Recently we came across one of those “tastes great/less filling” debates about the virtues of socialism v. capitalism, and the practicality of capitalism v. socialism. There was obviously no way it could ever be resolved, for both sides in the, uh, er, “discussion” were not either defining their terms or even being too clear on what they were talking about.
Of course, if they knew what they were actually talking about, it would be nice, too. One of the problems is that we're swamped in a culture of moral relativism, in which "capitalism" and "socialism" (or anything else) mean what you want them to mean.
It's a problem of definition, and most people just don't want to be constrained with, like, something so constraining, man. The meanings of capitalism and socialism change depending on whether you're a capitalist or a socialist, making them effectively meaningless unless you first agree on what you're talking about.
Frankly, from our perspective, the only real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism bends the rules and lets a private elite control things, where socialism breaks the rules and lets the State elite control things. This is why, e.g., the Catholic Church criticizes capitalism, but condemns socialism.
Until we "free economic growth from the slavery of [past] savings," though, and shift to future savings, we're stuck in a pendulum swing between capitalism and socialism — and the socialists right now are winning, regardless what the capitalists might think. Fortunately, there is an alternative, a “CapitalHomestead Act.”