Alienation is a consequence of "division of labour" which on its own it can be good, in a different society. But in the context of Capitalism's principle of profit maximisation, it is nothing more than the price workers pay so that the owners (of the means of production & capital) maximise their profits. It is a huge price to pay, to loose your humanity for someone else's profits. Perhaps I am overly sensitive but I observe(d) it every day, and not only in the big cities. Remove that and profit maximisation is no longer easy or even possible. Or put it another way, any owner who does not plan his business operations so as to alienate his workers will not be able to compete and will be eaten by the competition (in the long term). There are some exceptions for niche businesses (luxury goods, hotels, travel) or in small, family businesses. The latter are dying fast because they are not competitive because they can't alienate their (family) staff. And even some of the former are tempted by it (e.g. luxury clothes made in asian sweatshops). I think it is a pillar, in Capitalism.

Property is also important: the owners are not forced to distribute back in society the profits they suck out (the word fits fine!) from their labourers, or from infrastructure which was built socially (roads, ports) or from the planet (mines, water, forests, spa). They are allowed by the state to keep this profit (or most of it as tax bands flatten out in general) and accumulate it, instead of paying it back to the society for distribution. Now, remember that who does not observe the profit maximisation principle of Capitalism is doomed (in the biblical sense): so, this property (the accumulated capital) must be put to work. Not any work, mind you, but efficient work which maximises profit. Otherwise inflation and the competition will soon eat out that accumulated capital. As I understand it, the term "property" is allowing the capitalists to keep their profits, it is not just owning a house etc. So, yes a superimportant pillar of Capitalism. Countless examples of when some social movements tried to remove or soften this pillar: they met with their death (poor disillusioned idiots, meaning well but lacking the understanding of what they were doing was equivalent to what Samson did). Some exceptions to this, e.g. the Scandinavian model of high taxation etc. True, there are different mixtures of this. But eventually all roads lead to Rome and the once-humane (humane??? See films by Aki Kaurismaki, e.g. "The Match Factory") Scandinavian social system goes brutal today.

Competition in Capitalism (and not in any system, which it is welcomed) must be vicious because this is the only way to maximise profits. If you don't maximise sucking out your workers, your suppliers and your clients then said "enterpreneur" dies because someone sucked his better. Of course it is a balance because too much sucking will kill the workers -- even slaves were given a plate of food. This is exactly what the no-frills airlines and amazon warehouses are experimenting with right now. And they find that there is still a lot to suck.

Alienation (and all of the above, as they are inter-related) will eventually lead all creative, skilled, academic, etc. labour to be more and more focused and mechanistic and also their tasks to be more intensive and as meaningless as screwing the 157th screw of the super duper rocket for all your life. Working life, even for programmers, will become more mechanistic, less creative.

Capitalism will eventually eat its flesh and die. Unfortunately it will kill us all with it. Over the last years a lot of factories moved or outsourced to asia in order to maximise profit. That was shortsighted because today the asian country has become a giant (partly also because of the knowhow transfer) and the (ex-?)owners of the factories are set to go to war with that country (after trying a sanctions and tarif war which failed them miserably if not harmed them). So, shortsighted yes, but are the owners/CEOs stupid? Not at all. They are just obeying Capitalist law of maximising profits. Since their CEO positions are short-term and scrutinised&pressurised by the maximum-profit-seeking shareholders they must act in the short-term. Shooting their own feet essentially.

And if some say why not the the State exercise stricter control and pass laws for "humane" Capitalism? This is laughable and naive (looking at the long term always). Example: after the 1929 crash the Glass–Steagall legislation was passed to separate investment and commercial operations in banks (they were investing people's savings in the stockmarket). This was revoked 70 years later: ...In November 1999, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate". hehe. Well, immediately the dotcom bubble happened, stock markets inflated and burst. And then, 10 years later (2008) the worst crash happened and still haunting us 15 years later. And I doubt it is recoverable without a major war destroying property. War which we are heading to, and fast.

That was many, many, many words. I asked for counterfactuals that prove/demonstrate any of these points. When have any of alienation, property, and competition been not present in a society? Where are the numbers that show that capitalism then "toppled"?

Capitalism, if pursued in a blind, ideological way can lead to non-optimum outcomes like America's poor safety-net including non-universal healthcare. But the essence of it is people taking commercial risks. If they go wrong, they lose their shirts. If they go well, they get profits, and typically employ others (which you are describing as "alienation"). A key feature of this is that decision-making sits with those affected by that decision. I'd love to hear what you propose that you think would work better.

That was many, many, many words

Well, some words are needed! I tried to put in plain what these concepts mean, as I understand it, in the context of Capitalism. I also gave examples how these are essential for Capitalism and will never be removed.

When have any of alienation, property, and competition been not presen
+t in a society? Where are the numbers that show that capitalism then 
+"toppled"?
[download]

That's is what I am saying, they have always been present in Capitalist societies because there is a lot of effort to keep them there. They can not afford to loose them. That said, some countries, when they tried to relax some of these principles, e.g. regulate the labour market, tax the well-off, nationalise key industries, they faced opposition, competition from other countries, sanctions and even bloody coups.

Attempting to constrain Alienation, which it is not just employing people, as you said, or applying division of labour, but it is about intensifying the work to the point of people being overall and constantly miserable or even jumping out of windows (see the French Telecom Suicides), will make the country or business not "competitive" and businesses then migrate their factories to cheaper and less regulated markets (sweatshops in foreign countries). Over the last years, the mantra countries push is that they offer a competitive (see non-regulated) labour market in order to attract foreign investment in the form of industry, factories etc. They boast how they offer their own people for being fcuk'ed by foreing industrialists.

If they go wrong, they lose their shirts.
[download]

Not really. They lose other people's shirts, re: investment funds, limited responsibility (LTD) companies, etc. Not to mention state-sponsored bubble scums, the stock market etc.. Long gone are the days of the Wozniak's and Job's garage.

A key feature of this is that decision-making sits with those affected
+ by that decision. I'd love to hear what you propose that you think w
+ould work better.
[download]

Ideal for me would be your first sentence. But not in the level of the individual person or investment groups. But collective decision-making at a State level with strong regulation to protect and care for everyone. And the metric should not be profit-maximisation but well-being-maximisation. You see, for Capitalism, profit=well-being. I beg to differ there too. edit: My ideal is a non-capitalist system.