I'm more concerned with the actual lived reality of how those ideals are expressed in the world. While socialism sounds very noble on paper, the lived reality of people actually residing under socialist regimes has been far less idyllic. Capitalism also prizes virtuous ideals: freedom, individual rights, autonomy, equality of opportunity, and so on. Neither system, in my view, completely lives up to its stated goals in reality. But I know which real life, current system I'd rather live in now based on the prosperity and freedoms of the societies who embody them. To act as though that has nothing to do with the economic system in place, or is some accident of history, is to put our head in the sand, I think.
It has more to do with who has and who has not. Again, I would suggest that your perception of capitalism as prizing the virtuous ideals of which you speak - this is not capitalism but more liberalism, which can certainly co-exist with capitalism. However, capitalism can just as easily co-exist with nationalism, or its more extreme cousin, fascism. Sometimes it's a matter of political expediency, especially in the post-WW2 era when society became far more liberalized, progressive, and tolerant than it had ever been in previous centuries. That's not really "capitalism," as such, but more of a Keynesian liberal democracy which certainly encompasses capitalism but also favors liberalism and progressivism, which includes workers rights, racial equality, gender equality, rights of the accused, and many other rights and freedoms which we now take for granted - but weren't really practiced in previous eras, even though capitalism still existed throughout.
Of course, at the time, it was the end of WW2 - and the US had remained almost virtually untouched while the much of the rest of the industrial world had been devastated and depleted. So we were clearly in an advantageous position - industrially, technologically, economically, and geopolitically.
I wouldn't call it an accident of history, but I also wouldn't put much stock in whatever "system" is in place. The notion, "To the victor goes the spoils," has been a constant throughout history, regardless of whatever "system" it operates under. The victor also gets to write history, so we can also pat ourselves on the back for being so noble and pure and wanting to make the world safe for democracy. God Bless America!
But socialist regimes have also been predatory and domineering to their global neighbors. Consider the foreign policy of the USSR in the Soviet satellite countries or in the Middle East. Consider China's treatment of Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The truth is that when any regime gets enough power, they tend to abuse it, no matter what their political orientation might be at the outset.
I'm somewhat familiar with Russian history, as well as the history of WW2 and the foreign policy of the USSR. There are two sides to every story, and while I won't defend or justify everything that regime has done, I can see that any government of any system at that time and place might have taken pre-emptive measures in their own defense if they were living in close proximity to Nazi Germany at the time. Or if they ended up having to fight Germany, they might take a dim attitude towards those who sided with their enemies.
Again, I'm not saying that it justifies what they did. But is what they did because they were socialists, or because they were Russians with a centuries-long history of fighting the very same people over and over and this was just a continuation of that same centuries-long feud? Does that mean that socialism is predatory, in and of itself, or could it be some other factor(s)?
China's history is a bit more complicated. Both Russia and China seem to have at least something in common in that both fell under the Mongol Yoke at some point in their history.
I see your point. But I don't see the situations as analogous.
I won't argue that they're analogous, but it's still just as pointless to make any kind of hypothetical choice like that, since it's impossible to go back in time. Even if we could make that choice today, it's tainted by the fact that we have knowledge of history and the fate of whichever regimes or systems we're talking about.
I do agree that humanity will have to continue to adapt to new challenges we face, that's true. Though I'm not convinced that upheaval of our entire economic system is the solution to those issues. Particularly for a system that has never proven itself on a large scale to produce superior outcomes.
Well, again, I don't really see it as a systemic issue, in and of itself. My only point is that humanity is in a position where we have to make a choice to cooperate and share, or if not, we'll be forced to fight and compete for resources as we've always done since as long as history has been recorded. I'm not necessarily advocating a complete upheaval of the entire economic system. However, even that would be preferable to other kinds of global upheavals which could be even more devastating and destructive.
