Business owners do not pay the workers - the consumers pay the workers, the business owner is trying to sell the labor of the worker to these consumers - no amount of socialism can make consumers want to buy the labor of the worker who is STILL inefficient or provides no economic value.
Capitalism's outlet valve for social good is Charity - Socialism destroys charity and it's rise is the reason for charity's reduced role in our lives today. Charity is conditional on being genuinely in need and being grateful for help - Socialism is unconditional so long as you have a vote to sell.
Under Capitalism the poor are given two new routes out of Poverty - to bootstrap their skills so that those with Capital can market those skills to consumers and hire them - or to become a good person, grateful for charity, not feeling entitled, someone for whom there is value in helping.
With capitalism, the potential for working and lower class citizens to be exploited is high. Currently in America, the capital gains of the economy are being hoarded by the top 1% of the population. Ultimately, this translates to the lower and working classes being drastically under-compensated.
Under capitalism in America, the current level of income and wealth inequality is similar to the proportion of wealth owned by a slave compared to a slave owner in the times of slavery. The poor get just what they need to survive, while the upper class capitalizes off of the poor man's labor.
That is not the end goal of socialism. The end goal is egalitarianism. The end goal is equality. Capitalism, in practice at least, has always been the opposite—a means of more easily securing wealth for those who already have it. Thus naturally, capitalism is an inequality expediting system.
a) if you compare socialism to communism, you simply have no idea what socialism is and you need to do more research before talking. b) the business owner are just sitting in their palaces collecting the majority of what the workers are making.
I've tried to read it a few times. I think you need to rewrite the original argument text. What your trying to say isn't easily evident. Perhaps you can try rephrasing it. Thanks.
Original argument text: many-people-arguing-the-case-that-socialism-or-communism-is-preferable-to-capitalism-will-do-so-under-bad-faith-there-are-no-compelling-arguments-for-them-but-the-thought-of-free-moneyvalue-subsidizes-them-trying-to-fraudulently-win-the-argument
The aim of socialism is not "free money",but an increased role of the workers in industrial relations. Few socialists argue for the unemployed to remain so for the "free money", instead allowing them a greater say in industrial relations and a greater "safety net" in the form of conditional welfare.
By "conditional welfare", I mean a welfare program similar to existing structures, where unemployment benefits are only made available to job-seekers or those unable to seek work (e.g. disabled persons).
The only thing any proponent of socialism had to say not under bad faith in this whole argument thus far is that(in a nut shell) the goal of socialism is equality... ,but anyone can say that about anything.
Many flaws of capitalism could be avoided through communism. For example, why would someone send materials on four trips across the Pacific Ocean, polluting, to produce and deliver clothing if they could easily do it close to where the cotton was produced? Without money, there is no reason.
The solution to bad capitalism is good capitalism. All the "1%" people have to do is spend more money in better place's. The solution to bad socialism is capitalism. People need to stop acting like they know what's best for others. You get what you work for, and you can't help someone you dont know
Socialism/Communism is the destruction of price information, usually supported because supporters feel the price information itself is oppressing them. Capitalism is the most precise mechanism for objective price-discovery and so the fight against Capitalism is really a proxy war against reality.