Socyberty > Politics

Socialism Vs. Capitalism

Socialism vs. Capitalism, which one measures up? Are you being lied to?

Socialism, first introduced to the world by Mr. Marx, was quickly rejected and feared by people. But what people should really fear is capitalism, its engine runs on the blood and sweat of all the working class people in the world. Though you might wonder why, as working conditions are good in Canada. But it is important to remember that we, as humans, exist together as a species, and that working conditions vary greatly between country and country. The riches of America are built upon the savaged state of developing and undeveloped countries.

Your privilege is based on the necessity of other people in the world. Most countries in the world are capitalist countries, which is why 30 percent of the world population controls 90 percent of the riches, and why multi-billion companies earn more than some countries. Do all those statistics scare you? Well they should. Now, lets look at socialism. Socialism is basically imperfect communism, where everyone is equal and fair. Is it a bad idea that people who study for eight years in post-secondary school earns the same as people who work at a food distribution center (in an assumed communist country, grocery stores and such do not exist since everything is free), some people say that is unfair, I say it is fair.

People who studied for eight years will be capable of working in a better environment than that of a distribution center. And if you look at it this way, it may be more convincing. Canada is a mixed economy, where health care services are provided by the government, and this is a step towards socialism compared to our neighbours down south. But how about we take it one step further?

Free food for everyone? You may argue that people will start to hoard food supplies, but the truth is, no. People are greedy because of their survival instincts, and therefore it is conditional. When survival is garanteed, people will become tolerant and not greedy, for all you religious people, isn't greed one of the deadliest sins?

Exactly, communism is a step towards perfection, or God. For all you athiests, when people are not greedy and are not worrying about money, the living conditions of people will increase substantially, now does that sound so bad? I don't think so. The problem with people, is that they tend to relate communism to monarchy, the truth is it doesn't have to be that way. Socialism or communism contracts capitalism, while democracy contracts republican.

What does it mean? It means we can be a democracy as well as communism, a multi-partied democratic country that has a communist economy. Do you want to see other people suffer and find in the depth of you conscience that you are the one causing the problem? You are essentially the one who switched on the big engine of capitalism that runs on other people's misery. Just want to give you something to think about, that's all.

21
Liked It
I Like It!
Related Articles
Marx and Religion  |  The Rise and Fall of Socialism
More Articles by school helper
10 Things You Should Do in Your Lifetime  |  Cancerous Society
Latest Articles in Politics
Wikipedia's War on Israel  |  DC Vote
Comments (24)
#1 by Molly, Nov 7, 2007
I am thinking about how uninformed you are and how all that wet behind your ears must make quite a mess for your poor mother to clean up after...
#2 by ......., Nov 14, 2007
If you want to criticize me, support your claim & arguments with logical or factual evidence. And you know what, until you do, don\'t criticize because it does not mean anything.
#3 by joe, Jan 21, 2008
if people all gain free food what would be the point of working?
and if we dont have to work for any thing whats the poin t
for the greater good
look what happend to china my frenaind you are very niave
#4 by DWT, Jan 28, 2008
A very wise, old, foreign diplomat once told me that \\\"idealism is directly proportionate to the distance from the problem\\\". You seem to be a very ernest and caring person. It is sometimes difficult to project how humans will respond to seemingly well thought out social theory such as that conceived by Marx. Imagine how difficult it will be for socialism to take root on a wide spread basis when a country like Sweden with several million people that look, think and act from a common culture have difficulty making socialism work. At a near 80% effective tax rate, extensive social programs and wide social safety net, Sweden was seemingly the beacon of successful socialism in the 1980s. Unfortunately, their most productive citizens and corporations started to leave the country to find an environment that was less taxing of their creativity. As a result, Swedish GDP contracted and the country found it difficult to sustain the social infrastructure it had created. Ultimately it found no other choice but to lower taxes and reduce benefits to be able to retain their intellectual capital. Just imagine how well socialism will play out in Canada between the ethnic French, British, Punjabi, Chinese and Inuit cultures. It will eventually become a huge hit with our friends south of the border that enjoy even grater social, cultural and religious diversity than we do.
#5 by From the writer, Feb 7, 2008
Yes, communism did not work out in all the countriessuch as Sweden or China, but what is important to remember is that the fault is not from the system, the system is perfect itself, rather its the humans that are flawed. After much thought, I have concluded that when humans are superior (meaning nothing will or can effect our status as top of the food chain), capitalism is in the best interest. When the superiority of the human race are threatened (alien invasion for example, if I sound too childish, or there is nothing to eat or the sun is about to engulf the earth), humans will start to work together and the best choice will go to communism. Humans action, like it or not, is ultimately based around "survival", what we do, how we act, is all based around "survival", thus, survival of a race is at the top, and it overrides any other desires, then its survival of a particular group, then its survival of a family, and lastly survival of individuals. When the survival of the species is gauranteed, it brings out all the good stuff in humans and thus making communism very very promising.
#6 by Tiffany, Feb 13, 2008
First I have to say proud to be an American. This article is written by either some one who is narrow mined or lazy. In this country we can not be held back. In Socialist and Communist countries you can not mae a million dollars. But here you can. How much money you make is dependant on your wants and needs and how much effort you are willing to put forth.
#7 by Student doing research, Mar 3, 2008
The system might be conceptually perfect, but, as you said in your post, people are not--and never will be. That is what is important to remember. Do a little research on what communism has brought out in humans thus far.
#8 by Observer, Jul 23, 2008
"The war will leave its meed of great problems, problems of internal social organisation... Business men and aristocrats, the old ruling classes of Europe, had their chance from 1919 to 1939; they failed to take advantage of it. They rebuilt the world in the image of their own vested interests... The ruling class has failed; this war is the proof of it. The time has come to give the common people the right to become the master of their own destiny... Capitalism has been tried; the results of its power are before us today. Imperialism has been tried; it is the foster-parent of this great agony.

