https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita..._and_Democracy
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is a book on economics, sociology, and history by Joseph Schumpeter, arguably his most famous, controversial, and important work.[1][2][3][4] It's also one of the most famous, controversial, and important books on social theory, social sciences, and economics[5]—in which Schumpeter deals with capitalism, socialism, and creative destruction.
It is the third most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950, behind Marx's Capital and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Excerpt from Part III: Can Socialism Work?:
Quote:
We shall simply envisage two types of society and mention others only incidentally. These types we will call Commercial and Socialist.
Commercial society is defined by an institutional pattern of which we need only mention two elements: private property in means of production and regulation of the productive process by private contract (or management or initiative).... Nor is commercial society identical with capitalist society. The latter, a special case of the former, is defined by the additional phenomenon of credit creation—by the practice, responsible for so many outstanding features of modern economic life, of financing enterprise by bank credit, i.e., by money (notes or deposits) manufactured for that purpose.
By socialist society we shall designate an institutional pattern in which the control over means of production and over production itself is vested with a central authority—or, as we may say, in which, as a matter of principle, the economic affairs of society belong to the public and not to the private sphere. Our definition excludes guild socialism, syndicalism and other types. This is because what may be termed Centralist Socialism seems to me to hold the field so clearly that it would be waste of space to consider other forms. But if we adopt this term in order to indicate the only kind of socialism we shall consider, we must be careful to avoid a misunderstanding. The term centralist socialism is only intended to exclude the existence of a plurality of units of control such that each of them would on principle stand for a distinct interest of its own, in particular the existence of a plurality of autonomous territorial sectors that would go far toward reproducing the antagonisms of capitalist society.
The best argument in favor of socialism is because if we find ourselves shipwrecked, that's what we'll do. But that's under conditions of scarcity unlike modern humans in the West rarely encounter and only holds while the environment is +ev for cooperative behavior. But if resources get really scarce.... everyone for themselves or commercial society. We seem to react the same way when a little abundance comes our way as well, or the 'have's' prefer it anyway.
Seems obvious that a hybrid of sorts would be optimal.