Within a game theory approach we can refer to the difficulties in understanding social preferences and therefore the nature of payoffs from specific strategies. For example, when confronted with altruistic behaviour, this behaviour can spread to other 'players'. This opens up an interesting argument within capitalism. We know that imperfect property rights is the norm. Within capitalism that can encourage a Machiavellian reaction, where individuals attempt to maximise gains at the expense of others. But would we have the same in other economic paradigms? A more equitable society could reduce the attractiveness of such behaviour such that co-operative behaviour is accentuated.
What other economic paradigms are you proposing that promote altruism? Altruism is only effective, and infectious, when it comes from individuals and not the state. State sponsored "altruism" is a farce, and is a negative influence. There is no such thing as an "equitable" society, at least not of any practical size. To say there is a "more equitable" society than capitalism is promoting a bias, which may be valid, but should be articulated. I believe taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots" at gunpoint is hardly equitable nor altruistic. Did socialism (touted by some as more equitable over capitalism) promote altruism? Absolutely not in the examples we've seen for the past 100 years. I would say capitalism promotes the only real altruism, because altruism has to come from the individual. That's not to say the state in a capitalist society can't provide incentives for altruistic behavior...but then is it really altruism?
I'm not making any "and therefore <this> paradigm is best". Hypothetically, we could just see it as an ethics reference within capitalism (which goes back to the likes of Adam Smith) and take an evolutionary approach to the issue: so we get multiple equilibria as social preferences are fluid (and you can get vicious or virtuous cycles) Even within capitalism we can refer to significant differences in equity. And of course we know that can impact on behaviour, as illustrated by crime effects. The issue is the extent that other aspects of interaction are affected. Depends on whether you're making accurate reference to socialism. We certainly couldn't refer to command economy 'state capitalism'. Its about the engineering of real choice and whether Machiavellian self-interest is necessarily the result (an important aspect given imperfect property rights, asymmetric information and other market failure that shift the emphasis away from mutually beneficial exchange for the 'rational economic man')
