Capitalism can be the most ruthless and unforgiving economic system ever devised. Yet there are many advantages that it has over socialism and most other systems. It rewards hard work with sufficient pay much of the time. Those with the most capital to invest make capitalism successful. It provides incentive to those that want to better themselves. Socialism, on the other hand, tries to make unequals equal which is like considering a dog equal to a horse. But I would rather try riding a horse than a dog.
Capitalism built this nation. People with vision sought what has been described as the American dream and often achieved it. Our economy wouldn't be the greatest in the world, despite the recent downturns. If you do a better job than those around you, you ought to get rewarded. Socialism, or sharing the wealth, as Barak Obama says, takes from those with the most capital and gives to those with the least. It also doesn't provide incentives. Socialism was tried in the Plymouth Colony at the beginning. All products of ones labor were shared with everyone equally. Those who grew more crops didn't keep more than those that grew less crops. With no incentives, those who could produce more decided to produce only enough and no more. The investors in England didn't make a big enough return and the common store didn't have as much in it as what was possible.
But when capitalism was introduced to the colony, the people tried to produce as much as they could because they knew they could keep more. The excess was delivered to the common store to be sent back to England or sold to others. The abundance was great enough that the first Thanksgiving was held to celebrate the bounty God allowed to be provided. The local Indians in the area were curious and joined the people of the colony for a few days of hunting and feasting. If socialism had remained the common practice, there might not have been a first or subsequent Thanksgivings. The colonists might have starved.
People like to point to the first century church and say they practiced socialism since they had all things common. Yet they forget about the example Jesus gave of the talents of money given to the servants. One was given five, another three, and the last one one. Their master went away and returned much later. The first two had doubled the amount of money they had been given and were rewarded accordingly. The last one hid the talent of money he had been given and gave it back to his master. The man was angry with him and gave the money to the one who had earned the most. If socialism had been practiced, everyone would have been given an equal amount of money; even the one that didn't make a profit. So it appears God approves of capitalism and investment for profit.
Liberalism has been associated with socialism. But a century ago, liberalism could have been associated with capitalism. A pre-FDR liberal was one who believed in giving from his wealth to help society. People like John D. Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Mellon were wealthy men who started charitable foundations because thanks to capitalism, they could afford to be generous. A post-FDR liberal is one who believes YOU should give from your "wealth" to help society. Often they don't contribute much money to help others. But they can make people feel guilty if they don't give their "fair share" or pay enough in taxes in order to show their patriotism, as Joe Biden suggests.
Socialism doesn't work in societies that consider themselves socialistic. The land sharing program in Zimbabwe has been an utter failure. The land owned by successful white farmers was taken from them and distributed to poor black farmers that had no land. The nation when it was known as Rhodesia was a food exporter thanks to capitalism. But now it is a food importer because socialism has brought the nation near the brink of starvation. Socialism didn't even work in the old Soviet Union. The peasants that fought for socialism during the Revolution sometimes were stuck riding horses while Lenin was driving Rolls Royces; even one that had skis on the front for winter driving. The ruling class in the Soviet Union always had more than the "children of the Revolution." Once capitalism was allowed limited freedom in Russia after the fall of communism, organized crime took advantage of the capitalistic system and became rich. Those who had money made much more money which I believe will lead to a wealthier country and citizenry. The Russian athletes, musicians, actors, and models are taking advantage of captialistic opportunities outside of Russia. Those that have remained dependent on the government as they were taught to do are suffering during the transition from socialism to capitalism.
I prefer an even more capitalistic system I call Applied Capitalism. It would make the government and citizens economic partners. Congressmen would become what I call "bounty hunters" who would cut government waste and spending and receive 0.1% of what is saved. This might reduce spending significantly. If they won't cut spending for the good of the country, maybe greed will do the trick. The government could form companies that would be managed and run by those who are knowledgeable in how to make the companies work. The government could invest in the companies but not have more than 49.9% of the stock so as not to become the majority stockholder. People could invest in the companies through the government which would act like an agent as it takes 10% up front and 10% of the profits the investor makes at the end. Socialistic countries often own companies they start like Saab in Sweden. But with Applied Capitalism, the government could only start a company but never own it. It could still regulate it and demand certain things. But there would be a degree of independence to allow the capitalistic economic system to work to its near full potential.
Also a part of the system would be a suggestion contest in which anyone could submit ideas to the government for consideration that would either save or make the government money. If an idea saved the government $100 million, they would receive between 1 and $10 million TAX FREE. The government would still save a lot of money. But average people would get free money. To paraphrase JFK, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country and pick up free money as a reward.
Capitalism will always seem unfair to those who aren't able to succeed. But if we had a strictly socialistic system in which everyone was truly equal, hardly anyone would be able to succeed. Socialism goes against the human competitive spirit that makes people want to do better than all others. Even Soviet athletes needed incentives to drive them to be the best. Hardly anyone wants to be like everyone else. Capitalism champions the individual while socialism has no champions.