Capitalism is the world’s dominant economic system. Within it, the means of production and distribution are privately owned by a small minority of people. This is believed to lead to lower prices, better products and more efficiency. The key motive for producing goods and services is to sell them for a profit, rather than primarily to satisfy people's needs.

Socialism supports the ownership and control of the means of production and industry by the community as a whole; common ownership. This is supposedly more efficient and just. Democratic control is essential to the meaning of socialism; everybody could participate in the social decisions that affect them. In Marxist theory, socialism represents the stage following capitalism in a state transforming to communism; however socialism can also be a goal in itself.

This way of looking at the two systems can be seen as quite simplistic; many other systems are not touched upon. Nevertheless, this is a common debate. Which system are you for - capitalism or socialism - and why?

Capitalism creates more problems than it can solve. Socialism tries to fix more problems than it can handle. As such, I am an ardent supporter of a more "mixed' or Third Way of economics.

History has shown us that a pure laissez faire system of economics does not work in the long run. And the most dangerous aspect of such a system is the ever present class conflict. Capitalism does produce class conflict and strife, it can not be argued otherwise. But what's more threatening is the way in which Capitalism tries to resolve said conflict. Either through busting unions or busting heads, or attempting to control the workers through more subversive means. Capitalism values it workers only by the quantum of labour power they can produce. It views it's workforce simply as one process to that ultimate goal, profit. The most simple definition one can provide of Capitalism is that it seeks profit above all else. All moral and ethical actions and views are thrown out the window, it cares only for the profit that can be made. Unfettered laissez faire capitalism will lead, in the end, to class conflict and spilled blood.
Socialism on the other hand, far from trying to fix this situation, merely exploits it. It does little more than agitate the workers and prompt them to fight against an entrenched, and better armed enemy. And when Socialism/Communism does become the dominant force, it ends up creating entirely new problems. It does put an end to "exploitation" and "wage slavery", but it throws the people into new kinds of exploitation and slavery. But this is not the most damning charge against Socialism, for it's greatest evil is it's stifling of creativity and progress. Socialism may be the more "ethical", "humane" or "just" economic system, but at too high of a cost. Socialism as a whole cannot provide the same amount of incentive and drive that Capitalism can, and as such, there will be less societal progress.

Both systems have their merits, neither is perfect and neither are they the ultimate in evil.

We haven't really experienced a good example of capitalism yet. America's mix of corperate socialism with some free market principles has ended up really badly, but if we were to follow the Austrian or Chicago school of economics there is no doubt we would be better off as a society. Humankind would be better off.

I agree with the idea of a third way that goes between the two. But which system works best depends on the economic situation. Time after time, poor countries have attempted to get out of poverty with socialism, and it just doesn't work.

Adam Smith didn't create capitalism without the working man in mind. With capitalism, business can grow, and a country will make more and more money. The more money you got, the more it'll circulate. Capitalism is what made even the poorest Americans richer than half of the world. But capitalism also has cold reality within it. You might be making as much as the rich men made a hundred years ago, but that doesn't matter when the bourgeoise have multiplied their wealth as well. Ideally, capitalism gives everyone an opportunity to get richer or get poorer through their own means. Unfortunately, corruption and the greed of the rich can make the idea of opportunity a beautiful lie.

The only countries in which socialism has worked well in are western countries. In the typical European socialist democracy, they really wouldn't be any different without socialism. In countires where everyone is pretty wealthy and nobody is told to work hard, whether or not you pay for something yourself or pay for it in taxes doesn't make a big difference.

Only rich countries can successfully switch to socialism. What is good for one nation is never good for another, which is why every system has failed at some place in the world. But look at things in a broader perspective. What is the world? The entire world is capitalist, and it always will be. For one man to succeed, another must fail. Even if the rich countries became happy socialist paradises, the poor countries will remain poor. Right now, Europe and America are very rich. We can all cheer for our triumph against poverty, but look at Africa and South America. They've been, are, and perhaps always will be, poor.

