What a impossible requirement. It would be like saying that we shouldn't end slavery till we have something "certain" already in place to replace it. Nothing can be called "certain" till it is tried and proven itself enough, and that's impossible if we don't try. Past doesn't matter since it gets lost and rewritten by the conquerors besides hardly applies in our changed world.

Anyway it's not about what people have done in the past or even about what people now think should be done in replace of capitalism or even what I personally think is better. The whole point is to explore alternatives in stories.

You want bloodless change, start with planting the ideas that change is necessary and good and what that might look like in stories. Explore the different possibilities and dream up new possibilities.

Readers, critically examine your story diets and consider these things with a critical eye.

But we had something in place beyond slavery that was tested and true, so getting rid of slavery wasn't a risk at all. In the US at least, the civil war was about wealthy southern slave owners being denied to expand westwards. And I don't know of any other country to be famous for violently fighting against abolishing slavery. Even the UK had a peaceful transition from slavery even though they had other, bigger issues instead.

You can't really try without first having something to try, now can you? Having ideas is great, but can they be put in practice? Because there is no lack of great ideas, but there is a lack of finance and competence to implement them fully and correctly.

Trade is going to happen regardless of the economic framework, so if you're a bunch of adventurers going around killing monsters and looting dungeons, your value to a more... socialist society is probably not going to yield much, if any, gold. Of course, this all depends on the needs and wants of those societies. If they demand the slaying of monsters and the looting of dungeons, then you may very well be a rich adventurer indeed.

"Trade" isn't the problem.

It's actually more complicated than that. Lincoln was elected president and the slaveholders decided to cut their losses and simply declare secession in order to create their own racist totalitarian slave state. Then they attacked a federal fort and signed its own death warrant.

Also, Haiti had a successful slave revolt.

It isn't theft. The employer often takes all the risk investing in and creating a business, creating infrastructure and providing protections such as insurance (malpractice insurance, or indemnity insurance). You see it as "they do nothing" because you've never run a business or had to deal with organizing work schedules, bringing in clients, and creating the opportunity for the employee to ply their trade. In many instances small self employed businesses fail because they can't do the work and keep up with the minutiae of day to day expenses and details. If you think an employer or landlord does nothing to earn their money, you should become one and liberate the people who are "beholden" to them.

Rich people don't have to deal with risks. Look at Elone Musk, how many ways has Elone screwed over Twitter, I mean "X", utterly destroying it. Yet both remain. SpaceX is a travesty of a failure wasting billions. Yet both remain. Even the perception of being extremely rich can give to countless opportunities to get more money. Like Trumps Taj mahal https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-taj-mahal-casino-8th-world-closure-years/story?id=42762369 The banks looked the other way because otherwise they would have to admit they put all that money in for nothing. Trump doesn't pay people and gets off scott-free from stealing from people, invents a fucking fake university scam and is fucking fine! Talk of possibly getting reelected even!

The workers get screwed, the owners get off scott-free. Now I admit small time businesses take risk. But so what? The poor always suffer the most risk and have the fewest options.

How many businesses and corporations have gone bankrupt with executives getting golden parachutes and regular workers getting shafted, or they get a bail out and the regular workers still get shafted.

And Landlords literally don't need to do a single fucking thing. They outsource management to a third party who outsources maintenance to other people all of which comes out of your rent. No risk, no effort, just tax by another name. My apartment building has changed ownership many times but almost every single owner is completely anonymous and totally out of the picture, yet they get the money. Maybe the owners some LLC investment firm even, they've bought up alot of property and then can charge whatever the fuck they want as the only game in town sometimes.

Not in slavers eyes. It was a threat to their way of life. If slavery had existed to this day and age slavers might be arguing we can't get ride of slavery till we have robots that can completely replace them became available.

Similarly 'not capitalism' exists in pockets and different forms the world over, we have options for at least starting to get away from the worst of capitalism. Like denying people to 'own' land they don't live or work on and investing in public housing for more efficient taking care of people. This is not complicated or 'new'.

It was a risk to the people in power benefiting from it all, just like capitalism. Yes they will fight against capitalisms reduction and removal. But it is a necessity.

Also about fear that slavery will be eventually abolished in existing states. And when that came to be true after the civil war, waves of intense violence happen as people attempted to force things back because they viewed removing slavery as a attack on a way of life and society. And that violence worked, causing great backslides into oppression and sudo-slavery.

If the people pushing against slavery listened to you, then slavery in the US would have never ended. The violence of abolitionists and those who fought against them, of the civil war, of white retribution and force after, of the civil rights movement much latter to restore 'racial' sanity, all that risked and got violence. Many even argued that these protests and civil disobedience etc. where too early and risked violence because people couldn't handle it. But I argue it was worth it. That some extra lives were lost then sure, but in the end more lives were saved and improved removing slavery despite the violence.

