To the extent this addresses anything real, it would be more accurate to say "Capitalism favors capitalists (who, in any capitalist system, also have disproportionate power over the state), socialism favors people to the extent that they have power over the state, both at the cost of people outside the favored class."

Neither "companies" or "the state" exist as things that can be favored, they are (at most) vehicles through which some subset of "the people" exercise power.

Is there a system that favors the people?

I would argue various forms of anarchism favor the people at the cost of the state, which is also bad for different reasons. So real life needs some kind of messy, complex balance between extremes.

> I would argue various forms of anarchism favor the people at the cost of the state

I would argue that the forms of anarchism usually argued to have this feature in fact favor the holders of wealth/capital over other people in the same way that capitalism does (and, in fact, are often forms of capitalism.)

OTOH, I'd also argue that any argument that views the state as a thing that can bear costs independent from the people is fundamentally misguided.

young democracies or republics. Once they start aging they simply become too bureaucratic to worry about the public anymore. so a revolution every hundred or so years might not be bad.