And your logical fallacy is you spent 30 paragraphs explaining why the GP was wrong, instead of offering your own solution.
Incidentally, you gave no solution, in accordance with your requirement of offering solutions.
I was unblocking the possibility that there are (perhaps as yet unknown) solutions better than capitalism. Very necessary if we're not just going to give up and swallow the notion that capitalism is the best we can do. It's a step forward.
I decided to show the form of the argument as it's useful in analogous contexts, where someone is using proof by limited vision (perhaps with the agreement of others who share that) to move that something can't be done.
It's a hell of a lot harder to actually solve capitalism's problems than to bitch and endlessly complain about it, isn't it?
No doubt it was hard to anticipate capitalism long ago. Just because a problem is hard doesn't mean we should give up. No doubt it's easier or more convenient for some to simply maintain that there is nothing better. But I think that's been dealt with.