Yes of course, it's not as if the world is close to being irreparably damaged thanks to over-exploitation of resources
I'm actually well aware of the issues of environmental degradation. I've probably spent more time on this forum talking about those issues than a lot of people.
However, when I say the world's getting better, I'm keeping the following trends in mind:
-Life expectancy is up
-Literacy is up
-Infant mortality is down
-Gender equality is up
-War is down
-Extreme poverty is down
-Famine is down, to the point that 'natural famines' are completely gone.
-Murder is down
-Death by natural disaster is down
And so on and so forth. On a historical timescale, there's never been a better time to be alive. That's not to say that this won't come crashing down, but in this specific point in time, and over the last hundred years ago, we've seen a great improvement in human welfare. One of the biggest issues facing the world is whether we can maintain that incredible leap in human flourishing without trashing the planet. Personally, I'm dubious.
and a refusal to adapt to more environmentally friendly technologies due to a lack of profitability,
Actually, environmentally friendly technologies have primarily been adapted because of profitability, not in spite of it. The reason why there's so much solar and wind is because it's cheaper to build them rather than coal-fired power plants, and even LNG. Alternatively, nuclear has become more expensive, not less.
It doesn't make me overly happy that this is due to the profit motive in most cases, but it's at least something. Sad reality is that cost-effectiveness has driven reductions in emissions far more than some glorious human desire to save the planet. Now, I'm definitely for government subsidies for renewables, and yes, nuclear, but I can't deny that over the past 5-10 years, the private sector's picked up a lot of the slack.
it's not like poor communities are being left without drinking water due to the privatisation of it, which of course leads to hunger too.
I'll grant you that, but again, globally, hunger's down, not up.
this country has a revolutionary war to free itself from the previous system (Feudalism in this case), the people fight for a stateless society where everyone can at least in theory be equal,
I've never heard of anyone fighting for a stateless society. I mean, maybe communist revolutions, but how did that go?
Most rebellions are to create a new state, not a stateless society.
but foreign intervention starts pushing support on a fa faction of bourgeoisie that support Capitalism, since these guys fit the agenda that foreign powers like the USA want, they launch a campaign to defame the revolutionaries by claiming they are bandits or terrorists, while paying for propaganda that this capitalist regime is the one we need, once the capitalist regime triumphs due to large amounts of support the other factions support, the country is founded, but they've just wasted most of their resources in a war and are in need of structure in order to truly establish the new regime, then the rich countries that supported them come in and agree to help but in exchange the country must agree to sell the resources that they do have, specifically to those countries and at a price below market value, now the countries have little other option as lack of structure would cause massive destabilisation and a possible revolt of the people, so they accept, they are now both indebted to these countries for exorbitant amounts of money and forced to sell resources that they either needed for themselves or could have sold to someone else for far more though admittedly negotiations would have taken time, the absurd interests of such a deal keep making the debt even larger practically locking them into a permanent cycle of debt, which prevents them from developing as well as the older richer nations.
This is pretty much how capitalism works.
That's incredibly myopic. There's been rebellions and wars throughout human history, you can't boil that down to class struggle.
Now, all of the above isn't anything I'm going to defend. I'm no fan of neoliberalism. But everything you've described has happened in some form well before capitalism or alongside it in equivalent forms. You could get rid of capitalism today, and more powerful nations would exert influence over less powerful ones. We've been on that track for the last 12,000 years.
Worse, they always have, they beat the homeless, extort the poor and middle class and whenever you report a crime they don't do anything about it or just plain don't take it seriously, not to mention that crimes like murder and rape are mostly left unresolved and they often try to minimise the gravity of them.
Okay, so your police are corrupt by the sound of things. So does your quest for abolition go global?
And to address my point about the restaurant, if you don't fail to see the absurdity of someone starving because they can't buy food, while simultaneously throwing away food that they're not allowed to have despite the fact it's making no one any money, I don't know what else to say or what better argument one could come up with against capitalism.
Of course I see the issue with it, it's absurd. It's morally repugnant. But again, you'd have similar problems under other systems. Food waste isn't an issue confined to one economic system.
Of course they did and they would still be happening even after Capitalism is destroyed, however at a much lower rate, murders due to robberies would be less likely if you don't have to pay for food and shelter, the vast majority of kidnappings are made for profit, be it to extort money out of families or to sell the people as slaves, these would be less likely if we operated on a need base economy rather than a commodity based economy, as for starvation, we actually have enough food right now to feed the entire world a healthy diet, we also have the technology to implement the logistics needed to move the food, in any socialist society it could be possible to vastly reduce starvation rates.
Socialism doesn't have the best record for reducing starvation - see Venezuela and North Korea. Also, the murder rate. Again, on the global level, murders have gone down, not up. Now, this isn't a case of "correlation equals causation," but if we agree that murder and robbery is less likely once people are lifted out of poverty, then, well, what's done a better job of lifting people out of poverty over the last 100 years?
Because nobody's arguing that, you're just projecting that argument because you want to make your opponents positions seem ridiculous so that they can be taken less seriously.
I've literally seen people argue that in debates, including ones I attended personally.
I have little time or interest in argumentum ad extremum. Anyone saying "capitalism is the best thing ever, it's the perfect economic system, it can never be improved or replaced" is someone I have little time for either. The problem, as I see it, is that attempts at alternative economic systems (see socialism and communism) haven't provided a good alternative. I certainly hope there is an alternative out there (the closest I've seen is donut economics, but that's basically just theoretical at this point), but you're not going to sell me on the idea of state socialism/communism.
Granted, a lot of people say that any form of government interferance is socialism, and as per the above comments, I have no time for these people. There's a happy medium between the government running everything and the government running nothing.
Oh, I'm not claiming that, but that's the image they sell to you on their propaganda, México is a horrible criminal hellscape, so is China and the Soviet Union, especially compared to the paradise and freedom afforded to you by the USA and Capitalism!
First of all, who's "they?"
Second of all, I don't think Mexico's a horrible hellscape, but it's not propaganda to acknowledge that Mexico has a lot of problems. You haven't really painted a pretty picture of Mexico yourself when you've already acknowledged corrupt police, drug cartels, and separatist movements.
Third of all, China isn't a hellscape. It is, however, a country that has serious human rights issues and dubious foreign influence. This isn't some grand conspiracy, everyone knows it.
Fourth of all, I don't live in the USA, and the USA hasn't really afforded me or Australia anything since WWII (in a societal sense, there's obviously plenty of US media and technology I consume). Capitalism isn't some magic genie that's given me everything good in my life - good government has, and plenty of other things that exist regardless of an economic system. The USA has its own breed of insanity with capitalism, and it's not an insanity I'd be keen to live under. Better than the USSR, China, or Mexico? Sure. But not my first choice. The United States is disintegrating before my eyes, and a lot of that has to do with income inequality.
Again, happy mediums.