>

There is no western system. We live in an age of global capitalism with neocolonial/imperialist relations between the West and the rest of the world. 
The problem with viewing capitalism only as a western thing is that it obfuscates the imperialist economic relations and it becomes easy to argue that "while the west has problems it is better off than Africa" or whatever. This kind of western chauvinistic thinking ignores the fact that the west profits off the cheap labor of the global working class who slave away in mines and sweatshops to make our commodities. And these relations are enforced by military force and covert operations.
this is just a weird post because you're assuming this is something that's inherent to capitalism and free market. Let me provide a counter example of this,
I grew up in India where socialist and welfare society concept is baked into our constitution. Most corporations were government owned prior to 1992, most manufacturing was done in India for our market and almost every public service was subsidized.
you know what that led to? incredible amount of corruption in every branch of government and services (as they were part of government). red tapism was rampant and opening a new business was a nightmare. some of our biggest co ops( Amul as an example) needed constant help for it to survive and make profit.
We were in such a bad position that we were months away from bankruptcy in 1992 when economic liberalisation happened. 
Do you really think people were thriving under our socialist policies when everything was government and consequently, everything was shit?
there's a reason people who lived under socialism tell you why it was absolutely dogshit and somehow, western liberals still can't hear a word. our ethos of hard work are partly because of the shit we have seen under socialist systems and we do everything to escape that.
Our education was dogshit both k-12 and colleges, we had only 2 government channels and hence had limited source of entertainment. If you're talking of monopolies, there was no bigger monopoly than the government. >

I'm from Eastern Europe mate, I know full well not just socialism but actual, real Communism. I get it. And I am not advocating for socialism/communism or any of that rubbish. 
I don't know what system will replace this one but I do know no system lasts forever, it is the way of all things. Even the universe itself will not last forever. 
I acknowledged this system did uplift people and produced "valuable goods and services" but there are absolutely flaws with any system, which over time magnify and lead to collapse. Communism's flaw is it creates a power vaccuum (which authoritarians fill) and assumes wrongly about human nature (we are not all selfless). Capitalism's flaw is if unchecked (as it is), it allows private companies to gain too much power and essentially "buy" the government. Among other problems, which I described. 
I do not see a way out. This system is failing an increasing number of people, income inequality is widening way out of control. My point is - I don't see any of this or the other issues I listed being fixed, I don't think people can fix them even if they want to, it's insurmountable. The only way to "fix" is to let it run its course, collapse, and let something else take it's place. What that "Something" is I've no idea (hopefully not communism lmao wouldn't that be funny tho). >

mate, the flaws are only visible to folks who are in bottom 10%. all the calls for universal healthcare is from people who, for the most part don't have health insurance. for those who have healthcare (and this group forms the overwhelming majority as healthcare is tied to employment), healthcare isn't expansive at the level where they pay. would it be great to have a healthcare system as great as Germany, absolutely but that would mean taxation at a much higher rate and kicking in much early. I won't divulge into greater details but just as a short example, at 65k in Germany you would pay around 40% of paycheck as tax. In los Angeles, CA with highest taxes in country, you would pay 20%.
This vague dream of "taxing billionaires" is a foolish nonsense that somehow got traction but reality of every other country that has a public healthcare is that it's the middle class that pay in a much bigger part of their paycheck for social services than most middle class Americans. 
I mean this with total respect but by suggesting that a system isn't working while also saying that you don't know what should replace it doesn't make you a profound thinker, it makes you a clueless person.
there's is a way out and it's very simple. If the people want Europe like services (people often point to Nordic models), then people should pay Nordic like taxes and that means taxing the middle class. You can implement a wealth tax but that has always failed and it would still fail. There's one other measure, taxing capital gains at a higher percentage when realised. the last solution can be preventing anyone from taking loans against stocks after a certain value( say no more than 5 million dollars when stocks are the collateral).
Nordic models are strong because their middle class is more prosperous than US and there's a bigger percentage of middle class than US. >

I don’t think it’s fair to say that recognizing problems without having a viable solution is foolish.
Our destruction of the environment is a massive problem. Ok, so let’s cut all emissions, stop deforestation right now, and focus all efforts on reinstating the ecodiversity we’ve destroyed. That is the solution, no? Well now we’ve completely shut down our entire economy and production system and we all starve, freeze, cook, etc. So maybe there is no solution, or at least not an easy one.
To assume that to raise a very real issue, as OP has, you need to have a solution is totally fallacious. >

it's just as foolish as posting the "you live in a society meme" because pointing to problems while not suggesting viable solution makes you an asshole. Pointing out a problem is cheap and can make you look good amongst your peers but that's all it does.
I mean you can absolutely try that and see where that gets you. People who post those problems and solutions on mediums like social media will ask for everyone's head when we shut down society and as extension, social media in order to save environment.
talk is easy and talk is cheap, especially when done by people who don't want to give up their personal comforts but also want someone else to bring great changes so that they can feel responsible and smart while doing absolutely nothing. It's like that parrot situation who wants freedom but also can't give up the comfort of his cage.
there's no fallacy involved here. OP raised a valid concern, sure. I pointed to him that he and I both come from places that tried alternative solutions failed miserably while making everyone suffer more( if you think poors in America under capitalism are oppressed, you have no idea of the suffering poors under socialism in India faced). I also laid out viable solution while pointing to how and why the Nordic "utopias" function and it turned out, it's because there is a bigger middle class and their middle class is taxed more. I could've easily pointed out to monocultures playing a significant part in communal identity is Nordic nations to dismantle the diversity argument but chose not to. >


