It's clear that one of the systems does not work. Corruption and failure are not strangers to either system, but one of them has a higher success rate to prove its point.
The first argument is pretty simple. Socialism has never worked. From that view, it is pretty clear that empirical evidence suggests that socialism usually ends up turning into an oppressive pseudo capitalist corporatism, as it has happened in South America repeatedly, or it will become a dictatorship, as it has happened in South America, Africa and even to Russia and its neighbor countries.
Socialism, to work, has to have state force using firearms to impose their will upon the others. It smashes the will and freedom of minorities, and by minorities I mean anyone who disagrees with them, and forces them, with the raw and physical power of the State, to behave accordingly.
Capitalism, though, is all about competition and voluntarism when it is not infected with the corrupted politicians that ally themselves with big companies, making an ugly son that we call corporatism. But even when that is the case, people tend to have something to eat, that can't be said about current Venezuela and North Korea.
Poor farmlands sounds about right it’s either that or peasants
Chief Executive<span>. The </span>president<span> is the "boss" for millions of government workers in the Executive Branch. He or she decides how the laws of the United States are to be enforced and chooses officials and advisors to help run the Executive Branch.</span>
the correct answer is:
Ulysses S. Grant, final commander of the Union Troops.
