Is Capitalism more advantageous than Socialsim?

Is socialism a better economic system in theory, and/or is Capitalism being pressured to become more Socialist? The current economic situation in America has many people thinking out of the box of Capitalism. It's true, you can make it rich in America. It's the land of opportunity, the rewards of hard work through personal interest that furthers economic growth in general, however, most people in America are not rich, but are doing "ok", "good" or maybe "very good" despite the recession. Despite any statistics to prove whatever, is Capitalism, to you, still better than most other countries, or has that changed? To answer this question, it doesn't really matter if you are American or not. I'm a Capitalist at heart, but both economic systems appear to have their good and bad points. Some ideas in socialism seem appealing like the government paying for all medical care, including dental, like in Canada. I personally would like to see a national medical care system, but it may also have drawbacks of its own. But to steer too close from Captialism is a moral wrong to many Americans and Americans may feel it may lead to rights being taken away. So, do you think America is feeling pressured to become more Socialist by mutual benefits that other nations have, or do they just seem appealing on their face? Or has things changed, and can Capitalism, at it's heart, work as it always has in history? Just for the record, I do not consider myself a Socialist but a Capitalist. I just thought this would make for an interesting topic.

 

why does it have to be either or? why can't you use ideas and such from both? balance seems like a really good thing to me.

 

Trimaj writes:

why does it have to be either or? why can't you use ideas and such from both? balance seems like a really good thing to me.

Yes, but then, would that still be considered Capitalism, or Capitalist-Socialist, or just Capitalism with benefits?

 

i'll go with balanced.

 

Ultimately the name doesn't matter, as long as it works.

 

Uh, yeah, sure. Capitalism needs proper regulation, social safety nets (including healthcare, perhaps), and so on, but I don't think many people doubt that an economy, at its heart, works best when based on market principles rather than any type of central planning.

 

I can't have socialism. I'm afraid of crowds.

 

At a fundamental level, capitalism is best. However, as has been already said, you have to have some regulatory safety nets. Referring to each and every one of these as "socialism!" without being willing to engage in any rational discussion about how these policies will work in practice (or, conversely, how the economy will function without them), is what makes the Republican party so pathetic nowadays.

 

I agree.


It also comes down to what you think are the duties of government.

I believe government's fundamental responsibilites are:

1. equal protection of individual rights
2. basic security, defense, disaster management
3. public health, vital supplies (food, water, medical treatment), and environmental well-being
4. infrastructure and economic well-being
5. education & research

 

I believe there's already something very much like that, at least in some European governments. It's called "social democratic" government:

As the Wiki article states, under this system of government you don't try to replace any fundamental aspects of capitalism.

 

Yeah, I like Social Democracy. It's basically the consensus that the United States and Western Europe had from the 1940's until the conservative movement in the 1980's. Republican Presidents of that time were to the left of many Democrats today.

 

I think I agree with that. The postwar status quo was a good example of how the government encouraged a strong middle class (through government policy) and as a result it became the backbone of the economy, and the economy grew very nicely, at least for the 30 years following World War II.

If you don't have a strong middle class, how strong can the economy be? In the U.S. consumer spending already makes up for 70% of GDP or some such figure (I would have to look it up just to double check). If the middle class has no discretionary spending because they're up to their eyeballs in debts, mortages, credit card bills, etc., then the economy simply can't be as robust. I don't think it takes a genius to understand that.

 

Social democracy rejects the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class

This sounds like a great way of balancing democracy in general. It leaves wiggle room for reforms and progress.

 

Are we helping you get another degree, Worms?

 

Meh, who is John Galt?

 

Last thought on this subject for the night:

All the programs people are decrying as "socialist" (and have been decrying since the New Deal in the 30s) aren't actually socialism. They are the actions of Capitalists trying to save Capitalism from being destroyed by Capitalism.

 

Capitalism has a bigger penis than Socialism.


To screw people with.

 

Some idiot.

 

Socialism doesn't work in practice. End of.

 

That's communism, socialism doesn't usually get a chance to work as one of two things happens:

1. It gives way to communism and/or a dictatorship.
2. America comes knocking on your door.

 

I think there's also a difference between communism and Marxism. Are you sure you're not thinking of Marxism?

 

No, you have it wrong. What we had for 40 years, wasn't communism. It was socialism, and was supposed to be a "transition" to communism (you know, a society without classes, everything is owned by everyone, that sort of thing). IT DIDN'T WORK.

 

And thus because the socialism in your country didn't work means it can't work?

No logical fallacies there. None at all.

...

 

Not just in my country, in the whole of Eastern Europe. I think that's a relevant statistical sample, don't you think?


And no system that tries to make everyone the same can work, because PEOPLE ARE NOT THE SAME. You can't have a workman in a factory earn the same as a computer programmer or a company director. OK, that's a stretch, but the differencies in salaries really were small. And the salaries were set in tables, so no one cared if you did your job well or not, you always earned the same. Socialism doesn't give you freedom to go and be successful if you work hard.


And it seems to me that people from Western countries have a very idealised view on socialism, because they never experienced it and have no clue what it's like to live in it.

 

Communism is like an external equation. When you try to put it in your calculator, you just get a syntax error.