I tell you... if capitalists were given a whole kingdom, a big one, so they could develop their "real" capitalism, it would end up in a civil war, a dictatorship, or probably would evolve into feudalism which is our human nature. Later they would start claiming it wasn't real capitalism for whatever reason, would blame someone else and start again to advocate for the "new" real capitalism.

It's a never ending cycle, just like Dark Souls, but darker.

Wow! My fundamental beliefs regarding Socialism has been shaken. I was a "Socialism is evil" guy until I read this. I just realized that an extreme version of Capitalism or Socialism is equally bad. 

Pure version of Capitalism will devolved into Corporatism because of human nature 

Pure version of Socialism will devolved into Dictatorship because of human nature

A mixture of both is far better. 

I tell you... if capitalists were given a whole kingdom, a big one, so they could develop their "real" capitalism, it would end up in a civil war, a dictatorship, or probably would evolve into feudalism which is our human nature. Later they would start claiming it wasn't real capitalism for whatever reason, would blame someone else and start again to advocate for the "new" real capitalism.

It's a never ending cycle, just like Dark Souls, but darker.

Yeah.... so many capitalists complaining that real capitalism never existed, so many dictactorships created in order to create a revolution and bring capitalism, so many countries that became capitlaists and then went feudalist, so many blaming someone else why capitalism did not work.

But yeah... lets try again... as long as it is not where I live since history shows the most likely outcome.

This is the faulty premise. There is no single universal human nature. There are billions (many billions throughout history) of human natures which manifest themselves differently based on the social dynamics and norms of a society. 

Just compare our two closest relatives: Bonobos and Chimpanzees and see how different they are merely by changing the environment they lived in and forming different societies based on that. Some of the differences are genetic (through millions of years of isolated selection) but much are also social and environmental. 

The Bonobos are egalitarian and spend most of their days having sex. The chimpanzees are aggressive and dominating fighting and killing one another. But if you put a baby Bonobo into a Chimp tribe (and the tribe somehow accepted it) it would likely adopt the norms of conduct of the chimps to some degree, and to a lesser degree if you did the opposite the Chimp wouldn't be as aggressive as it would've been with a Chimp tribe. 

Humans are even more complex than this because we've developed in so many different environments and have formed so many different cultures based on our more complex patterns of thinking and our language.

There is no single human nature, just many individual ones, and even within ourselves we have different competing goals and urges. 

Most people want to have a house for themselves, that they can expand, change or do whatever they want. Has been like this since forever. Most people want to make plans for the future, maybe because they are cautious, hence saving money in whatever form it exist. Some people have a lot of energy and just want to work 12 hours per day to aquire more stuff if they want, for whatever reason. A lot of people are just assholes or evil, therefore I think we will always need to have a form of police. Also I think a higher authority will always be necessary to organize the society and be the judge when problems appear. Unfortunately, the state is necessary and deep inside I think most people want to have someone to ask for help when problems or injusticies appear.

I could write a lot more stuff but those are maybe the main reasons why I think socialism is Idealistic (as you corrected me, instead of utopic). I think it can never work, either state socialism or anarch capitalism (what is the correct name anyway?).

Also, usually when people defend socialism, they do not address those questions above, they just keep repeating the same sentences that seem to be out of a communist book. When I read words like proletariat or burgoinese it just makes me cringe.

By the way I like your argumentation very far from the same old classic rich vs poor speeches. 

1. Greed can only lead to exploitation if one or a group of people have a privileged position in society which they can act on. If all people are similarly capable of inducing violence, and there is no unilateral authority on the legitimacy of that violence then the self-interested forces of individuals mostly cancel out of an aim of cost-reduction. Yes, there will be a non-zero number of successful murders that one can get away with and rapes, but the murderer and the rapist has no special protections like murderers and rapists receive in the existence of institutionalized state power. For example, something like legalizing husbands raping wives wouldn't be a thing, because the wives would have the ability to kill their husbands without any repercussions. 

Your implied argument is really silly. That a non-zero number of raping, killing, and usury exists <=> it is useless to reduce the number of raping, killing, and usury. 

2. You can't be serious, can you? Use your brain please. Are there means of enforcing one's will besides statutes (do you know what a statute is?) and telepathy? 

3. The point made is that I can rescind my consent at any time. Otherwise it is not consensual. We apply a much  fuller standard of consent to sex than we do labor agreements. Rather than assert that they're different, tell me why you think their difference creates a distinction. Both are promises of a future social interaction. I have autonomy over my body and my labor-product. So on and so forth. Make an actual argument rather than asserting that they are different. But somehow I don't think you're capable of making arguments, merely feigning outrage. That's your thing isn't it?  

