In the third world, commerce is often corrupted by monopoly, short on inventory and has poor service. The socialist speaks in terms of what might be best for the people, and the capitalist speaks in terms of what might be best for the small entrepreneur. If given their ‘wishes,’ both would end up having a monopoly, one run by the government, and the other run by the private sector. These are both dysfunctional solutions, and tend toward unfair business practices. Could the best solutions be somewhere in the middle?
Marx had a dream of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Lenin tried to force this to happen from a centralized government. What has history had to say about that? It didn’t work well. Ditto in the US with the “General Motors Approach.”– centralized, but private. It didn’t work very well. The opposite situation, having too many suppliers, sees both corporate margins and workers wages disappear.
Perhaps the best answer is somewhere in the middle. Some examples: American fast food chains– no single chain monopolizes the market, and we can all buy a bean burrito from Taco Bell for about a dollar! Another example: in China, there are a handful of city-states that make motherboards for the PC market. There is enough competition amongst city-states to keep them honest, serving the market, and not so many that their people/employees are starving.