collectivize the means of production

Regarding tendency to monopolize: Bezos, Gates and Buffett literally own more than the socio-economic bottom 50% of Americans. Accumulation of wealth like this cannot happen without monopolies. Sometimes monopolies break up and states take measures against them here and there and companies becoming more powerful than some countries has been a thing since the East India Company, but surely you can see how there are more market segments with more powerful monopolies than ever before.
I've recently been told to have people in favor of the status quo present their argument for it instead of always having to put up a counter as if capitalist market theory, for example, was such a rock-solid theory, but I can't tell whether you're interested in telling me what good a free market has ever done or in sticking around for my response to it.
I would honestly be terrified if you could unironically read Smith, Malthus or Ricardo without laughing at the stupidity of the concept and they're literally what this shitshow we're in is based on.
The thing about the freedom in the free market is that it's not the freedom of the masses consuming, it's the freedom of the capitalists investing into having the most inane things under the sun made. I'll cite some practical problems that can ONLY exist in a free market, because the profit motive dictates all actions: Planned obsolescence. If a washing machine manufactory wasn't owned by someone and instead run by the state or a worker's cooperative whose sole intent it is to produce washing machines effectively, there would literally be zero point in working in shitty parts that need to be replaced. It would be an irrational, idiotic waste of time and resources. With a capitalist owning the business who wants to maximize utilization of the market segment, the prospect of at some point having a washing machine in every household is a terrible threat. Something that objectively would be good for all people - being able to wash clothes.
Then there's the fact that a capitalist doesn't actually do anything, or, at least, isn't required to, but the free market requires the capital of the capitalist, because a business without an investment can't compete. So there's a person that does nothing but have money that tells other people to do all the work. The work the people do leads to a product for which they will never be adequately compensated. If I make a thing that is worth 1€ I should be paid 1€, right? But I get paid 5c, because someone owns the factory and wants to expand it. Then there's additional expenses that are only required in a free market, like marketing. Who the fuck would invest resources in advertising a brand of bread if these assholes didn't have to compete on the market for something SO fucking trivial.
Let me expand on that: Free market and capitalist mode of production are tied to each other and they need their socio-economic classes. So bourgeoisie and proletariat. The former owns the means of production, the latter works for the former. If you're socially liberal, the least radical position you'd hold is that there has to be social mobility. As in, a person can end up at uni no matter what kind of parents they have. Name a country, I'm sure I can pull up a study that proves education is inherited. And obviously, the status of being bourgeois is much more impactful and much more easily inherited - either you inherit the money from someone to start a business/factory/"start-up" or you outright inherit the company. Sure, you could take out a loan (maybe, if your bank ALLOWS it), but is that social mobility? Indebting yourself so you have a shot at being middle class?
Let's look at the other side of the profit motive. What is not profitable. A moralistic example would just be starving children across the world. It's a pretty basic need, food isn't hard to produce. Yet, children still starve. This is the case for the reason that they lack the buying power of, say, a consumer in the global north, (think "first world", "third world" being global south, if you're unfamiliar with this terminology) and accordingly European companies would rather empty the sea off the coast of Africa of fish to sell in Europe than do anything about it, because they're free to do so. They are not obligated to feed the people who need food, they are systemically obligated to profit, because otherwise their businesses would not prosper and will be bought out. Remember the Somalian pirates that were big on the news a few years ago? Former fishermen that were put out of business by big companies. The same is about to happen on the west side of Africa.
All of this is ineffective, cruel and it holds us back technologically, economically and socially. If people die because of capitalism or join ISIS because they are so disenfranchised, they're not starting a colony on mars or building a dyson sphere and it's fucking depressing.
Look up "alienation from labor", that's where the dystopia comes in. Or the amazon being on fire. Or some fuckwit who stole a bunch of work and made a website having all your date. Or people dying all over the planet because apparently figuring out how to ship food from A to B is literal MAGIC to capitalists. If you want me source a claim or elaborate on it, just specify which.