Every nation has an opportunity to climb up or fall down the ladder of the world, and the world will always be this way. A socialist country is nothing more than another piece of a capitalist world.

Each one breaks die to either greed with too much power or stupidity with too much power. An evil middle is fine. But if America dabbles into the middle a little people like to think that we are becoming a completely Socialist state.

Nicely and succinctly said!

Like Zon70 alluded to, the U.S. is not a capitalistic system because the large corporations practice a form of socialism.

I think the part of capitalism that breeds ingenuity and encourages people to start their own businesses and follow their dreams is great, but those people quickly get smashed by what is the final product of capitalism - huge corporations with near monopolies who will go to great lengths to protect their profits. Also, it seems to reward greed.

Pure socialism where everyone shares the wealth equally I think is bad because it doesn't allow for "the dream" like I mentioned above.

EDIT: I wonder how many people clicked this topic expecting a fight?

inorite

True capitalism, as Smith imagined it, is probably the best we've got for now. That or Austrian Economics.

A restricted form of capitalism (or very loose socialism) is what we need. As others said, both have their flaws, so the most 'perfect' form of government would be a blend of both. In politics today, particularly American politics, I don't think that Republicans represent Capitalism or Democrats represent Socialism. I believe that, if there was a line with Capitalism to the right and Socialism to the left, the Democrats would be a little left-of-center, while the Republicans would be a little right-of-center.

I'm all for restricted capitalism too...just nothing blatantly anti-market, like the Federal Reserve.

Capitalism, because socialist societies will be ruined by evil people.

And this can't happen in a capitalist society? Socialism and capitalism are economic systems, not governing systems. Capitalism has existed under fair democratic republics, and socialism has done the same. Capitalism has existed under dictatorships, and so has socialism. An economic system doesn't determine how powerful the bad men can get, but a governing system can.

Aww man, I came here, like 123man said, looking for a fight.
Why aren't there any Che-loving, Cuban-wannabe, commies here I can have a decent fight with?

And socialism in democratic systems kind of works, sometimes, when it's not too much into leftism... Otherwise, it's phail like sandinism in Nicaragua...

America-capitalist
Bush Administration-evil people
hmm...

And your point is...?

About my point, People will want to hold on to their money/take power in a socialist society.

...What? The idea of socialism is that the rich give up their riches to aid the poor. To its most extreme extent, this is redistribution to a point that everyone has an equal income. The more practical way to incorporate socialism is what the U.S. does: raising taxes for the rich to lessen the burden on the poor. It's hard to cling to your money in a socialist country, but in a capitalist country, you can hoard as much as you want.

And the Bush Administration didn't? Capitalism is worse. A few people have lots of power. With responsible leaders, it will work. If another Bush Administration comes into power... Not good.

In all, I think that socialism is better because everyone is closer to being equal. Everyone gets healthcare. Old, jobless people can't get a job anywhere. No company wants to pay for that healthcare.

The Bush administration in no way represents capitalist ideals. His administration was one of the biggest enemies of libertarians and conservatives (conservatives as in, actual conservatives). Bush is completely irrelevant right here.

As I stated before, the governing system =/= the economic system. History has proven that you cannot achieve class equality without shooting a million people, so if you were to compare a successful socialist state with a successful capitalist state, you'd find a few ruling the many in both. I like equality, but we sometimes have to face the fact that it's an unachievable dream. A little bit of socialism helps, but a lot would do us no good.

The beauty of capitalism is the opportunity. True capitalism puts your fate in your own hands. Poor men have become millionaires under capitalism, while at the same time, many men have become homeless under capitalism. I'm not going to go as far as saying "if you're poor, it's your fault", because that'd be a stretch. Many people are born into poverty and live in conditions that make it nearly impossible for them to climb the social ladder. This is very unfortunate, and this is where socialism comes in. I feel that we need some socialism to support those who truly can't move up in society on their own. But we also need the element of opportunity found in capitalism. Additionally, the freedom of capitalism promotes more individual liberties, creativity, and progress.

