I've heard "it's not capitalism, it's human nature" a lot. I wouldn't call that wrong, but I would call it an incomplete picture. Capitalism seems to take the worst parts of human nature and reinforce them while devaluing our less selfish and competetive aspects.

I'd also argue that communism has never been really tried. There have been dictatorships calling themselves communism, and it was to both sides advantage to accept that label. I'm not saying communism is the solution. It'd be a nice utopia, though. Fact is, sane alternatives to capitalism have not simply failed. They have been dealt with either through means of economic warface (and economic hitmen) or through actual violence. "Terrorism of the western world" is a good introduction on the subject.

Marketing / advertisement don't just leverage desires into purchases. I'm convinced they artificially create desires. I also wouldn't call people selling their time and work for a pittance so the shareholders of a huge fastfood corporation or soulless callcenter #22312456 can rake in the profits "incentivation". I'd call it extortion. I've also never seen a stuy suggesting that external rewards lead to better performance or greater fulfillment. Intrinsic motivation beats pay every time. Most people won't find intrinsic motivation to flip burgers, though, I get that. Fortunately, as a society we are entirely capable of automating this kind of work.

I also don't think capitalism is terribly good at distributing wealth or at improving peoples conditions. It certainly creates growth for a while, but that is bought with inevitable concentration of the wealth which is created and eventually, the system seems to need to reset itself in order to function - war seems to be a sufficient reset mechanism, especially since you can have a lot of growth afterwards. We live in a state of socialism for corporations and capitalism for the poor and the "third world", anyways. I pretty much agree with everything Chomsky has to say about that matter.

As far as distribution goes, I don't believe you need capitalism for that. It's useful to have markets. You don't need people accumulating disproportionate amounts of capital for these, though. Worker owned factories can compete just fine. Markets and a well regulated form of "capitalism" may make for a decent engine for growth. But I think you need socialism at the helm if you don't want to have that engine drive you into a wall. Since we are not dealing with actual scarcity anymore but in fact the problem is really crappy distribution, it seems entirely possible to me that markets actually have outlived their usefulness. Capitalism certainly has.

Oh well, I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree about any of these points. Arguing the merrits of capitalism was not really what I created this thread for, anyways. "I deal with it by being well integrated and regarding capitalism as the best system currently known" is a coping strategy I already knew. Just doesn't work for me.

Edit & PS:

It's entirely possible that I'd be singing a different tune if I had a few millions in the bank. I can be an opportunistic bastard like that. I hope I wouldn't, but it's possible.