, which isn't strictly monetary) is the best, and that's capitalism. And imo it's the best for allowing people who do lose one day to win the next ... capitalism's history is littered with this.
Not to really change the subject to specifics, but they had to build a damn wall in Berlin to keep people from moving from collective East Berlin to freer West Berlin, and in general the migration of people from collective states to freer states is far, far greater than the other way around. What does that tell you?
Think we're moving even further off topic though.