capitalism

Blaming victims existing within a system for the problems with the system is deflection, not a solution. The answer is socialism, ie gradually working towards a fully publicly owned and planned economy after a period of revolution.

Moreover, Capitalism isn't just "markets."

It wont work, but good luck.
- Why not? It already works.

Do you understand the difference between capitalism and commerce? Using money for trade isn't what makes capitalism what it is. Capitalism is, from wikipedia, "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market" Capitalism means that I can own something I have nothing to do with and you have to pay me for the privilege of using it. When that thing is housing or food or medicine then I own you unless you want to die.

Capitalism means taking from the worker and giving to the 'owner'. The problem is that work is real and ownership is a made up concept.

The more you learn about it the more you'll understand how evil it is, I promise.

I think your whole first paragraph is just posturing, maybe i did speak incorrectly, i dont care.
In your economic system, if I make a machine that makes something, and sell it to a guy, what happens to that machine if what it makes is important or valuable?
- Your question doesn't make sense. Try rewriting it a little clearer.
- Hello, different person here. It's understandable that you're confused by this tbh, but there are real proposals.
  Broadly, there are two basic suggestions:
  All businesses would be nationalised. You would develop the machine as part of your job, or sell the rights to the government.
  There are still independent businesses like now, but they're controlled by the people that work and use them. As a Kingdom is to a Democracy, an Owned Company is to a Participatory Company (Communists call them cooperatives, Corporatists call them corporations). The former country/company is controlled by the people that own it, whereas the latter is controlled by the people that are affected by its decisions (at least in theory). In real life people don't really buy manufacturing machines, they do it through a company. So your sale would be the same, it'd just be to a different kind of company.
  It's not one or the other and they're often combined.
  It isn't fair for a king to control an army and do what he likes with it, that's dangerous. The army has to be controlled by the people of the nation. But, if you and your friends want to privately own guns, that's fine. So long as you aren't organising into a militia, it does little harm.
  Critics say, likewise: if your machine is small, who cares. But if it's sufficiently powerful, if it could concentrate wealth and power in your hands, create mass unemployment (maybe even allow you to wield military power): that's harm. A machine like that should be controlled by the people.
  
  Hey, comrade, good comment! I want to offer that in my experience, Principles of Communism is clearer and more concise than the Manifesto, for someone entirely unaware. I also have an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list I keep for easy sharing.
  
  I don't really get it, are you calling me a commie in a deragatory way and downvoting me after you tried to spread Communist theory? I'm confused.
  
  I'm some kinda new-wave radical centrist, can't call myself one after reading your big book. I believe in a lot of the criticisms and measures, but I think LTV & Vanguardism are the literal dumbest shit ever. But good luck with them, and thanks for taking an interest.
  
  What's wrong with Marx's Law of Value, and what's wrong with the concept of a Vanguard? What "big book" are you referring to, Capital, or the Manifesto of the Communist Party?
  
  Big Book → Capital, I've only read vol 1 though (2 & 3 are like a jillion pages 😭)
  I started writing my complaints, but it's taking longer than I thought. I'll drop an update if I finish writing it. My issues are mainly about the assumptions Marx makes about the topology of production networks (particularly regarding cycles), and the classification system used to produce nodes (is a node one particular spindle, or all spindles generally: this has implications). I haven't read any newer theory so IDK this has probably been adressed.
  There's also the transformation problem. I don't think that's as big of a deal as it's made out, since you wouldn't just be slotting these Labor-Theoretic Values in place of Market Values, but people do often suggest doing this and it's really weird to me.
  To be fair, I think my understanding of the theory has some errors in regards to the interaction of Work Intensity, Labor, and Productiveness, so I'll have to do some more thinking. Might change my complaints.
  Regarding Vanguardism, I don't have a particularly sophisticated critique as I haven't read the lit. The Vanguard's position would change as a result of joining the Vanguard (now holding state-like power), this changes their relationship to the revolutionary masses and their stated mission, and would inevitably change their actions in much the same way that holding Capital would (i.e, probably they'd go mad with power). But again I don't know if that's been addressed.
  
  If you can be more specific, I can take a crack at explaining, but I can't really go off of what you've provided other than the transformation "problem," which I can address in short and link what I believe to be a more in-depth explanation of common criticisms of Marx's Law of Value.
  Essentially, Marx's hypothesis that there existed a formula that he was never able to find that could solve for the difference between Capital Intensity and the notion of profit equalization across industries ended up being wrong, in that such a formula did not exist. However, we can see with empirical evidence that Marx's Law of Value ends up being correct, in that profitability is closely tied to Capital Intensity, and that equalization of profit across industries really just does not come into play outside of noise.
  This wasn't because Marx was stupid or anything, but because math itself had not advanced enough to show that such a transformation did not exist, but this does not disprove Marx's Law of Value, rather, it affirms its more important foundations while dismissing a hypothesis of Marx's that he never fully developed, nor could he have.
  Here's a link to the article.
  As for the Vanguard, you should read about the Mass Line and Democratic Centralism, both address your issues.
- How are you making your machine? Does it literally create something from nothing? Why would what it creates have any value if it can be infinitely easily produced, even if important? If it obeys the laws of physics, why would you be able to compete with large, mass scale industry as a single person?
  Your question largely doesn't make any sense.
  
  Please elaborate on what you mean, your thought experiment made no sense. And yes, I'm a Communist, correct.
  
  You dirty Commie.
  you aren’t a communist
  Make up your mind, boomer.
  
  How was saying you arent a communist pro-?
  
  Seems more like a dodge for you to avoid making an argument, but you do you. Don't know what you mean by claiming I'm not a Communist, either, who counts as a Communist in your eyes?
  
  You practice communism? You subsist from a communist system solely?
  
  Considering Communism as a Mode of Production refers to a relatively far-future, fully publicly owned global economy, humanity hasn't reached Communism and thus by your definition nobody has ever been a Communist. This, of course, isn't true, a Communist is someone who generally follows Communist ideology and wishes to bring about Communism.
  This is just a non-sequitor no true Scotsman, and seems to be deflection.
  
  Call it a deflection if you want, I call it being correct.
  
  Exactly the type of reply I'd expect.

Read this article, dude:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism