Rev. Sirico of the Acton Institute talks about the idealism of capitalism vs. the idealism of socialism:
Only a few decades ago, we saw a political left that celebrated wealth for all and sought redistribution precisely so that people would no longer experience radical material deprivation. Now that it is increasingly clear that the means toward that end is markets and freedom—the democratization of the means of production, not forced redistribution, it seems that the left is more attached to its statist means than its material ends.
Others are driven by a more legitimate, if misguided, view that wealth necessarily corrupts the soul. Certainly wealth can corrupt. But so can poverty, or nearly anything else if misused. Wealth without morality leads to vice and moral corruption. So the answer is not an imposed poverty, but evangelism and conversion. This is why entrepreneurs and advocates of market freedom have a special obligation to emphasize the responsible use of prosperity, leisure, and charity.
Still others become very upset that wealth is not shared equally by all. This is a dangerous conviction because it can only lead to the celebration of expropriation. We need to realize that material equality should not be a policy goal; what we should seek is the universal increase in material well-being, even when its benefits are inequitably distributed. All of human experience and study suggests that there is only one means for bringing about this ideal: the market economy within a strong juridical framework that protects the right to property and life.
There is a tightrope to be walked between the excesses of capitalism and the excesses of socialism. Neither system should be institutionalized by government, and this is where so many go wrong when it comes to political theory (and public policy for that matter).
Does central planning have a role? Sirico makes the argument not just for the state, but for “a strong juridical framework that protects the right to property and life” that provides that framework, so what we have here is not an argument for anarchy. Rather, it is an argument for the classical liberal state — the Thomistic state the Scholastics perfected to some degree during the 16th century and brought to light during the Second Vatican Council.
I have my thoughts on this that are slowly emerging, somewhat as a response to John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience (and hence why I haven’t posted a review). They are forthcoming though.