Since the Bolsheviks won the Russian Revolution, there has been a raging argument between Capitalists and Communists. It's an argument that has spanned countries, continents, races, creeds, time, space, and Daniel and Adam of Camp Academy fame. Which is a better system of government, and which will lead to the downfall or enslavement of all those in the country.
On the one hand you have capitalism, a society based in trade, the idea of ownership, and a value placed on everything. In a capitalist society the government has some control over its people in terms of setting values for money and controlling the market and regulating trade. The people are not equal, but rather have worth and are measured by the amount of impact they can have on the economy, i.e. how much money they have.
On the other hand you have communism, a society where there is no monetary system and there is no value placed on anything. There is no concept of ownership and each person is equal. No one has a value placed on them and there are no personal possessions.
So which is better? Communists would argue that their system removes the evils of ownership. Without ownership there is nothing that makes people poor if they put forth effort in society. It removes the idea of on man being better than another, and there is nothing that makes Bill Gates better than someone who works as a cook in a restaurant. The idea of a Utopia is arguably a successful form of pure communism.
Capitalists would argue that indeed there should be a difference. A government is necessary, people deserve different things and without some control there would be anarchy. They would also bring up the philosophically argument of if it is even possible for people to ride themselves of the idea of value and that the words "to owe" mean nothing.
It is up to the individual to determine which is better. They both have their ups and downs and it must also be decided which could more realistically be implemented and be successful.
Oh, and Mr. Accident?