> “anti-capitalist” - how does one become an “anti-capitalist” when it’s abundantly clear that, even though it’s not a perfect system, it’s the best system there is?

Uh, its not “abundantly clear” that its the best system there is, which is why it was mostly thrown out in the mid-20th Century in favor of the modern mixed economy, which mitigate its harms with elements of socialism that are hostile to the basic property relationships underlying capitalism, and the major subsequent debates in the developed world have been largely about fine tuning the balance of capitalist and socialist elements of the modern mixed economy; there is a strongly pro-actual-capitalism faction in modern developed world (e.g., adherents to Austrian school ideological economics), and they are naturally popular among the disproportionately powerful, but they aren’t the consensus, any more than the faction that thinks that the problem with the mixed economy status quo is retaining capitalist elements (the anti-capitalist faction) is.

Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living? Why aren't the warehouse workers more happy? Or the people soon displaced by computers and algorithms? Why aren't they look forward to a life of less chore and more free time?

Why do so many people protest against climate change? Why is it ok for corporations to externalize costs? Why is all the considered good?

I'm all for competition and fierce fights, but let just not forget that we live in a "society" and not in a box, everyone for themselves.

> why aren't more workers "happy capitalists"

Only idiots are always happy. If we see flaws, no matter how small, we try to proceed to the next level by fixing those, there is a brief moment of perceived happiness, but it passes rather quickly, and so cycle continues. What you described is Work-In-Progress. Capitalism is the system that allows that, it allows itself to self-correct.

> Or the people soon displaced by computers and algorithms

Everything that can be automated - should be automated. Humans is a creative reserve that is limited, physical labor needs to become obsolete. Also you don't see any horse carriage operators complaining about being displaced by automotive industry, do you?

> let just not forget that we live in a "society" and not in a box, everyone for themselves

That's right, everyone is not against you, they are just for themselves.

If you mean “subscribe to the ideology of the Austrian school” when you say “understand economics”, the above makes some sense.

I was quite clear about what I meant:

> they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires

Anyone who thinks this is merely "ideology"--that there are non-capitalist systems that afford better quality of life for less labor--is invited to support their position with evidence.

> The evidence is the replacement of the system originally named “capitalism” by its critics, under pressure from its critics, throughout the developed world by the modern mixed economy in the decades of the mid-20th Century, with the modern mixed economy, which afforded the working masses a better quality of life for less labor directly by restraining the property relationships defining capitalism.

I’m profoundly disinterested in semantic arguments or moving goalposts.

> The question isn’t whether you can do better in terms of quality of life for workers with less labor than capitalism, the question is whether there is a limit to how far you can move away from capitalism while continuing to improve on that.

Fair enough, but even then the answer by all appearances is “not very”. In other words, no system has done better than those of modern first world countries.