Hey, hey, but don't the rich only provide more because they stole more? They take more because they own the means of production?

What happens when we run out of jobs to do? How can we have infinite economic growth when 1. the world is finite and 2. we don't need infinite economic growth, we have enough to feed, clothe and house everyone comfortably.

Why does their private ownership of the means of production mean that they deserve the products of that means of production? They do nothing to contribute to the production of an individual item, why do they own far more than all of the people that did contribute to the production of the item?

Why do you speak so disparagingly of those that own nothing and contribute little. But not so disparagingly of those that own a lot but contribute nothing?

The jobs the rich contribute already exist, we don't need to rich to enable them

I agree that a full capitalist system operates more efficiently than a social capitalist system but who gives a shit. I hate Ed Miliband and recently I think Russell has ceased educated criticism of the system and become a bit of a fucktard but why should we stick with capitalism at all?

If you're going to make the historical argument that communism has been tried before and doesn't work then we're going to move into the realm of history which is somewhere I'm more comfortable than economics. The USSR was never communist, it was a shittier, more totalitarian version of socialism in the sense of government ownership, not worker ownership.

Very few people work hard, rich or poor. In my experience there seems to be no logic as to where the hard working can be found.