At no other time in my short 31 years of life have I heard so much accusing of people being socialist, let alone have so many people be okay with and defend being called such. Something is unsettling about how so many have come in defense of what seems to be a bad idea of government. Understanding that socialism today is packaged quite nicely, I still don' buy what is being sold. With capitalism being a stark opposite to socialism, I decided place these two forms of society and government next to each other to see which was a good idea, and which was gold plated turd.
The root difference between these two systems still comes back to power. The power of voice and the power to choose. We already know from a study of the gospel that agency, or the power to chose, is the highest ideal. For even love is not possible without agency. We also understand that God himself was willing to lose 1/3 of the hosts of heaven as a result of agency. And if the worth of souls is great in the sight of God, the pre-existence experience demonstrates that the value of agency itself surpassed the value of those souls who dismissed agency's importance. So it would then seem in line with gospel experience and principles to support a system that upholds and defends this power of choice as well.
With capitalism each individual is empowered to accomplish, to produce, to "become" at their own ability and choice. With socialism that power is taken from the people so that the government can "do it for them". Even upon first glance socialism presents an existence but not a life.
In demonstration of support to the power of choice, capitalism embraces choice and opportunity for limitless progress. Businesses listen to the needs of the consumer or they go out of business. As the consumer speaks, the capitalist listens. It would seem that a government by the people and for the people should be dominantly capitalist and embrace the principles of upholding the power of voice. Anyone who disagrees with this capitalistic principle must find no value in the voice of the people or be in opposition to listening to that voice.
This is why those who endorse socialism do so, perhaps ignorantly, of the real principle behind socialism. Socialists don't value the voice of the people. Socialists are afraid of the voice of the people and the power that voice holds. To socialists, there is no trust of individuals to take care of themselves or to do much of anything for themselves hence the desire to take over control of many aspects of life and living. Why try and regulate something if you can already trust the people to do it on their own? Why try and regulate people into driving certain types of cars, or for using certain light bulbs if the people already want those things? In capitalism, if the people want something, they go out and get it. If they don't, such is not forced upon them anyway. To Capitalism, the voice of the people is paramount. With socialism that voice is stripped away and replaced by one way of doing things, the governments way. Why? Because a socialist government thinks they know better. The socialist voice has more value than the voice of the individual.With socialism, the voice of the people becomes irrelevant and ineffective.
I am not sure how the argument has turned into making capitalists to look like the selfish possession hungry individuals. Both forms of society focus on possession of goods. In fact socialism deals more directly with and is centered around the distribution of goods and wealth (not simply money, but wealth-notice the emphasis in terminology). Socialism's sole pursuits are centered around possessions and wealth, not about freedom and choice. The difference between the two systems is who gets what possessions and how they get them. Socialism sacrifices freedom for the sake of possessions. Capitalism lets the people decide what they want and to exercise their voice through choice. Socialism controls and regulates this voice.
With socialism, possessions, including earned wages, are taken away in the form of taxes and given to someone else and the government. With capitalism the way for people to get money is for the sale of a good or service to take place; to be productive under their own free will and choice. In this respect, capitalism is a win-win for those who participate. The person obtains the good or service and the other person earns their wage as a result; both win. With socialism there is no choice to participate and produce; it is a lose-win. Someone has to loose out on what they have earned for someone else's gain. Now I ask again, which form is more about possessions? Those that seek ways for mutual benefit, or those who take from one to give to the other?
For this reason, no matter what cute packing or slick sales pitch is given to support socialism, I find that underneath this nice golden attractive packaging lies a very undesirable present that just plain stinks.