Because it reveals hypocrisy. Pretty simple. You’ve railed non-stop about the evils and failures of capitalism, then in the next breath you talk about your capitalistic ambitions. If a system is truly evil and/or a failure, in crisis mode, it is to be rejected. Failure to do so is called hycpocrisy.
There is no hypocrisy. I live in a capitalist country. Just because I would change the system if I could doesn’t mean I won’t make the most of the situation I’m in. I would not call you a hypocrite for collecting social security, utilizing Medicare or checking out a book from a library even though these are ‘socialist’ programs.
You’re walking right past my valid point on homeless people. Yes, they die on the streets, they grub from the pubic trough, yes, they are mentally ill. None of that changes the fact that they choose to live as they do and in so doing they don’t work, they don’t amass or seek capital formation and they live the life they have chosen.
Your definition of ‘choice’ is callous and misleading. Rising out of homelessness to gainful employment is incredibly challenging and is compounded by maldevelopment, mental illness, addiction and any number of circumstances. When I pass a homeless veteran on my way to work in the city, I don’t think “damn freeloader. Nice life you’ve chosen”. I think “what circumstances have led you here? PTSD? A debilitating injury?”. You seem to imagine the homeless have ample resources available to them that they are simply choosing not to take advantage of. I volunteered at a homeless shelter for several years during college and the amount of suffering I witnessed was unimaginable. These aren’t people that can just walk into the nearest 7/11 and get a job. They are chronically unemployed and unemployable in the eyes of the private sector. They are desperate people; often hungry, sick and mentally disturbed. The market has no use for them.
To the original point, sure. I’ll amend my statement to “under capitalism, unless you own capital, you are forced to work for someone else unless you want to starve to death or end up on the street”. I hope that settles it.
Your class mobility argument doesn’t overcome overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Only if generations remained in poverty would your argument hold water, and that is not the case for the majority of citizens, as they move from one class to the other through generational shifts, both forward and backward.
Except this is true for the majority of citizens; increasingly so since the advent of neoliberalism in the early 80s. The research I provided addresses precisely this point. Intergenerational class mobility is decreasing. Further, mobility between the ‘lower’ classes is less meaningful as wealth inequality increases because the upper (increasingly less accessible) class totally dominates political decision-making. That is the deterioration of democracy.