It's a common argument from the left that under capitalism, workers will always be exploited and enslaved by their masters, or "CEOs." If that were that case, isn't socialism worse? I mean, instead of having many greedy CEOs to chose from, you're stuck with one government. What if that government turns out to be greedy, and begins exploiting it's people? You can't simply "quit" and go work for another government that treats you better. I think we can all agree that not all CEOs are evil and greedy. For the sake of this argument, lets say that most of them are. That would still mean that there are some CEOs that are benevolent and giving. Under capitalism, workers would have a choice whether or not they want to work for a benevolent CEO, or a greedy one. And if that were the case, wouldn't the greedy CEOs be forced to pay their workers more and treat them better to attract better workers? Obviously, they're competing with the benevolent CEOs; why would anyone want to work for them when someone else is paying them more? Hopefully you could all understand my point. So, given that, isn't it safe to say that socialism is a worse alternative to capitalism? Because simply but, the people would then be at the mercy of one government. What could the people do if that government evolved into a dictatorship? Like what happened in Cuba. At least under capitalism the people have a choice, and aren't stuck working for one CEO (the state). What do you believe?