>>40664563You're moving the goal posts. Competition being an aspect of a species's existence is not the same as competition being the fundamental aspect of human nature.
By what standard is "standard of living" derived? From a capitalist standard, sure. But from a socialist perspective, people have less opportunity to improve their own standard of living under capitalism. Resources are not scare right now, and will become scarce in the future because of the unsustainable profit motivation established by capitalism. Profit needs to increase forever, but that's impossible because there are only so many things. A society based on cooperation and fulfilling human needs averts this problem through sustainable production methods. "The people running the communist system" are just... the people. I mean, yeah, I guess there have to be people in order for socialism to exist, but that's the case for literally any form of human organization. You've also mixed things up, capitalism requires infinite resources so that profits can increase forever. And, even if resources were infinite, capitalism would still not be suitable for humanity.
No, they don't. There are plenty of societies where people do not build homes, grow crops, herd livestock, use medicine as we consider it, use much technology, heal the sick or injured in the sense that we would, or have organized distribution of resources. I don't think that that's a desirable state per se, but I do think it reflects a general misunderstanding of human societies on your part. The reason for specialization wasn't because these things need to happen despite people not wanting to do them, it was that people had the chance to do them since food production was more constant and consistent. People do want to work, otherwise forager bands(the form of society where people work the least) would have stayed the most common type of human organization. Reaching the character limit, hold on-
