What you're saying would equally apply to a kid annoyed at his dad because his friends have a Ferrari but his family only has a Porsche. It's childish.
Most of the world, like 90%+, is verifiably poor and struggling.
Every year the world economic organizations (all of em) pump out metrics about people coming out of poverty, but these are political and subject to bias.
Above 10 dollars a week is not poverty? Are you sure? 521 dollars a year?
And of course not all of the world is poor in the same capacity. Where a person can only eat meat once a week is different to where a person cant pay their rent, but they are both equally damaging and poverty.
What you think has been happening is not what has been happening.
In the Soviet Union and China most people were serfs or indentured servants. That is, the majority of the population.
They were bound by debt to serve either the state or local landlords.
Their revolutions werent acts of jealousy like you want to believe, they were real, spontaneous movements that came from the people. The communists only directed the movement that was already there.
Do not be childish, please read history seriously.
Capitalism has a flaw, it only does what is profitable.
What is profitable is not one and the same with what is socially necessary or even what is good. They're more like analogous.
Like I said before capitalism is the only economic system that cannot handle more workers. If you produce for profit you cannot produce for needs. In a sense profits vs needs are made of the same stuff but dont look the same. Especially at scale.
Employing as many people as possible wouldnt be a problem if you were working for needs because, simply, more needs would be covered.
Its literally that simple. And when there is a true surplus of workers it would mean less work/more leisure.
