You don't hate capitalism, you hate badly-regulated capitalism.

Besides, homes burn just as much in a socialist society.

Ah, but in a socialist society you then get a new home, because the entire population is in the mandatory risk insurance pool for that, effectively.

(Quality of said homes is a different and orthogonal question.)

In a socialist society, you'd live where the state puts you, and any back-talk would be regarded as a mental disease (sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia, for one the USSR like to use) and treated as such.

Also, I doubt the socialist state would be able to supply a new home before I was ready for a state-supplied grave.

I grew up in a socialist society - indeed, the very one that you mention.

You're right that you wouldn't get your pick of where to live in most cases.

But you're wrong that they wouldn't supply you with some living space right away, if the one you were living on is gone. It would be a shitty living space more likely than not (e.g. a communal apartment), but you'd have a roof over your head for sure.

No, I'm pretty sure that I hate capitalism. We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism, that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority, and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.

> We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism

Funny, that's what socialism ends up producing, with the nomenklatura in charge.

> that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority

Again, this is what socialism results in.

> and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.

This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources.

> This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources.

Yeah, it really isn't. At best you can produce a handful of outliers that support this point. Meanwhile there's the rest of the economy. I'm guessing you won't enjoy a review of the growth of shipping and logistics internationally if you're trying to sell someone on this bit of mythology. Also, piss on your whataboutism, it fails to address any criticisms of the system you're attempting to defend. There are several working examples of socialism in practice around the world right now that are not resulting in soviet-era Yugoslavia. Additionally your implication that alternative economic models can only result in historical failures disregards humanity's ability to innovate. Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on your part?

You have no idea what you're talking about, and are ignoring most of the 20th Century.

You have no idea what I do or don't know and you're hinging the entirety of your argument on an appeal to antiquity. Would you care to actually address any of the criticisms offered up to this point or are we done here?