In an environment like this it's pretty easy to make the argument that having a neutral for-profit business model is "evil" because we can see the bad results of such a system. The problem is when one tries to deviate from this model and they realize it's not sustainable or valued by society, making it unsustainable and doomed to fail eventually. The system itself rewards neutrality and pushes the gears of commerce and technology farther, albeit in a toxic way.
Trying to make the argument that "it shouldn't be like this" is invalid when a better replacement system does not exist. They exist in theory but the reality of such "improvements" has shown time and time again to be even worse than what we have. Communism is awesome, in theory. Meritocracy is ideal, in theory. The theory breaks down in reality when we put someone in charge to run it and it immediately becomes a different system akin to any other top-down governance. None of it is scalable beyond a couple hundred people in a community that have relative trust for one another, and sometimes not even then.
For all these reasons and more is why we are all here experimenting with crypto and ways to create rules without rulers... or at least limit the ruler's power significantly. It all starts with not being able to sanction bank accounts, oddly enough. Money talks and bullshit walks I guess.
It is the laws of physics that mandate what technology is more productive, and today in every field of industry, it is decentralization of the means of production that is the cutting edge of technological advance, where increased productivity is the feature of technological advance.
However, this doesn't necessarily translate into profit for centralized hierarchies, because decentralization eliminates parasitic losses centralization depends on for it's profits. This is a disconnect between 'the system' and physics, between business and tech advance, because all businesses necessarily depend on centralization. People are used to centralization because decentralization is historically not where tech advance occurred, but rather was Luddism. The paradigm of tech advance arising from decentralization is novel in history, as I often note a clinal boundary that is ongoing that changes everything.
In every technological advance a better replacement mechanism for production is what is advented. When every technological advance in every industry increases productivity not of businesses, which are obligate parasites on collective labor which is a feature of centralization, but of individuals producing their own goods and services rather than purchasing them from businesses (with wages received as laborers in centralized industrial production), the entire paradigm of industry is changed. That paradigm has existed for millennia, since the extinction of the megafauna that were previous to the Younger Dryas the most productive industry (one mammoth kill produced ~4k meals of ~4kcal). That 'better system' is prehistoric, not nonexistent.
That is how centralization arose, as collective wealth was produced by collective labor as industrial agriculture replaced megafauna as the primary food source of society. Management was necessary of collective functions. Decentralization does not require management, because it is not collective. It is inherently meritocratic because those that undertake production using table top, backyard, or garage based means of production do not require financing, do not work for a business, do not ship their products, etc.
Wealth, not money, is talking. We aren't instantly in a completely decentralized economy. The entire tooling of every industry of the world hasn't instantly become decentralized and is fully developed and dispersed across the population. The transition has begun, the infrastructure of decentralized production is developing and dispersing, and the extant captains of centralized industry are not unaware that their wealth and power is dependent on centralization. They do not want to become peers in a meritocratic society of independent producers of the blessings of civilization. They want to be overlords.
The transition is not going to be easy, peaceful, or happen to everyone. Security is a primary function that must be a fundamental product them with merit produce if they are to retain any wealth they create, and that will not be based on gangs of armed thugs that centralization of security depends on.