Speaking colloquially, the capitalist system equates having a lot of money with being smart/good and the socialist system equates being in government with being smart/good. They are really just two different formats for organizing the flow of money (and thus power) and are both essentially amoral at their core as either can easily be used to good or evil ends.

Socialism automatically assumes that the government will always be corruption-free. Not only that, it assumes that the government will remain corruption free no matter what portion of the economy it controls, and that not only is this government incorruptible, but every government we could ever elect in the future will be as well. Even if the socialist doesn't assume zero corruption, they definitely assume that corruption will be low enough to produce outcomes better than those of capitalism. Examples from history have shown us that it doesn't always work out that way. East vs West Germany and North vs South Korea are easily as convincing or more so than USA vs Finland.

On the other side of this coin, capitalism in no way forbids or precludes generous giving. The capitalist ideal isn't that every man look out for himself, but that it is every person's job to financially commit to the things that they care about to the degree that they care about them: their families, their communities, their own futures. This isn't supposed to leave people out in the cold, and the fact that it does is more a reflection on our collective desires and maturity than on the capitalist system.

The fact that capitalist societies contain a bunch of nastiness isn't any more the fault of capitalism than the failures of the Eastern Bloc are the fault of socialism. Both are just amoral formats that let certain groups of people wield power. Corruption and morality come from the people who sit in the chairs, not the number of chairs or the way they are organized.