AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Oh dear wrong again, here's a real working definition of socialism "...by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us as a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, inspirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect"
Every member of the Labour Party has a card that says that on it. It says nothing against state ownership indeed sate ownership is very much supported by the Labour party amongst other left UK parties as well as co-operatives which are supported across the political spectrum.

State ownership in the UK and elsewhere has provided the stability and the resources for science and engineering endeavours worldwide, that benefit society. Is it done for profit? Yes and no. No because its solving things from needs for nuclear fusion, to determining DNA profiles of cancer all funded by the people through the state. And yes because for example for every £ spent by the government on space, it gets approximatly £8 back.

Sure you can re-represent that profit, you could create say an open source tech community that creates libre free software that becomes hugely valuable, then gradually companies take it on board and employ tech people in that software. No actual 'profit' there. But all your doing is offsetting the fact that an employee here is funded from a different profit source. For instance https://www.blender.org/foundation/

You could go down the 'commune' route. Everyone agrees to a common set of values. But then that ignores humanities needs too, people want diversity, want control, want self determination, difference as well as security.

Capitalism was a rejection of serfdom, of the assumption that your born to a place. In that sense it was a great advancement. But in it extreme individuals ,like some Kings and Queens of the past, end up amassing so much wealth that they effectively are no longer part of society, its ills and issues, yet own much of it.

I realise 'communism' isn't Soviet Communism (which was barbaric) , but its not the answer either. It ignore human traits. In extreme survival situations where our human response is far more tribal, e.g. war. then a 'commune' may well be a albeit temporary solution.

An idiot I am not.

So what do you do with banks then in your ideal world? Are non-profit credit unions acceptable bank alternatives or are you so far to the left you abandon money altogether?

and if you want to change the planets enitre banking system then were really going off the wall b s crazy !! Of course bitcoin and others my offer ways of reducing government 'interference' in the short term, but the reality is government is their to govern. They will always interfere when it comes to money. Unless you want to go back to bargaining?

Money isn't a capitalistic invention, its a natural one https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825242-000-money-and-monkey-business/ Profit will always be inherent because no system is friction free, all take energy, even computers (bitcoin) require electricity