>>210spic here
>inb4 >>>/dol/Wouldn't your image go against the purpose of this board?
>Capitalism TL;DRIn Capitalism, personal freedom are maximized, this extends to how the product and trade of both labor and production. This however has a LIMIT. The more orders of magnitude regarding resources and production a person controls, the more unbalanced the system becomes. Notice that the problem is NOT inequality, rather how different agents end up in a situation where their relationship becomes unbalanced. Furthermore, there is a LIMIT of people and resources available, while the system Capitalism has been great in allowing for more resources to be created via innovation, ultimately it's the previous point of LIMIT which gives rise to more problems regarding wealth.
>Communism TL;DRCommunism comes from "communis" meaning universal or common. The purpose is that it targets one of the main LIMITS of Capitalism (which is as your image shows) is that those that own the resources and means of production end up with profits regardless if they did any work. This however is myopic in the owners usually have to deal with both risk and strategy, HOWEVER Communism can also be competent in this… by allowing the working class to partake directly in the labor of resources and productions. Notice that Communism is does NOT creates a class-less society, it simply solves one LIMIT of Capitalism in which people who are perceived as not laboring as hard as the working class, can "spread the profits" more "justly". This however highlights another thing about Communism which is very ANTI-Socialist, there is no bureocracy or governmental agent. The whole purpose of Communism is to NOT have one person getting shekels for nothing, however Socialist states do EXACTLY that! Socialist states need to spread the wealth, but what if some people refuse? They need to send the police or military. Who pays for them? The people. One of the main LIMITS of Communism is the Law of the Commons, another is the constant care NOT to create a position where there is an "unjust ratio" between wealth and labor.
>Socialism TL;DRThis system is very complex because by nature it is a confusion. Socialism arose from philosophies which confused and misinterpreted the areas of government and society. Unlike Capitalism which places all power on the individual, or Communism which places that same power on the group of workers, Socialism gives that power to a third party. Historically, most Socialist states failed in both execution and stability. There is however a couple of examples in History where that wasn't the case. The most recent one was Germany under Hitler, partly because he got rid of the "International Hyenas" leeching off the people. He also Nationalized infrastructure to the point where many aspects of labor was EXACTLY like in Communism, and CAREFULLY created institutions to work with the problems while at the same time maximizing the wealth liberties within these constraints. Socialism's LIMIT is that it doesn't work UNLESS many things are in place (for that, read history because the list is too long).
There is another great example of Socialism, I know people at
>>>/dol/,
>>>/rg/, and
>>>/pol/ know of this Chinese Emperor, who created both infrastructure and maintain security and justice high. I cannot remember his name, they were posting posters of him and the caption "Capitalists Hate Him!". It was a bit funny, but sadly I cannot remember the guy.
>pic related, successful National Socialist State.