4. That is because you don't know what individualism is. Read a book. It's obvious you don't do that often. Your grasp (or the lack thereof) of political, legal, statistical, etc knowledge seems to be the problem here. Ignorance is not a virtue. 

5. Sure, but this is not an on and off switch. You certainly would not equivocate joining a gang and marrying an abusive husband, for example. There are degrees to which people surround themselves with those whom are or are not in their interest. 

6. Because exploitation is not in my or the vast majority of people's interests. Subjectively, it is bad for us. Why would we let others exploit us without fighting back? As you noted, "greed" exists. I want my full labor-product (or an equivalent value) and don't want the capitalist to have it. I am acting in my self-interest. The capitalist wants as much of my labor-product as he can get. In the absence of the state and its enforcement of capitalist-privileged legal norms I would have more bargaining power over my labor-product, and the capitalist would have less. Hence I support the dissolution of the state so that I can empower myself to receive my full labor product. THIS IS INDIVIDUALISM and EGOISM. Not your flimsy belief that we should just roll over and let others exploit us, because rape and murder will always exist to some minimal level, which is based on some purported objective moral spook. 

7. The difference between utopic and idealistic is whether or not one believes an ideal/perfect thing can be achieved. Note the second definition provided in the dictionary you cited. The utopian believes utopia is achieveable, while the idealist doesn't necessarily believe a perfect thing is achievable, but it's worthwhile aiming for. So while total anarchism (the elimination of hierarchy and rulership) in all social context at all scales in space and time is very much impossible, aiming to abolish hierarchies and rulership is a useful ideal to aim for. 

Second definition which you didn't quote, notice it stipulates "desirable or perfect" and also note the rest of the bolded: "existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality."

8. You need to again prove such a statement. Merely asserting it doesn't make it so. For example, you'll have to compare gender norms across different societies in different times and come up with an explanation for those societies where gender norms (and roles) diverged from the traditions of western societies. For example, the gender norms of many native american tribes were significantly different from the gender norms prescribed by Christianity. 

Feminism is about equal rights, but not just about equal rights. It's also about social status. 

9. In our current world where contraceptives are legal, abortion is legal, where women are not socially pressured to have as many children as possible, she has more autonomy than two hundred years ago when women were considered nothing more than baby-producing creatures. So how autonomous the pregnant woman is depends mostly on her social status and the norms of the society she is in. The small part of autonomy lost due to the nature of her pregnancy is relatively insignificant in today's world, albeit very much significant in another. This is actually a clear example of how a hierarchy was disestablished. 

10. I can agree that success within any system is determined by individual qualities. I can't agree that social structures are insignificant though. Which individual qualities and to what degree prevail are very much determined by the social conditions external to the individual. Do you agree with this? 

11. I am arguing that all the capitalist provides other individuals is capital. I am not arguing that all that matters in success is capital. These are two very different arguments with two very different conclusions. Reading comprehension has been very difficult for you in this conversation, not necessarily because you can't read, but because you choose not to read and think about what is written.

12. Nope I'm not denying that some people are better at some tasks, I am denying that the people who are better are necessarily the ones in power, or at least I am skeptical of this claim. 

13. Sure, but almost every distinguishing characteristics follows a similar distribution to intelligence. They'd have to have a non-linear transformation in order to produce the distribution in wealth we have. This might be likely if intelligence correlated with other desirable qualities, but this is very improbable in itself. The most intelligent people aren't necessarily the most beautiful people aren't necessarily the most physically capable people aren't necessarily (insert another trait.)

14. And this is suppose to be an argument? Sure people and society aren't perfect (and won't ever be), that doesn't mean we just stop here and accept it. If that were the case you'd likely be born a slave in a slave society or a peasant under feudalism, because "hey peasant, the world ain't perfect!"

15. Again, this is not an argument. Otherwise we should accept slavery and feudalism. 

16. What does this have to do with the management of firms and capitalism? Einstein and Tesla weren't capitalists managing others to produce these ideas. Also both Einstein's and Tesla's ideas were further developed by other individuals. 

17. Think like what? The economic calculation problem? Um, this is a concept actually used by capitalist/liberal thinkers (Mises, Hayek) to criticize state-socialism/central planning. I am just using it from a libertarian-socialist perspective to criticize capitalist firms. Are Mises and Hayek not individualists? Do you even understand what I am talking about? Again, it seems likely your thing is to reflexively react rather than think (or even process what is being said.) 

