Well we are talking the extremes of either system, yes?
In which case, I think "freer" is a lie. The monopolies of yesterday are no different than the Politburos of yesterday, and both should be fought to the death equally. The concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats versus the wealthy... really, what is the difference? Maybe if each industry has multiple heads competing... but if there's cooperation, they may as well be one. It would, in the end, make it no different than a Commie command economy, except the rulers are de facto rather than de jure. Socialist policies - or just interventionism in general - help keep a market competitive and efficient, through small business loans to create more competition, and through education grants to help people who wish to learn realise their full potential. Charity can only go so far.
I'm of the opinion socialism and (free market) capitalism, mixed together, produce the greatest results morally and economically. By mixing them, we ensure that everybody gets richer, that the highest earners pull everyone up with them. We mix the innovation and inventions of a competitive capitalist market with the equality of opportunity and access to services of a socialist society.
In such a perfected model, anybody can make it rich if you wish to seize the opportunities provided by the state and market, but in the end, you control your own destiny. Extreme socialism and extreme capitalism, I feel, do not give that choice, de jure or de facto controlling your life and shutting the doors of opportunity.