Umair the premise you have may be correct — a simple mechanistic explanation of society challenges entirely associated with the creation, exchange and distribution method for goods and services. It certainly stirs passions and resonates with our natural inclinations to want simple villains, heroes, blame and solutions.

I am inclined to postulate that economic systems are an administrative means that are an outgrowth of a much more complex and difficult to measure underlying energy called “culture”. I think we can plot material well being (efficiency, efficacy, housing, healthcare, safety, infrastructure, stability, crime, education, subjective happiness, sense of meaning, fairness, freedom — virtually any measure of social conditions) and find examples of seemingly divergent economic systems producing similar results be they judged desirable or undesirable.

The point would be this. I think passionate discussion about economic administration is a healthy and wonderful system debate. My conviction is that almost any system can be operated in a way that maximizes social human rights and benefits if the underlying common consciousness and organizing culture of the collective has as its principal a commitment (a shared ethos) of tolerance, compassion, optimism, generosity, enlightenment, responsibility and commitment to the common welfare.

As I typed “welfare” to end this response I had an strong sense of sadness about how an otherwise wonderful word with a generic meaning that embodies goodness … has been weaponized for purpose of ideological attack and posturing. Perhaps I am wrong, I don’t think an economic system changed the inferences of the word “welfare” — I believe our collective culture, rhetoric and soul values are the foundational energies that manifest as public symptomatic results.