Under capitalism

Has capitalism operated without corruption or authoritarianism?

They both fail, but the problem isn't the system. The problem is people. People try to put themselves into positions of power, retain their position of power and exploit that position of power. Capitalism and communism are simply attempted solutions, however unfortunately they don't adequately deal with the human problem.

With capitalism, people exploit the value exchange. They lie about how much something costs to source or produce, then lie about how much someone else should pay for it, and also about how much a worker's time is worth. Such that you end up with people doing a lot and getting nothing and people doing very little if anything but getting lots.

With communism, people put themselves in positions of power to decide how things should be distributed, then vigorously quell and dissenting voices that ask whether things are being distributed fairly. The end result is more or less the same as capitalism - a small portion of people getting a large portion of wealth.

Any solution must take into account human tendencies to abuse the system, and make efforts to prevent it. However quite often perfection ends up being the enemy of progress - we don't try new things because they might be abused, and end up sticking with the current system which is definitely being abused. This only benefits the abusers. Rather, we should aggressively try new social systems, but also regularly review and either reverse or continue to improve upon them. If nothing else, the changing system will disrupt abusers, as they have to constantly develop new methods.

If you're in the US, the Affordable Connectivity Program is available to low income families and it covers $30 a month off your existing internet bill.

PCsForPeople (not sure if I can provide links on Lemmy) offers a free mobile hotspot plan with unlimited data that you can use as home internet, if you qualify for the ACP.

Just an FYI, since there are programs that help, but not everyone is aware of them.

But that's not because of capitalism, that's because of technological advances. We have centuries of technological advances in agriculture before we even had proto capitalism. There's no reason to believe those advances wouldn't have happened under any other economic system.

It does however get considerably cheaper to produce more food when production is scaled up. If enough people got together on the "free food" they could potentially do it cheaper than what capitalism provides.

The issue however is that capitalism has already made food really fucking cheap. It's actually too cheap. And that is because someone else is paying the true cost of providing it. Obviously the animals who sacrifice the their lives, but also the human workers who also sacrifice their lives, just to bring food for everyone. Everyone eats, nobody gets paid, except for the owners who also do none of the work.

It costs money to produce food.

The more people you want to feed, the more money it costs.

Food production is not free. Food distribution is not free.

Then it should be a task of the State, as "feeding people" is, quite obviously, a task Too Big to Fail. And, as such, the State can (and should) just automatically print the money needed to reward the work done. Feeding the hungry should not depend on a "budget". A budget is basically putting a price on human lives.

And yet people are saying that the system isn't the problem but people. When it's the system that creates and promotes those people.

we need food it needs to be as cheap as possible

I agree that we need food. Why do you say it needs to be as cheap as possible? The cheaper it is the less value people will give it and the more food will go to waste.

In your fantasy maybe