mewmeow
Capitalism is fundamentally flawed as it exist's on the basis of a profit motive which by its nature requires workers (the majority) to be constantly exploited, ie not be paid what their labour is worth. This creates a division where by all profit is skimmed to the core from the periphery.
Are communist workers not exploited? How does the state best know the value of an individual's labour?
Trickle down policy has been proven time and time again to be a fallacy, in actuality money is continuely sucked out away from the periphery to the core (elite).
That doesn't explain why living standards stagnate in every command economy and rise in a free market one.
It may appear that inequality has lessened due to the progression afforded to the masses of western countries in terms of technological and material advancements (under a capitalism system), however not only is this not the case in terms of capital, there is a huge amount of exploited (mainly in developing countries but also here) paying the price for these luxuries.
Ahh, those poor 'exploited' in developing countries. It's true they don't earn much by our standards. And the hours are long and the work isn't fun and fulfilling. But if it's so awful, why do they go to work in these places? Well, the main reason is that it's better than the alternative. The alternative is returning to granddad's farm and working 14 hours a day in the paddy fields.
Industrialisation (funded by capitalists) is liberating the developing world from poverty. And as a consequence of that increased wealth, a new middle class is demanding political and social change. China has real problems with its new middle class who don't want to be dictated to by a bunch of old gits with red flags. The same happened across the Western world from the 17th century onwards. Democracy and Liberty are things affordable to the middle classes, who have the time and energy to campaign for them.
You may ask why inequality is an issue if you are of the neo-liberal persuasion, it is an issue because countries with high levels of inequality have proved time and time again to have the biggest social problems, this includes high crime rates, high mortality and morbidity rates, high suicide rates, low employment rates etc. Problems which affect both rich and poor.
This was IIRC a claim by Wilkinson & Pickett in their 'spirit level', wasn't it? (Hardly 'time and time again'). And IIRC (and I do) their methodology was flawed because they cherry picked countries which fitted their figures.
On the other hand socio-democratic countries such as Sweden & Scandinavia have proved the benefits of state ownership and a peaceful and democratic move away from the constraints and fundamental flaws of capitalism. They consistently do well both economically and socially in terms of gdp's and things like employment and education.
That isn't a command economy. That's a free market economy. If anything they demonstrate the success of the free market and capitalism rather than the reverse.
Can you think of a single command economy which has, over the long term (say 50 years) kept pace in any way with its free market equivalents?