Your question is a very difficult one. I have the opinion that the behavior of humans is good or bad depending of the circumstances under which they live. Taking into account this opinion, the behavior of humans within a society will depend, in the majority of the cases, upon the conditions under which they live. If they live well, the behavior in general will be good; if they live bad in the majority of cases their behavior will be the same.

On the other hand, it is important to understand that an economic system is a human invention as well as the rules that should be adopted to ensure it functioning, in addition to understand and apply correctly the nature's laws that are associated with the functioning of the economic system invented.

If the economic system invented have as its main goal to satisfy, as much as possible, the increase needs of the population, then the human behavior will be in general good and totally different, if the goal of the system is to enrich the pockets of a minority of the population. If the economic system invented allows a minority of the people to take the reins of power in their own benefit, then the behavior of the population in general will be bad and will try to change this situation using all means available to them, including the use of force.

The capitalist system could be cruel and inhuman, if the people in charge of the economic system only think in their personal interest, and could be less cruel and inhumane, if the people in charge of the economy behave as a human.

Socialist o communist systems theoretically could be a good system, if the people in power think in the welfare of the whole population and not to satisfy its own economic interests or their friends, something difficult to achieve in many cases due to the characteristics of the people in power. Because of this bad behavior of human in power, the experience of this type of economic system cannot be used as an example for others.  

In other words, an economic system could be good or bad depending on the behavior of the people in power and the historical situation prevailing in a given time.

Culture theory can provide answers to this question. It recognizes that some needs are common to all people—at all times and in all places: they are the need to make a living, the need for social organization, the need for knowledge and learning, the need for normative and metaphysical expression, and the need for aesthetic manifestation. These nuts and bolts of everyday life work through the co-evolving realms of environment, economy, society, polity, and technology to make up systems of mutual sustainability or (in opposition) mutual vulnerability. Since people (not economies) are the main object and ultimate purpose of endeavors to progress, a society’s culture is not just an instrument of economy: it is its basis. The marriage of economy and environment was long overdue and has spawned a fast-growing world agenda for that purpose. Likewise, the relationship between culture and economy should be clarified and deepened in ways that are authentic, indigenous, self-reliant, sovereign, civilized, and creative.

Culture, defined in its broadest sense, is the totality of a society’s distinctive ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge. It exhibits the ways humans interpret their environments. Obviously, culture theory’s holistic perspective, which tries to understand how cultural dimensions enter utility and production functions of various kinds, does not lend itself to easy action. But, culture theory alone pays simultaneous and even attention to the common needs of people and makes possible a focus on the whole and the parts, on contexts and contents, on values and value systems, and on strategic relationships between key variables, countries, blocs of countries, and human beings and the environment. And so, it yields conceptual insights and practical benefits and allows informed choices and intelligent decisions to be made about the present and the future. It enables us, for instance, to deal better with complexity and fragmentation—the emphasis is on systems rather than on parts of systems. And it helps to ensure that economies are contextualized properly and pointed in the right direction. For those reasons, among others, they can be constrained and enriched by the larger cultures in which they are located. Consequently, they stop functioning as self-governing entities. Also, by focusing on the totality and innate worth of a given society, culture theory can minimize the ethnocentric bias that results from cultural conditioning.

Inclusiveness is essential for success of any economic system. If the system is doing good only for a section of the people, it would not be sustainable. Further social & cultural factors will also influence the adaptation of a particular economic system. We have seen that communism has not worked in some cases, so also capitalism has not done much good to the masses. Socialistic pattern of society based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity will be more inclusive and sustainable. The purpose of economic system is overall growth and development of society and the masses. There must be political will to draw policy frame work that would include society, environment and economy.

Dear Jaharkanti Dattagupta

Thank you for your response. I can agree you on the advantages of socialism. However, my question actually is if socialism may interact with some existing characteristics of a society in such a way that, even if socialism is superior theoretically, negative characteristics (e.g., bad people in this society) can make it becomes a bad system. Similarly, we question if even being theoretically capitalism or Communism worse  systems than socialism, as you say, May they become the best ones if they were managed for honest politicians?

Best,

Pablo

Good governance rooted in its principles of inclusive voice and representation, strategic vision, performance, accountability and fairness should be the touchstone for judging the success of any systems – be it capitalism, communism or socialism. The irony is that one size fits all solution is given too much time to fail while the choice of transitional pathways ( economic liberty versus political liberty) specific  to needs and priorities of a country is given too little time to succeed for the ultimate goal of any political system.       

I am inclined to side with the systemic and institutional view. You get what you incentivize, regardless of the system's formal label. Whether it be capitalism, socialism or other new-fangled economic systems that may be extolled. People, as a whole, and in general, respond to incentives that appeal to economic needs and wants. The question is what sort of incentives bring out the best in them and who is the final arbiter of the "best" (or resilient/equitable/fair).

Article Institutional Resilience and Economic Systems: Lessons from ...

Daer Shian-Loong,the systemic and institutional view you propose is very useful. Thanks for your response and citation.