Socialism is an economic system wherein each receives benefit from the effort and talent of all. The method of allocation of the outcomes is not initially offered into evidence. That defect is a significant flaw.
The method of creation and distribution of goods and services under socialism is unknowable.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is about creation and distribution. Really that’s all it is. A way to distribute goods and services, with money as the device used to barter.
Socialism requires a political system to support it, while the political system attached to capitalism is not required to help the system work, but exists to restrict it.
Capitalism is not inherently a political system so cannot be easily compared to socialism
The principle difference
Socialism is a goal driven system. Capitalism is not. The goals of socialism are kindness, equality, (usually of outcome), fairness, (undefined), and respect for differences. There are no specific goals of capitalism, but rather a system that emphasizes processes. Production, efficiency, innovation and accumulating capital.
Any thinking person would agree fairness, kindness, equality, and respect are reasonable goals. The capitalist system does not address them. They are up to the participants.
Equality of outcome doesn’t fit very well with capitalism because it is not objective. Equality of opportunity is reasonable.
None of fairness, equality and respect are required under capitalism, but few of us are pure capitalists. We all have a sense of sharing.
Socialism has goals with no process to achieve them, while capitalism has a process and outcomes, without specific outcome goals.
Socialism cannot be implemented
Socialism lacks incentives to produce wealth, and it lacks a definitive method of distributing whatever may remain from the earlier semi-capitalist system.
Where will the wealth come from? To assume talented people will work to no advantage is unrealistic. To assume nature and human nature will ignore what is unrealistic is delusional. Mother Nature is not benign. Mother Nature is perfectly fair and ruthless about it. Mother Nature’s version of fair does not include something for nothing. Socialism on the other hand, is based on the principle of a free lunch.
Margaret Thatcher’s insight, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.”
You cannot rationally choose socialism or any of its variants without knowing how and how much wealth will be created. You cannot distribute what does not exist.
Socialism is noble in one way
It is nearly universally based on good intentions.
It is the execution of it that fails. Until it develops a process to create wealth, it will continue to fail. It needs money to share and thus succeed. Margaret Thatcher again. “No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions; he had money as well.”
There is a choice
Wealth, unevenly distributed, or nothing, shared equally.
So far, socialism is more about envy than anything else and that is very wrong. When you think about it, envy is the only sin that has no pleasure component.
I help business owners, and professionals understand and manage risk and other financial issues. To help them achieve their goals, I use tax efficiencies and design advantages to acquire more efficient income and larger, more liquid estates.
Please be in touch if I can help you. firstname.lastname@example.org 705-927-4770