In this essay when I say "socialism" I mean 
centralized government control over production, prices, and resource allocation.
And by "capitalism" I mean a system of private property rights and voluntary exchange, with prices determined by free markets. 
Modern countries exist on a spectrum between these two poles.



Socialism wants to take from productive people and redistribute to others.  This means that for productive
people socialism is a worse deal than capitalism.   So productive people have an incentive to leave
socialist countries and go to capitalist countries.  But socialism can not survive without the productive people so it has to take
steps to keep the productive people from leaving.   These steps to prevent this can range from not granting
passports or travel permission to walls, guards with guns,
and killing people who attempt to leave.
Some form of restricting departures has to happen as the country would fail if the productive people all left.
This has been called a "brain drain".  
People don't have basic human rights and are treated very badly.
If people don't earn more for working harder they lose the inventive to work harder, so people on average
will produce much less in a socialist country.  There is no inventive for entrepreneurs to take
the risk of making a new company so innovation is far less common on a socialist country so
they fall behind in technological advances and overall standard of living.
This creates other incentives to flee the socialist country and so the walls and guards are more and more important.
Early on it may only be the "best and brightest" who have an incentive to flee but as the whole country gets
further behind other countries, and treats people worse and worse, the general population has an incentive to try to escape.
The continued existence of the socialist state requires it to treat people like tax slaves or prisoners.
The history of socialism failure to work and people trying to flee it is very clear. 

The price discovery of free markets has an efficiency that is kind of amazing and Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand"
and notes it is responsible for "the wealth of nations".  With free exchange, the personal reward one person gets
depends on the value they creates for others.  So they have an incentive to do what helps others.
People like Elon Musk that allocate resources
well get more resources to allocate.  Free markets have a long term efficiency about them.

It might seem hard to do controlled experiment to test which is better, capitalism or communism,
but in fact many such experiments have already been done.  Taiwan vs Mainland China 
(before China's shift toward capitalism in 1978),
North Korea vs South Korea, East Germany vs West Germany.  The growth rate and general
level of prosperity in the free part of the experiment were much higher.

There are also many countries that made substantial moves on the socialism/capitalism spectrum at
some point in their history and the growth rates before and after point are another kind of experimental
result.

Real world countries are "mixed economies" on a spectrum between
socialism and laissez faire capitalism but the closer to socialism and the longer it runs the worse the economies
run and the worse they treat people.
A good estimate for where on the scale a country is can be calculated by dividing the
total of all government spending at all levels (central, regional, local) by the GNP for the country.
If a government is spending 50% of the GNP it about a 50% mix.
The "economic freedom index" is another way to measure positions on that spectrum.
It is interesting to note that in the Bible the Pharaoh's tenant farmers (often translated as "slaves" or "serfs")
only paid 20% to the state while today most states are a higher percentage of the economy
and yet most people think they are free. 
Some may argue that the government spending 50% of the GNP has not interfered with the 
operation of the free market and made it "central planning" but in fact it has for that part of the economy.

The effects of the brain drain and lower overall growth rate
compound over the years and socialist countries get further and further behind with time.   
People are trying to get into "free countries"
so their problem is not keeping the population in, but to keep from being flooded with "refugees".
So people in capitalist countries are free to leave.


When the state controls production and allocation, it controls livelihoods. The power to decide who gets 
food, work, housing, and permission to travel is the power to reward friends and punish critics. This concentration 
tends to erode the checks—free press, independent courts, real elections—that might otherwise constrain it. 
The concentration of economic power in government necessarily concentrates political power.
It often becomes and excuse and method for some dictator or political party to stay dominant
and not allow true free elections or even opposing views.
If a politician or political party can ruin your life, you become very reluctant to criticize them.
Socialist countries don't have a free speech and political opposition risks their jobs, freedom, and often life.   
The power to decide who gets food and who does not has
resulted in millions of people starving to death.  The political elite claim they are "for the people" but they don't let
people vote and tend to live high off the government while "the people" suffer under socialism.
Given the economic structure results in such tight political control over people,
people are no longer free.

The case against socialism both logically and historically seems very strong;
however, again and again people like the idea of socialism.  
People see human suffering and think the powerful government can fix it.  They may even think it will make a
utopia where everything is great.  The giving money to poor people is a clear and obvious benefit
and the long term slower growth of the economy is no where near as obvious.  They think the past examples
"were not true socialism" and are eager to try again.  It seems that people don't understand
why it inherently must treat people so badly.
Most people don't understand the magic of "the invisible hand" of markets and think that
their smart people can make better choices than a market will.

Clearly some amount of government is needed for national defense, police, courts, to protect people and property rights.
Anarchy is not stable, there will quickly be gangs, warlords, and invasions.  We are not advocating that.
And externalities like air pollution or water pollution need some amount of government control.
A safety net, targeted at preventing genuine destitution for those facing temporary hardship, 
severe disability, or old age—represents a prudent acknowledgment of human vulnerability and the value of social cohesion.

Please expand and organize the above ideas and write it up but be fair and objective.  Try to explain
the core reasons for why things work the way they do, to give people a deep understanding
of the problem.  This is a critical issue for humanity that most do not understand well.