This is probably my first attempt at taking myself seriously and writing. I still feeling like I'm breaking some kind of law here. because of this, i will probably ramble a lot. pliss bear with me.
Popularly, there are two economic ideologies, and somewhere in between is the compromise that each country makes with them. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, their flaws and their merits. While I firmly believe that the mixed economy is the best system, I will write about why I believe that Socialism (which is different from communism, in the way that, perhaps, parody is different from satire. They may be similar, but the end result is different, satire is a more powerful form of literature, but that much more difficult to write.) is a better system than capitalism.
Socialism is, by name, taken from the words social, and society. It does not, like capitalism, promote the individual, it promotes the collective. It staunchly believes in 'The Greater Good', which is a brilliant idea in theory but takes enormous will power to actually put into practice. By definition, there is no unemployment, no cycle of boom and bust, no uncertainty about the future. It is the labourers who are protected here, and there is no discrimination in Socialistia (Socialistan? The United States of Socialist Regimes?), and everyone gets an opportunity to help each other.
Capitalism, on the other hand, firmly uplifts the individual. It encourages the entrepreneur, the innovator, to keep his work to himself. It uses the idea of competition to ensure that the best and most efficient product will always win out, and furthers the progress of the economy by relying on several key factors which must work together. While Socialism eventually becomes one big collective, resulting in a unity of many, capitalism, for all its emphasis on individuality, eventually relies on the consumers and the firms, the government and the banks, all to function well if stable growth is to be achieved.
The flaw of Socialism is, of course, the concentration of power. It must be understood that this is a risk, it is a temptation. While the majority will succumb, there will always be those who do not. The power of Socialism relies on the favorite mechanism of the Capitalists, that they must risk that a Vetinari will come along and help the city flourish. This concentration inevitably produces its share of dictators, but it is not the nature of the system that creates them, it is the nature of the individuals in that system. It is wrong to generalise the system and say that all Socialist (or even Communist) regimes (for what else can it be, but a kingdom under a king? Remember, there were once just kings, who ruled from under a tree. The only difference between Carrot and Vetinari is that their methods are different. Their aim is the same) lack freedom. I still cannot see why freedom, and equality cannot flourish under a dictator. Didn't Akbar encourage liberty? Didn't Ashoka, a thousand years before him, pass laws that ensured equalities among citizens? Was it not the fact that he was king that allowed him to do so?
The government, the State, tells the people what to do, that is true. It lays down laws, and ensures that they are followed. On the other hand it does not mean, that the people just do only what the State tells them to do. Once their duty is fulfilled, they can do whatever they like. This is what, I think, people forget. That it is possible for someone in Socialistan to do one's duty and do other things as well.