Capitalism is a failed ideology that makes human life worthless, healthcare proves

You state that a truly free market economy would lead to the exploitation of the working class. But what needs to be understood is that a truly free market economy would be truly free for all members of society. In the philosophy of capitalism, a person should work hard and strive to make as much as possible WITHOUT taking that same freedom away from others. Infringing upon someone else's ability to also better himself or herself is inconsistent with the true essence of capitalism. You state "If you truly read the philosophy of Adam Smith, the father of economics, he argues that there should be absolutely no state interference with the free market. This is the perfect breeding ground for the corporations to abuse the working class." Adam Smith does not condone the abuse of the working class. The following is a quote from The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 1, Part II: "The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society." Adam Smith does also speak of competition to get a cheaper product, but not by the means of exploitation and oppression. This is another quote from The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter 9: "When a landed nation, on the contrary, oppresses either by high duties or by prohibitions of the trade of foreign nations, it necessarily hurts its own interest in two different ways." One of the ways he states that an oppressor hurts itself is through some complex series of an economic chain that would ultimately lower the oppressor's value of the surplus produce and other such things (it's in the agriculture section, which is why it only mentions things like land and produce). But the second way is by reducing potential workers and their work product down to barely anything. He states "It would depress productive labour, by encouraging too hastily that labour which is altogether barren and unproductive." So, despite your claims, capitalism does not signify the exploitation and oppression of others. And as I've stated before, those that do so and label it as capitalism should affix those same quotation marks to the word "capitalism" that you've affixed to the word "communism" in your opening argument. When I speak of the incentive to work, you say that "there are other incentives other than capital." That may be so, but I can think of no better incentive than one of self-interest. You may wish to believe that people would be happy to work in order to help out others. But this is not the case. That was one of the main points in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. People are not going to put forth extra effort, not going to work any overtime, not going to do any type of outstanding job if all of the rewards are divided between all of the workers. You state "Second, in a world without capital people would not produce for monetary gain but for the betterment of the human race." I'd love to see how long you can keep someone working by telling him that he is doing it for the betterment of the human race. My guess is not very. And Adam Smith also speaks of incentive. "The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives." Then you talk of new ideas and inventions that are abandoned because they may not raise capital. But if any of these ideas and inventions were truly great, not only would they raise capital, but there would be someone willing to invest in it. You claim that my interpretation of human nature is flawed, but actually the reverse is true. Humans are selfish for the most part. Whether this is a good or bad thing does not matter. What does matter is that selfish people will not work solely on the incentive of helping someone else. Now you do point out that bettering the human race will also benefit the individual. This may be true, but the question of WHEN plays a big role. An individual has to see some immediate reward, or the work product will cease. In this same vein, capitalism, which encourages individuals to better themselves, will also better the human race. Adam Smith states "Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society." Ayn Rand makes a very similar point in The Fountainhead. Your example of a cure for the common cold is flawed. First off, there is not only one viral strain that can cause a cold. There are tens of thousands. A cure would require something that is effective against every single strain. That in itself is highly improbable. But even supposing that it were well and truly possible, a scientist that developed such a cure would surely reap a lot of capital gain. Why would he care about the loss of profits of the other medication companies? He would simply rise to the top as the best competitor in that market. Adam Smith does not call for the exploitation of the working class and the rape of the earth's natural resources. I've already given quotes to show that he was against exploitation of the working class. He also spoke of a balance between consumption and production. "At no moment of time, therefore, does he add any thing to the value of the whole annual amount of the rude produce of the land: the portion of that produce which he is continually consuming, being always equal to the value which he is continually producing." Communism definitely cheapens human life more than capitalism. By making everyone equal, all of the greatness that an individual possesses is washed away. Everyone being on an equal footing is not a good thing for anyone excepting those which are so worthless that they would actually be elevated by this action. People working for other people and the "betterment of the human race" would definitely hurt human life. I can assure you that productivity would plummet. No one works for such a vague incentive for very long. Your final conclusion sounds similar to one of those miracle cure-all scams. Stating that a movement away from capitalism (and I'm supposing towards communism or socialism in your view) will suddenly stop resource wars, cure disease, and end climate change is absolutely absurd. No matter what type of economic system a country adopts, the natural resources are not going to change location. To get a resources to a country that has none costs money. The country with resources, even if it did switch to a communist or socialist system, would not constantly pay to send its resources to all of the countries that need it. I have absolutely no idea how diseases are supposed to be cured by getting away from capitalism. Climate change is something that we still are unsure of. Whatever the causes of it may be, will another economic system alleviate that? People would still rely on the same things that they do today. Only the funds would be distributed differently. Capitalism is the way to go. Only a real and immediate reward such as legal tender can motivate people to work. Vague notions of bettering the human race would get real old real fast. People simply will not put their full effort into work for such incentives.