<p>Thinking about communism and capitalism as unified, extreme systems is overtly simplistic. In every functional communist system there has been some degree of capitalism; even in tribes, good were bartered, not given for free. Communism as a system pure is bound to fail when encompassing a large enough area, as statistically some people will always have more. You cannot distribute resources equivalently to all people, as one of the major foundations of economic theory is the flow of services and goods between people. With even amounts of resources, humans are less motivated to work and contribute, an extreme example of the welfare society.</p>
<p>Capitalism as a pure system is functional per se, but not ideal. As a pure system capitalism would inevitably cause all money to be solidified in the upper crust of society, as the adage of capitalism is that money makes money. In a capitalist system, it is much easier to make more money when you already have money rather than making it ex nihilo. This huge income disparity can be seen in both the modern-day “democratic” third-world nations and in pre-modern Europe and America.</p>
<p>Until the Progressive Era, American society could be thought of as purely practicing capitalist economics, as the government had little influence or control of any facet of the economic sector (as done by Andrew Jackson). This was similar to many other nations like England, which was also extremely industrialized. In both cases, especially in urban areas (as the rural areas were more into equality), the poor were confined into low quality tenements, and a huge disparity in income developed, eventually branching out to huge disparities in education, productivity, life expectancy… practically everything. The poor were getting poorer, and the rich were getting richer.</p>
<p>In the modern era, however, the economy has been in a balancing act for most first-world nations: not purely capitalistic, but hardly delving into communism. Mixed capitalism, a fusion of socialistic welfare theory and capitalist economics, is practiced in much of Europe, leading to rather tight economic regulation within a relatively free capitalistic system. Mixed systems tend however to be more inefficient, but are beneficial to those who are on the poorer end of the spectrum (and by regulating and destroying trusts, preventing possible economic shocks). Even in the US, where people are arguably “poor”, the poverty line-somewhere like $18,000 a year-is still quite ahead of the majority of average incomes of nations on Earth. While it can be argued that the prices in the US are higher (while not true, as Nairobi, Kenya is extremely expensive) than in those nations, the capitalist system practiced by the US can hardly have been said to have been a failure.</p>
<p>In conclusion, it is in my opinion that neither capitalism nor communism can truly function to best benefit society on a larger scale. While communism often does benefit the poorer spectrum, it also drastically lowers productivity, as seen in North Korea and Cuba. The best way for a society to function economically is either a mixed capitalist system or some other mode of unknown economic thought.</p>
<hr>
<p>About universal human rights, they are justified by the same principles that govern all of law, whether religious or secular. Rights should be given to all by the golden rule of “treat others like you want to be treated”; if you disrespect the rights of others, there is no proper justification why you should have those rights.
Rights like sexual orientation freedom, education, religion, and others are necessary for the betterment of society. If a person cannot choose their circumstances and their condition or practices are not harmful to others around them, it is not proper nor just to deprive them of said right.</p>