"The state" would not "love" that.
That's just an assertion, not an argument.
Argument:
You seem to be a bit caught up in anti-society rhetorics
Incorrect. You are twisting my words. I opposed state tyranny (eg where the few violently control practically all the land & jobs.)
You twisted that into 'anti society.' That's shameful.
with a naive and limited view of what society is (society is other people!),
Again, I didn't say anything against society. I think you're trying to say "the state is other people!!!1"
Really the state is a violent class system where the few in charge are willing to use force/murder to enforce their opinions.
eg their opinions that the very wealthy capitalist class owns practically all the land & natural resources which the rest of us need to survive.
[more personal attacks, this time towards my username]
Just a distraction. Capitalism is not some vague-speak about freedom. It's a specific property system (enforced by the capitalist's state) which enforces capitalist class ownership of the means of production.
If you thought "capitalism means freedom!" you might want to stop watching Fox News style propaganda.
Consider for a moment that capitalism as a concept is not going to go away anytime soon
That is not an argument for violent exploitation of workers. (capitalism.)
that there are forms that allow parts of capitalism and socialism to co-exist
I can tell already that you don't know what those words mean. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, not state welfare. Capitalism is capitalist class ownership of the means of production.
For workers to own their means of production abolishes the capitalist class.
(I live in the Netherlands
Irrelevant.
It's not a "good place to live" because of capitalist exploitation of workers, but because of other things such as the value created by workers.
But they (we) are still low-functional
This is just an assertion. You do not understand how arguments work. You provide an argument (reasoning/evidence) for an assertion.