I'm not so sure I'm the right person to response for this because I think RevJim23 has a whole different understanding about what is to say "I don't like capitalism.
". Basically I prefer the economic system based on workers' self-management
and basic social income whereas many supporters of capitalism don't see any other alternative than planned economy
or some sort of primitive
But here we go..
1. A coercion; what is a coercion? Many of those who don't like
capitalism can quite rightfully argue that property is based on
coercion. If there's something we can learn from Marx that is
what he wrote about the ownership of land in England. Basically,
those who are called "the noble" are nothing but the bunch of
robbers and their sons. We may also recall Proudhon talking about
the property in general: The property is theft.
So, because no one can justify to be a proprietor, at least not
in the case of land, we may impose basic social income derived from
the possession of land.
2. There's nothing wrong with safety nets. Equally, they are not
capitalistic safety nets. By the nature, they are more
profoundly socialist than capitalist. The fact that social security
is (almost) universal feature of capitalist states doesn't imply that they themselves are capitalistic.
3. This question depends how do you define capitalism. For many people
for example the market economy based on cooperatives or enterprises
managed by workers themselves is not a capitalistic.
Some supporters of workers' self-management favor the experience of
Yugoslavia after WWII. Yugoslavia was one of the most efficient economies
in the world at that time.
4. By rejecting the ideology of work and property we can create a
market economy system that distributes wealth somewhat equally at the
first place. In some relatively big cooperatives, that are efficient enough
to run even in capitalist system, differences between top and bottom
wages are 1:3 or 1:5. Yes, there's still considerably big difference but
it's remarkably less than nowadays.
5. Yes, that might be sustainable but there's evidence that charity
is not enough. But that's a sort of reformism I don't want to talk about here.
It all leads back to the ideology of work.. (and property).
6. This is very limited view of freedom. If we talk about workers' self-management and
so forth, we don't see fundamental conflict between freedom and
economic equality. When we reject the ideology of work and property
we have a whole different perspective to the concept of freedom. (I don't go into this in detail I should
because it's the notion worth of own node..)