pointing to problems while not suggesting viable solution makes you an asshole

Is Greta Thurnberg an asshole? Seriously asking. Protesters? Activists? They're all assholes by your definition but sometimes it takes a critical mass of people complaining and pointing out issues before something is done at a societal level. 
Telling people to shut up if they don't have a working solution isn't acceptable and makes you an ahole, imo. It's gatekeeping and discouraging civil discourse. Which is critical to gain traction needed to get things done. >

for most part, yes she is. People like to praise her as second coming of Christ or reincarnation of lord Rama but she's nothing more than a clueless teenager. Just because someone can shout "how dare you" in a UN conference doesn't mean they have some profound solutions or are making significant changes.
as for protestors, some are clueless and some are fine. like every protest, half the crowd doesn't even know what they're protesting about and how a solution will be achieved. Pointing to a problem doesn't make you a part of solution unless you're relaying good solution alongwith the protest.
Again, calling someone an asshole doesn't mean you're shutting up a conversation. you're just conveying to them that they're only making noise. a civil discourse is one that involves actual discussion on plausible solutions and throwing soup and ketchup on paintings aren't discussion about solutions, neither is blocking roads of commuters trying to earn a living and survive in these tough times. >

There are no monopolies. You can’t just use that word like it’s another buzzword because it literally is not true. Having a few massive players is an oligopoly. A monopoly would be if Apple was the only person who sold phones. Period. 
People need to stop throwing around this like it’s a political buzzword. The US has 0 monopolies. >

I’ve really tried to see it, but at the end of the day all of these talking points just sound like the result of being chronically online to me. If you look for reasons the country is fucked, you’ll find everything you need, but if you go outside, take a walk around the block, talk to others in public, visit your local small businesses, etc., you’ll see people are doing what needs to be done and moving on with their life. Not everyone is doing great, but it really depends on what they’re doing, self-awareness, and how much effort they’re putting in. 
I think people just have too much time to think now, this same argument could have been made dozens and dozens of times in the past, and yet we’re still here. 
The real estate market was just on fire, you would list a home and have it sold in two days. 
People can now work remotely and live anywhere they choose. 
You can go online and learn a skill in a month or two and bring that to market to make money. 
College is overpriced, but if you decided to take on a degree that provided little to no ROI, that’s just kind of on you. College on average provides people with a good life. 
Most companies don’t outsource work only to exploit people, they outsource work because that allows them to hire more people in the US for higher paid positions. 
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe we’re in the best spot, but “capitalism” isn’t going to fail all of us like socialism has failed others repetitively, we will correct it and people will be happier in the near future. It’s natural we go through ups and downs, but the world is not about to implode. >

Largely agree. Looking at it from a historical perspective, well fed populations don’t tend to start revolutions. >

We gave women the right to vote and freed black slaves. We can't make community college free in order to help bring down college debt? We're already doing it in a few states.
Also tbh, college debt isn't even really a problem. The overwhelming majority of debt is held by graduate students from wealthy families, not working class poor single mothers struggling to get by.
There's a lot in your OP, but most seems objectively false. Microsoft is super far from a monopoly, for example. >

Yeah this CMV is filled with internet knowledge that isn’t actually true.
Most people with lots of college debt have a solid place to live, and a fairly new car. The people who are in the government housing and actually need more assistance never went to college. 
Also people in the left (I sway left BTW) always throw this word “monopoly” around. If ANY other computer companies exist then microsoft cannot be a monopoly. If there’s only a few big ones controlling the game you could call it an oligopoly, but not a monopoly. That words just a political buzz word to a lot of people like this. >

Marxist thought has been saying exactly this for like two centuries now and it hasn't happened.
"Externality" doesn't mean "code word for bad thing". It literally just means when an economic transaction has effects outside of the buyer and seller. >

Yes, unlike Marx thought, the political and economic system of the 19th century was perfectly stable.
This is why the early 20th century was a golden age where humankind lived in harmony and peace. >

Im not so certain your gripe is with free market capitalism but rather with goverment overreach into regulating said market >

Only businesses with government contracts or the super rich can do business in this government regulated economy. It is impossible for an individual to walk out onto  the street and buy or sell or do any simple business with this level of overreach and overhead. Nothing about it is free market. It's nothing but laws and rules everywhere stacked up past the moon to make sure that the people who believe in massive bureaucracy and draconian rule systems are the only ones who get to participate in the artificial marketplace, and even then they are working for someone elses profit. >

What you have done here is identified that there are serious flaws with market capitalism. 
That does not mean that it’s going to fall. Liberal societies have been the most vibrant and productive for over 200 years and they will remain so because of their flexibility and and their dynamism. >

I’m sure you have heard of capitalist realism, yes?
I firmly believe that it’s a thing and a part of capitalism. So as long as people can imagine that the end of the world is more likely than capitalism crumbling to death, then I think it will continue to persist, no matter in what kind of state.
The liberal order that has dominated the last 75-80 years has done a pretty good job of implanting that idea into the populace. >

How are people supposed to imagine the end of capitalism, when after 200 years no practical alternatives have been proposed? Like what are people supposed to imagine? A sudden resurrection of Communism? A vindication of central planing? Anarchism, but unironicaly? >

social mutualism* is an alternative (or market socialism) afaik