Socialism is the Better State of Government then is Capitalism

I suppose that I may be able to try with the time I possess to deliver an argument. Socialism Basics Socialism operates under the general means in which humans and citizens run the services (i.e. electricity) rather then buying them from companies. This also means that they do not possess private property. In Democratic Socialism (Main Socialism) it may work under a Capitalist regime or a Socialist regime through either changing the basics of the government and slowly making the changes of another anarchy. Democratic Socialism is very operative under the fact that it chooses the elected leaders of each individual society, and that it will establish government accordingly. So, this will mean that the common misconceptions regarding the flaws of Socialism using the example of the Communist regime (The Soviet Union) will be wrong as Communism is not Socialism, and Communism under The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did these by force rather then by democratic election. China, another large country is not Socialist, but rather communist. Utopic Socialism demonstrates the goals of Socialism by showing the ways in which everything is done correctly. Why Socialism Holds Up and Countries As Socialism, we will see as previously mentioned that humans run the services. This eliminates a common misconception made that Socialism has equal money distribution, but this will make the differences of money smaller. The reason why money differentials doing so is good is because look at the average Capitalist system, in how the amount of poor people is in constant corruption of the system, as poor people are hungry and starving, whereas the middle class is doing relatively well depending on the situation, and the poor cannot provide a home for themselves, much less provide daily things that middle class buys that they may not even need. The rich class and the middle class both have a common similarity; they can almost always supplement themselves with food and shelter. In conclusion, decreasing the difference in economic equality will provide a large amount of poor people with the needs that everyone in every country deserves. We can also see that the rich class if brought down by these new economic distributions may even stay that way depending on the place, and the middle class can be good. Now, when we think about the worst regimes deemed Socialist we can obviously firstly think of: The Soviet Union, China, (Not terrible but having many human rights issues) and North Korea. According to Wikipedia, China disregards the democratic system, which means the terms are made by what the government conceives to be better then the country. Another thing about China, as well as the Soviet Union, and North Korea, is that they are Communist, which is different from Socialism. All three of these disregard the free Democratic Socialism.You will then see a well operative system of Socialism which is in Finland. Finland has a 100 percent literacy rate, the best education in the world, which is in fact better then the United States of America. Also, Finland traditionally operates under a Democratic Socialist regime. This is proof that Socialism in it's forms can operate well. Previous Argument Firstly, you decide to say the falsities of the Egalitarian Principle. This you say is false because the mentally handicapped, for example, will not operate as well as the scientist. There is a flaw in this example as these handicapped people are people whom should not be economically discriminated. For the reasoning of the other people who decide not to work and thus get equal distribution is not in line with the basics of Socialism. These basics state that everyone gets control of production, rather than everyone gets equal in these things. So, therefore these people who do not contribute to society will not do much better than they would do in Capitalism. Also, you say that creed, race, sex, religion, political views and generation does not matter in this principle. Shouldn't that be how it should be? Of course, I am unsure as to what Cons argument is, but the indifference between these things through social and economic society is a good goal. The next thing you said was that you would be harming the rich to give to the poor. I believe this is a well-operated system as the greater injustice is not to take away from the rich, but it is the death of the poor and those who cannot supplement themselves with the basic needs human have to survive. Then you said this would discourage people from becoming rich, and this would then put things into a halt. Anyone will not be arrested for having a certain amount of money, but the government will regulate it so that they do not gain too large an amount of money, and I am unable to see how this would stunt the growth of society and make it unable to flourish. I will finally remark on Cons flaws with the Egalitarian principle that this principle is not necessary to all sorts of Socialism. I will also remark the confusion I may be seeing in how I never stated a definition of this individualism, and where this goes in the argument. Individualism if used, will show that society may be able to be destroyed by the individual, being inferred to how the individual may make bad decisions, and as there may be uneducated people, partly uneducated because of the individualist semi-disregard for the economy and thus unknowing of the economy, will, if the individual makes bad decisions, the society will be ruined making it a large risk to follow individualism. This Capitalism was also only in the Pullman Company which was small, which questions how well it could be done on a grander scale. Finland, as aforementioned has been in these very high living standards in a much bigger place running under Democratic Socialism. Sources: plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/ https://en.wikipedia.org... www.heritage.org/index/country/finland https://www.google.com... blog.peerform.com/ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/ https://www.google.com...