18. Land (this is a big one), waterways, airwaves, fossil fuels, minerals, metals, mines, caves, etc. As John Locke (you know that crazy socialist, right?) says in his proviso, 

"Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same."

The state gives monopoly access to natural resources to particular individuals independent of whether or not they improve (homestead) them and in conditions of scarcity. 

Locke presupposed that (land) enclosure was okay if there was enough for others, but if there wasn't enough then enclosure wasn't okay. 

The socialist merely takes locke's provisos seriously. 

19. I don't see a clean dichotomy between individual interests and collective interests if we are to speak of an organic society where social groups are mostly voluntary, in so much as people associate (join a collective) individual interests and collective interests align. It is only when you force somebody to join a collective entity or restrict their other options via force that these interests are in conflict. But yes, I agree mostly with this paragraph besides the idea that because our current society isn't perfect it is just the same as another possible society. 

20. Even if I assume your scenario, who is being exploited in your description? The man gains the psychological benefit of helping the person he cares about, and the woman receives the benefit of being helped. It would only be exploitative if the man or woman expected this to be the case and enforced that expectation through coercive means (violence, blackmail, etc.) 

21. As you stated "you would have a point if you were referring to a large scale development"

My freedoms to do such a thing are dependent on what the state considers "large-scale development." This would usually include a home, electricity, etc. 

22. Steve Jobs got it from the capitalists, which is exactly my point. Steve Jobs was not able to act alone because he didn't have the pre-requisite capital. 

23. Before I answer the question, tell me why the question is relevant? 

24. Mere excuses for one's self-imposed ignorance. For the interested readers, here's the wikipedia page on individualist anarchism a tradition including influential philosophers like: Henry David Thoreau and William Godwin, and many less known philosophers like Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, William B. Greene, Max Stirner, Dyer Lum, Voltairine de Cleyre, and many others. But it's mere word-salad people. None of these people and their writings ever existed, guys. 

25. Hierarchy, "a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."

"World's sexiest man" isn't a "system or organization" and there is no single authority to determine "world's sexiest man." 

But to humor you, everytime I say "hiearchy" implicit is the phrase "social hierarchy."  Considering that we were discussing socio-politics, I didn't think that was necessary, but I understand that hierarchy might be a new word for you. 

26. Note that this is not a perfectly achievable state (it's an ideal),  an extreme to which we contextualize things. Obviously the ability to induce violence can not be perfectly equal. Nevertheless, with the existence of guns (which equalize the capacity to kill at the individual level) this is not a ridiculous premise, especially when we consider that people can associate. It doesn't ignore individuality at all. 

27. That is not exactly what is happening here. A group of people have a set of monopolies (state-granted) on certain resources (and their products thereof) and they are using those monopolies to further bolster their position to exploit the labor of another. This is what is meant by exploitation. It is much more than simply pooling one's resources with others, which I obviously support. 

28. Sure, he might need others, but he'll be in a better position to bargain with said others if they did not have disproportionate state-granted privileges and monopolies. In a competitive market he'd find lenders who would lend at a rate proportional to the cost of lending (no more and no less.) See Benjamin Tucker's description of the money monopoly: 

"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly."

29. Yep, with your writing abilities and reading-comprehension skills I am so sure of it! Not to mention how much you've read on the discourse between capitalists and socialists over the centuries, and all of the empirical data which you did not provide.. Your understanding is so overwhelmingly boundless! "Society can't be perfect!" is such a great argument to defend the current status quo. Ignorance must truly be blissful. 

30. Read, read, read! "If my choice is limited by unilateral violence it is less voluntary"

31. Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in capitalist society, but the state is certainly forcing us to not participate in different societies through regulation and subsidy, as you conceded is the case, but merely gloss over with a lazy "The world isn't perfect." 

32. No, because there is no monopoly on the legitimation of violence. If I kill him in self-defense I don't have to go to a state court to prove it was self-defense and the state isn't there to give me permission. 

33. Merely asserting it must make it true, right?

34. What state was formed by consensus? Can you provide me one example? Or are you using a particularly innovative meaning of consensus? For example, the United States of America was created by a very small minority of people who died centuries ago. The millions of other individuals who existed in that time did not consent, nor did anybody born since consent to the United States. Spooner explains this pretty clearly in his essay. 

35. If the responsibility is with the individuals why have the state charade in the first place? Only individuals are real with moral agency, the state is a collectivist abstraction.