Exactly: when people are unhappy and decide they're going to remove the heads of the ruling class, "but <some other system> is worse!" is some gallows humor while they do it.

Which has historical precedent: the French revolution wasn't a well planned transition to a better system, the Russian revolutionaries overthrowing the Tsar weren't much interested in the specific details of communism.

If the defense you have for the suffering of people is "well it could be worse" you are rather gambling that they are not yet sufficiently unhappy that the effort to be rid of you won't seem worth it.

True, but if you don't have a better alternative, then it doesn't help at all to clamor for "something better", as it doesn't exist. The best you can do is put up with reality. Frankly, that's just a general principle for living. The world will always be full of things you don't like that you can do nothing about, save to make things worse.

(I happen to think there are cultural changes and political and economic reforms that could improve the quality of our lives, but these will not be found in the the narrow and superficial debates about capitalism and socialism. The key is to begin with the right questions: "what does it mean to be human?" and "how should we live?/what is the good life?" The first is a question belonging to philosophical anthropology, the second to ethics, and these further presuppose a good basic knowledge of metaphysics, at least. Until you have a good grasp of these, you are not in a position to effectively approach the question of what kinds of political and economic orders and arrangements should be fostered, as these depend on the answers to the former. If you cling instead to the categories imposed by modernism, whose inherent tensions and contradictions are now coming to the surface and playing out in a slow-motion death rattle, then you're wasting your time.)