What's your alternative? Socialism? Communism? Who owns most of society's assets?
Ignore communism - that's a dumb 19th-century philosophy that still built around power. People always talk ignorant as if communism is the only alternative when it's even newer than capitalism is and still ends up feeding the same power disaparities.
Yes, some form of socialism, but socialism can mean a billion things. I prefer libertarian socialism where the rules of the system are set so that power and wealth consistently equalize over time, rather than being hoarded over time, and thus you don't need any one person or organization to "own" the shyt, you just need a limited government to keep the rules enforced and the rest works itself out.
I'll give some examples:
1. You read the Old Testament and you'll see that profiting on interest from anyone other than your enemies was BANNED. You weren't allowed to profit off charging interest to fellow Israelites, you weren't allowed to profit off of charging interest to the poor, you weren't allowed to profit off of charging interest to anyone in need of basic goods. That ain't just a Jewish thing - the Christian church said interest was evil for most of its history, Muslims still say interest is evil, Buddhists said interest was evil, even Greek and Roman philosophers said interest was evil. It's plain as fukk that interest is a way for people with money to exploit poor people, and everyone saw there was naturally something wrong with that. But now it's accepted because we worship capitalism.
There is a TON of other things wrong with interest, like the fact that it encourages constant economic growth and cutthroat mentality, constant competition, constant overexploitation of resources, because with interest you are forced to always provide more than you have because the interest means you have to pay back more than you got. It doesn't just exploit the poor, it fukks up the WHOLE system and keeps any equilibrium from ever being reached. There are entire books on the subject.
So how do yo address that? Well first, ban interest, full stop. But how do you get people to still loan money to those in need if they're not going to profit off of it? In religious systems like Christianity, you just made it a religious requirement to lend to the poor. But without a religious component, what you can instead do is set negative interest rates. Basically, any money that is hoarded slowly loses worth over time. Any cash that is old slowly loses value over time. Thus you have a huge incentive to loan out your money, rather than hoarding it, and all you ask for is the same # back or even less because at least that's better than losing what you're saving altogether.
2. Businesses collectively owned by all the employees, rather than just the business owner. Decisions are made by the worker collective, not just by the boss. When the business prospers, every prospers accordingly.
3. UBI, so everyone in society has the bare basics they need and you can't blackmail someone to do something due to their lack of basic needs.
4. Separate education, health care, and political power from money. Those basic societal services should not be tied to what you can afford.
That's just a start, I could keep going on for a while. But you get the idea. Like I said, there are books on this shyt if you're interested, and plenty with strong historical backing.