A mixed economy is the best, no question. Capitalism, while good at first, inevitably leads to most of the wealth in the hands of the few. At that time, classes emerge, and while it is possible to move up, don't delude yourself. While capitalism may be the "best" system for class mobility, it is still not very mobile, as you need incredible skill and lots of luck to move up. Remember what they said about taking risks to get a profit? Well, the thing with taking risks as that they don't always pay off. Meanwhile, socialism is a disaster whenever implemented. It correctly addresses the problem that human nature leads to capitalism being corrupted, but ignores the problem that society cannot own something as a whole, and the fact that government is made up of flawed humans.

So, a mixed economy is the best.


Except, there was no class equality in the USSR, nor was the government interested in trying. The shooting of millions was meant to achieve the exact opposite, namely, prop up the elites.

Lenin's USSR was much different. He actually aimed to make a perfect socialist state, unlike Stalin, who only thought of himself. The White Army would not go along with Lenin's plans, so Lenin eliminated them.

And Khrushchev.
And Yeltsin.
And Putin.
And the guy between Stalin and Khrushchev that everyone forgets.
And the guy between Khrushchev and Gorbachev that everyone forgets.

hey, forum socialist, here to answer all your questions. because is it really fair to be ranting against socialism, when no one is here to defend it?

common misconceptions:
socialism will be inefficient, because the government is to large to govern itself: not true. with a big government, you get more people, and more resources. a distant man off in Washington won't be telling you how to run your business. as George Orwell said, "the farmer will still be the farmer, but without the added disadvantage of permanently being in debt"
no work can be motivated without pay: true, nothing can be motivated, but you can force people to work (is it really forced, if they themselves voted for it? like we vote for how much we pay in taxes?) but no, that communist ideology will not create a long term, and happy society. instead socialism has a limitation of income, where the lowest wage, does not exceed the highest, by a ration of, at most, 10:1, with the exception of a jailed person.
socialism will destroy small businesses: of, don't say socialism will be the death of small businesses, for, they're already dead.
a powerful government is bound to be corrupt: not when they are restricted, by a constitution, three branches of government, all with checks and balances, and a bill of rights, much like the current system of government in America.
this is all part of some secret plot to take over the government, and make a new USSR: o rly? I've never been affiliated with the socialist intelligentsia, as I am sure that the party it self is flawed, the basic idea, which i stand for isn't influenced by any secret motives, I have come to this stance on my own, without the influence of the actual socialist party. I can find no dark corner to socialism, even when i try.

exactly!!! capitalism is the best economic system so far, but the U.S. needs a new governing system

with other systems, that would be true, for as you can see, to the best of my knowledge, there is no "capitalist party USA"
but is there a socialist party USA?
you betcha.
socialism has more to do that just economics, it aims at tearing down the social structure (hence the name socialism) abolishing hereditary rights and especially in education, to name a few.

I think the best USSP quote ever came in 1938, I think it was. Whenever FDR won his first election.

"My friends, it is time to dissolve the Socialist Party of America. The Democrats will do a better job."

Then again, there weren't too many hardcore socialists like FDR until LBJ, and we haven't had any TMK since, unless Obama suddenly turns a corner.

Well, I feel the need to add something. I don't really think socialism has ever worked, look at the attempts made in the world, my main focus being latin america. The State has endlessly been proved to be the worst possible guy in charge...
On the other hand, the Irish economical miracle was due to what socialism is probably against: economical aperture and fomenting an economical system that rewards people that take risks and attracting large enterprises from abroad. This worked awesomely: Ireland, in 15 years, passed from being one of Europe's poorest countries, to being named in a year whose number I forgot ( sorry, meh) the best country to live in.

i suggest, you take some time out of your day, and read this
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/lionunicorn.html

oh but wait, no one wants to read a long word wall.

still, it's a good read.

Eh? Care to resume that? I wouldn't like reading it all lol, I would if it weren't on my PC screen... Would be much more comfortable and less eye-burning than a book.
Look up stuff on a book called Saving the Americas and Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot.
Read this, too http://www.reason.com/news/show/27774.html