mjhjmtu

I would like to preface this with the disclaimer that I am fresh to Stack Exchange, so any pointers on what may have been a better Stack for my question, or simply how to better frame it, are greatly encouraged.

I am currently taking an ethics course, and have been a proponent for capitalism for some time due to my economic opinions. However, this class brought up the valid point that capitalism tends to leave some behind, and did so in a way that I found convincing through the metric of the 'Happiness Report.'

It would seem that Socialism is more conducive to a happy society, as it takes accountability for everyone's well-being.
Capitalism, conversely, less conducive to happiness as it takes accountability for progression, output, and personal achievement - all of which seem content with leaving others behind.

I enjoy the values Capitalism (or, America and American Capitalism) bring about in society. But how does it effectively tackle happiness, especially when compared to Socialism?
Should I grant that Socialism is objectively more conducive to a content people by creating a cooperative spirit amongst an innately social species?

What is capitalism's approach to facilitating happiness?

Many things contribute to happiness:

• The belief that one has choice in many little things. When I go to the ice cream parlor, I can get dozens of tasty varieties. And the other ice cream parlor a few streets on has different kinds. A free market economy provides these choices to me.


• The beliefe that one has choice in big life decisions. I decided what I would study at university, I decided which jobs I did apply for afterward, I negotiated my salary and signed the contract. A free market economy provided these choices to me.

Of course the second bullet point contains some self-deception. I did not have the free choice what salary I would get and where I would work. At the time, the job seeker had a worse negotiating position than the employer.

Other things contribute to happiness as well:

• The belief that one will be cared for if misfortune strikes. This could be long illness or having bet on learning the wrong kind of job. Who needs a typesetter these days? If Socialism works as advertised, it would provide this security.


• The belief that society is managed for the long-term benefit of all. No poisoning wells because that is cost-effective. If Socialism works as advertised, it would provide this security.

Again there is self-deception. Historically, Socialism didn't provide for people or the environment.

There is a misconception that socialism and capitalism are polar opposites, but this is not true as they are not mutually exclusive. That being said, I understand what is meant by the question. An that is Socialism and not socialism.

I will base my answer as if you mean socialism where the central power or government has a monopoly on resources including labor. On paper, this leads to equal distribution of resources as need where that need is determine by the central power. Happiness therefore comes from not having to compete for any resource and always having the expectation of receiving what is needed. This is described by the often quoted phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (or need)" - Karl Marx "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875).

The fallacy of this happiness is that human nature is not taken into account. Forgive the religious tone but what can easily describe this human nature is the Catholic 7 deadly sins. The sins, throughout history have been part of settled societies. Unless someone gets an idea of how to get rid of that part of humanity, socialism in practice has to be forced on the citizens. The take away is that all the citizens have at least a baseline standard of living that can be supported by the society. There will be those that have more but no one has less than the baseline. The cost is that it is very difficult, but not impossible to change to a higher standard of living for those at the baseline.

To contrast, Governments who do Non-Socialism have a guarantee that some will be left out. To put it bluntly, some will not survive. How big a portion of society is in this group depends on too many variables. In socialist societies there are also some that will be left out, but they will not be that far from the baseline. That is the cost but the benefit is that it is easier to change one standard of living by the simple leverage of those sins of human nature. For example, people will tend to try to improve their standard because it is in their nature to want to (Greed, Gluttony, Vanity?). The alternate saying although I don't know the origin is: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed them for a life time. The cost is obvious, there is always a group of people who for some reason don't like fish or have the ability to sit still while the fish is caught.

The argument for socialism is that there hasn't been the right leader or in Karl Marx beliefs there has not been the right circumstance for socialism to flourish. My conclusion is that unless human nature is changed, socialism will continue to be a failed experiment no matter how it is tried.

You can experiment on yourself. If you ever have a choice to move back in with your parents or live your own life, imagine what your standard of living would be in each case. How important is your decisions compare to having someone else make decisions for you.

Capitalism should not be understood as an action by the government, but as a right asserted by the public. Supposing instead that Capitalism were by the government, it would seem like quite an oversight that government isn't doing anything to help many people.

But since Capitalism is the way the public sees itself (in capitalist places), the public doesn't place the responsibility to facilitate happiness (or care, or sustenance) on government but on the public, i.e. each other.

One objection to this might be, "but people are bad: how can the weak ever be happy if they depend on other people?" A typical Capitalist answer to this objection would be, "I agree that people are bad, and I think that people in government are bad, too. It's better to limit the power of each person to their own sphere, rather than entrusting too much power to those in government."