HIVE

In what way is it wasteful? I'd say it is less wasteful than any other system because it is based on economical calculation, so bad economical decisions are "punished" by financial loss. It produces lots of waste because if produces goods far more effectively than other systems. So in fact waste is a side effect of its efficiency, but one that can be compensated by proper environmental laws which enforce recycling, using less plastic etc. Sometimes e.g. unused food can be taken by some charity or even distributed by the company itself (even for PR gain).

Capitalist countries are in the world's top when it comes to green energy and environment-friendly technologies. That's possible because capitalism means technological progress, which gives us means to protect the environment. We wouldn't be on a current level of welfare without capitalism and industrial revolution. On the other hand, countries that prefer government planning to market like Russia and China are even less concerned about the environment (although in China it's slowly changing).

Real waste is created when money is spent irrationally, which happens mostly when investments are motivated politically, not economically. It was a real plague in communist countries before the USSR collapse, but here's a few examples only from the previous Polish government (2015-2023): they keep pumping taxpayers' money to ineffective and dirty coal industry, they spent 1,6 bln PLN to build a new coal plant (later had to be demolished and turned into smaller gas plant), several billions on a oversized airport (after 8 years still on paper), another billions for a failed electric car project, 250 mln for state-owned factory of anti-COVID face masks. All these "investments" a private sector on a free market probably wouldn't spend a single PLN on.

Economic calculations are sadly mostly based on profit, not actual use or too much thinking on environmental and other dangers.
Charity and directing of resources to the needy for non-profit is treading on socialism.
Laws to reduce the influence of very rich groups are needed otherwise those green energy technologies will be made by the least percent of the rich who want to get richer and faster not really caring about side effects of their wealth addiction. Thus, we still need social action and state-private control balance.
Also, the Cold War brought rapid tech progress at the expense of the people on both sides.

Yes, corruption is the cancer starter that capitalism alone is. Just imagine how rabbits became a real pest in Australia, when they brought them there, overmultiplying and eating whole crop fields.
The issue is that private money or resources wrongly used are still a big factor affecting overall humanity. "It's my money. I do whatever I want with it" simply doesn't cut it when you're pumping private jets, yachts and simply living a full consumer's life.

Why do you mean by "based on profit, not actual use"? You gain a profit by making something the others will buy and use. Unless you're the state or a company working for the state, then as long as you have political contacts, you're getting paid with taxpayers' money even if what you produce if worthless.

"Charity and directing of resources to the needy for non-profit is treading on socialism."
Nope, charity is not socialism. Charity exists in a market society, existed far before modern capitalism and socialsm, e.g. done by christian churches.

"Laws to reduce the influence of very rich groups are needed otherwise those green energy technologies will be made by the least percent of the rich who want to get richer and faster not really caring about side effects of their wealth addiction. Thus, we still need social action and state-private control balance."
Monopoiies are possible of course and are usually harmful, but they're far more likely and harmful when they're upheld by the state, either by state ownership or state regulations, e.g. drastic patent laws in the US. In Poland we just had the government that monopolized oil industry and used a state-owned oil company to buy local media and make them propaganda tubes.

There are good people and bad people among the rich and the poor. Billionaires such as Bill Gates also give a substantial part of their fortunes to the charity. Some rich people will of course abuse their wealth to influence the politicians, bribe themselves out of law troubles - that's a problem, I agree, and we need rule of law, independent courts, free media and civic society to intervene in such cases. However, no matter how rich you become, you can always fall from grace if you mismanage your fortune. If you look at Forbes' lists of the riches people in the world, it constantly changes, nobody stays on top for many years, and billionairs' fortunes are mostly values of their business' stocks. One more statistics - 50% of inherited fortunes are lost in the 2nd generation and 70% in the 3rd. So it's not like we're producing a new aristocracy - there's still a high mobility between classes.

"Yes, corruption is the cancer starter that capitalism alone is."
I don't understand. Corruption is giving someone money or other benefits to influence your case against the general rules. It applies mostly to contacts with state institutions. On the free market there's noone to corrupt, it's just a normal transaction both sides agree on.

"The issue is that private money or resources wrongly used are still a big factor affecting overall humanity. "It's my money. I do whatever I want with it" simply doesn't cut it when you're pumping private jets, yachts and simply living a full consumer's life."
Well, who is more entitled to your money then yourself? If you use it in a wrong way, you'll have a loss and you're responsible for your mistake.

Lastly, please elaborate what you mean by "democratic socialism". In practise these two can't stay together. Socialism leads to inefficiencies and to stay in power, socialist government must become more authoritarian or even totalitarian - USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. On the other hand, capitalist countries have a tendency to shift towards democracy, like Pinochet's Chile, Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal. Also, capitalist Hongkong and Taiwan created a very strong pro-democratic allegiance that is a base of their resistance against authoritarian and etatistic China.

Guys... Are you serious? This place is all about Warcraft. Leave politics at home

That is what I'm saying, producing for the sake of profit does not entail rational use. Simply because someone wants something doesn't make it useful. Now, if someone needs something, then we're on the right track.
Christianity is all about socialism->sharing, giving, self-sacrifice etc. I think people don't really understand the notion of socialism and confuse it with a bad dream.
Might not be called corruption on the free market but it's definitely swindling or the like in many cases.
What I mean by being able to use your own money, you should not be allowed to spend it recklessly IMO, especially if it endangers others or the environment.
I'm referring to a system based on educated people's perspective through voting and a balance of power between the private and public sectors as well as between "classes", although I am not referring to economic but rather intellectual "classes". I don't want and we don't need authoritarianism, nor anarchy. We need a proper balance at whose core civic responsibility should lie.