Similarly we risk dealing with violence if we remove the worst parts of capitalism and implement socialistic reforms that improve peoples lives. But it is a risk well worth it compared to having to keep on dealing with capitalisms violence and misery. Again though if you want to avoid violence, we need to plant the seeds of ideas and thoughts that talk about alternatives to capitalism/feudalism. If enough people get infected with good ideas then it is much easier to implement such things without violence.

Yes, the only thing stopping it is the wealthy elites who fight tooth and nail to make things worse instead of better and the lower level people brainwashed by elite self serving BS.

If in that day and age, they were given large enough benefits, transitioning from slavery would have been without issue because their profits stood higher than their way of life. We can see it now that corporations don't care what they do as long as it makes them money.

The pockets of not-capitalism in the world are being steam-rolled by the global giants, which are capitalist powerhouses. Money doesn't buy everything, but it buys enough to take what it can't buy by force.

Necessary as it may be, violence is just a quick-fix for those who can't outwit their opponents. You can see it in the so-called 'war against drugs' which is pretty much a sham, as soon as one cartel is taken down, the void is immediately filled up by another, more aggressive one. Without a replacement of your own already prepared and set in place as soon as the former is removed, you will waste a lot to gain nothing.

The pushback worked because of war exhaustion. They lost too many lives and couldn't afford to keep losing more, also there was the risk of mass desertion if they kept pushing. Because most normal people don't like war and don't like violence.

Any ideological confrontation is a war of attrition. And without the logistics to support that war, a movement will fail without a doubt. Being right or wrong and whether your ideas have worth or not doesn't matter, what matters is your ability to garner support and maintain it long enough to overwhelm your opponents. So like it or not, having the resources or the wealth to buy those resources is what will drive those seeking power to pursue, no matter the environment.

You think that infecting people with good ideas is enough, but it's not. Look at the climate change ordeal. Many people protest for it, do the governments listen? No. They ignore and they delay until the companies that have the capital to implement such changes are actually ready to transition. Because without the money and the resources needed, those protests are worth nothing.

Look at the recycling fiasco. Gather your trash after you, split up the trash according to the materials, save energy, buy less food, wash with less water, walk instead of using your car, eat less meat etc and the list keeps growing. So many growing demands for a healthier planet, only to be told none of them matter in the end because the companies that are supposed to recycle can't afford to retrofit for recycling, the factories that are supposed to lower emissions can't afford to maintain the demanded production and retrofit for the requested lower emissions. And if they are forced to do so anyway, what will they do instead? Declare bankruptcy and leave. Now what is their replacement and where is the money to implement it?

You forget the corrupt politicians who steal from the budget and taxes, the corrupt police force who enforce their corrupt laws, the corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats who make everything more difficult for no reason, the corrupt justice system, the corrupt medical system, the corrupt educational system, the corrupt scientific system etc.
Looks like everything is corrupt. What now? Do we round them all up and shoot them in order to better our lives?

You want change and you want revolution and that is a good thing, because we shouldn't give up on bettering ourselves and each other. But most people don't want that. They don't want to struggle, nor to fight tooth and nail. They want stability, no matter what that means. So if you want people to fight, you give them a solution to fight for and paint green arrows on how to reach it. Because they will fight for something concrete and then settle for it.

The "truly rich" are a somewhat hidden group that will help out each others. As soon as your wealth is exceeding a certain level and if you are not a complete idiot if it comes to investment, it is almost impossible to ever become non wealthy ever again. The issue is just, for most of us.... on "how to get there", this is not only some good effort, more than everything lot of luck involved and "to make the correct stuff at the right time", paired with some special talent related to "how the current economy works"... and ultimately using it to your advantage.

Most difficult spot is if you are way to "low" down there... on this hierarchy, because it is almost impossible to accumulate wealth as long as you have barely anything "to spare", in order to invest into something else. The majority will simply never be able to invest anything (which is a requirement, else you can not accumulate wealth), as they need everything they ever own in order to cover living expenses.

But of course, they are somewhat guilty of this outcome, because we generally tend to live beyond the level we actually can realistically afford... in a pretty often debt-accumulated system. Debt is not even automatically bad, as long as it is able to accumulate even more wealth... but there is the issue: Only the the truly wealthy or mighty ones got the ability to make wealth out of debt, for all the others... debt is the first step to hell.

Another big issue is that the "poor ones" usually are not helping out each others... instead even trying to combat anyone already almost to weak to even pose a threat to their own "success", but they never will combat anything to high up the ladder. And if there is already way to many of the "lower entities" but just a few upper entities... well, they big mass will combat the big mass... which is working more than well for all the elitists out there. Those elitists are not even guilty, they just use or abuse a system toward their advantage and the bootlickers, by fighting each others... are even helping them out, which is more than welcome.

One idea is no money from monster drops and/or key equipment upgrades are given by NPCs once you've hit a certain checkpoint, level, quest progress, or amassed enough crafting ingredients. In all these scenarios, currency is replaced by bartering, effectively.

Seems rightful to me.