Given power [the Labour Party] will seek, as no other Party will seek, the basic transformation of our society. It will replace the profit-seeking motive by the motive of public service... there is now no prospect of domestic well-being or of international peace except in Socialism."

— Harold Laski, The Labour Party, the War and the Future (1939)
#9 by SweetLiberty, Sep 2, 2008
Capitalism inspires, Socialism entombs. An individual born into a free capitalistic society has liberty and choice. An individual born of socialism finds his options stifled and his will diminished. Laissez-faire systems encourage entrepreneurs, growth, ideas and prosperity. They allow a man to better himself and reap the rewards. But not only does the man benefit, but so do those caught in his wake of success via Adam’s invisible hand. Adversely, socialism places a gun to a man’s head and forces him to donate to societies aims. However, those aims, while noble at inception, cannot help but become corrupt and overburdened. Consider the child that is given one hundred dollars vs. the child that has earned it. Who has benefited more? Who is more likely to spend his money wisely? To save? What is owned by all is cared for by none. What is earned is cherished. Therein lies true nobility, and therein lies the superiority of capitalism!
#10 by Matt, Sep 4, 2008
Capitalism inspires choice? Life don't give you many choices when your born poor! With capitalism today the rich are getting richer and the poor are becoming poorer. There are fewer rich people now, but hey hold greater capital as the middle class is being squeezed dry. Unbridled capitalism is a joke, and and illusion to think that you get all kinds of opportunities. Unbridled capitalism would have you working for peanuts to fatten up the big corporate CEO's. Enjoy your choice to starve.

A perfect world of communism is a joke as well, unfortunately it would never fly. Somewhere in the middle is the best place for now, Capitalism needs constraints on it or else the the riches of the country will suck the life out of us.
#11 by tom, Sep 11, 2008
well done
this is exactly what we need to be doing
its fine claiming that socialism is faulty because humans wouldnt co-operate, but capitalism is no better.
People are forced into work and if they choose not to exploit people, they are burdened masses of debt that prevents them from any form of freedom.
The minimum wage in England is 5.25 an hour. The people earning this are working to support a family, and yet one hours wage is around the equivalent of buying a sandwhich from subway, yet young executives can earn anywhere up to £100'000 a year from doing basically nothing
we need to at least try, for if not, society will never change
#12 by SweetLiberty, Sep 13, 2008
Matt and Tom, your views are simplistic and ignorant. You assume because someone makes $100k/yr, your piece of the pie is smaller. However, in a capitalistic society, the entrepreneur who runs a company creates jobs, expanding the pie. You seem to think “fair” is the operative goal – but that is entirely unachievable. To pay someone to empty trash the same rate you pay a CEO is ridiculous. The CEO has unique skills that qualify him to run a company. Most anyone can empty trashcans. Both provide a service, but the supply and demand for those services work themselves out as a market rate. And its ludicrous to assume that executives do nothing. If the CEO fails, then their company fails and the competition eats them alive (which sometimes happens). If the guy emptying the trash quits – well, everyone that works at the company still has a job the next day. As for the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the middle class exists and thrives because of capitalism. The more jobs and competition, the more a worker has the ability to market their skills elsewhere and improve his lot. And to your Subway sandwich example I would say this – the owners of a Subway franchise are lucky to make $30k/yr which is a gross of about $14.40/hr, whereas the unskilled sandwich maker (usually a teenager) makes a minimum wage of $5.85/hr here in the U.S. Once corporate income taxes are figured in, the disparity between the owner and worker is very little and hardly worth the risk at all. I don’t consider that rich – do you? Instead of envying the rich, you should do more to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable so that you can EARN more – not just be handed more out of pity.
#13 by GoLeft, Sep 15, 2008
SweetLiberty, if the CEO fails, their company fails, everybody loses their job. That company fails, which means a piece of the market is giving to another company, that company will hire more people to meet the demand, people will get their job back. If a guy throwing out the trash quits, the garbage will build up, CEO must find another guy to throw out the garbage. Everybody will have job. One thing though, when people loses their job, they got no money, that period will be really hard on them before they get their job back. A perfect is example is right now the economy recession in the U.S., people got no jobs. Why? Because a capitalism or a market economy allows to people to get too greedy, to a point that it implodes, and the whole thing collapses, and there goes your sweet liberty.
#14 by SweetLiberty, Sep 16, 2008
The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is 6.1% (as of August 2008). While this is certainly higher than most would like, it is hardly a great depression and certainly not an all time high. An unemployment rate of between 4 and 5% is considered optimal as everyone who wants a job can typically find a job in this range. The artificially high \"housing bubble\" should work itself out within the next 18-24 months, at which time - all things being equal - the economy should see stable growth again. Before further arguing from ignorance and wishful thinking, I would encourage everyone interested in economics and government to read some of the following:

Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
Socialism, Ludwig von Mises
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter
Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt
Free to Choose, Milton Friedman
The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Michael Novak
The Way the World Works, Jude Wanniski
The Vision of the Anointed, Thomas Sowell
A Time for Truth, William Simon
The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand
A History of the American People, Paul Johnson

And yes, before you ask, I have read The Communist Manifesto. Dreadful!
#15 by Matt, Sep 16, 2008
Ignorant eh? You read the communist manifesto? Good for you! You must know everything now.

For the life of me im trying to understand how a \"pure capitalist\" society would be the best system. Sure enough there doesn\'t exist a place on earth where there is society that is purely capitalist, nor is there a society purely socialist. At this point either/or only exist in theory on paper.

When I think of deregulation and privatization which are key components towards capitalism, I see terrible atrocities across the board. Sure, it isn\'t so bad in north America/Western Europe. But look at Asia, Africa, Central/South America! They\'ve been force fed capitalism with free trade agreements and Structural Adjustments. We benefit from their cheapass goods and labour sure, but they work for peanuts and live in total poverty in many places!

All them sweatshop laborers have marketable skills, but there is no way for them to use their skills in the market, they have no choice but to accept the sweatshop labour, or to starve. They live in a capitalist society and the only ones making a living are the factory owners! There isn\'t any government regulation to get in the way either, if anything they are more capitalist than us westerners with our public health care and regulated markets. How come more people don\'t thrive in their societies? Is it because of a poor economy? Or is it rather that with onset of Capitalism their economy went to the shitter?

Whether we like it or not, we are a society and we are a collective. Its nice to have personal freedoms, but we can\'t ignore the collective footprint we leave on this planet.






#16 by SweetLiberty, Sep 17, 2008
Matt, you oversimplify and fail to see the big picture. As usual, leftists set up straw men and then come in to heroically knock them down. I never said a “pure capitalist” society is obtainable or practical to implement. The debate here is on the relative merits of socialism/communism vs. capitalism. Speaking as an American, I would much prefer a system closer to that set up by the U.S. Founding Fathers than the one we have today with ever increasing government involvement. But I must say, you seem to have quite a ridiculous world view when you advocate the withdrawal of capitalism from poor countries. China’s recent economic growth is due to capitalism, as is India’s. If they had the proper governmental infrastructure set up, they would flourish all the more. And you are the type of bleeding heart that would rather deny a poor starving village any work at all as opposed to allowing a company to move in and “exploit” their workers for pay you feel is unjust. But you go ask those villagers if they would prefer to be unemployed or earn what to you seems unjust. They are BEGGING corporations to come and set up shop close to them. I support laws which defend individuals against human rights violations, but this does not include restricting trade and organizations from doing business in what has increasingly become a global economy and paying workers the local market rates. And finally no, I do not pretend to know it all after having read the Communist Manifesto. But it is highly apparent that you haven’t read or understood Marx’s philosophies, otherwise you would know that Marx envisioned reaching communism only after developing a robust capitalistic society. The failure of communism in China and Russia is attributed by Marx’s apologists as having failed to first achieve capitalism. Perhaps it is you who needs to read and understand more about human nature, economics, and the dangers of governments run amuck. I’ve shared with you some of my reading list, and I would welcome taking a look at yours – but my guess is that you probably aren’t well read on these subjects and just follow what your bleeding heart tells you to do.
#17 by Matt, Sep 18, 2008
Oh my, Its pretty cool how you mangled what I said! I'm not advocating that we somehow withdraw capitalism from all these countries like China and India. I'm saying that we in the west are shamelessly taking advantage of the extremely cheap labour and resources of these other countries. Your right, there is more and more capital and investments going into these countries, but the vast majority of the people are not seeing the wealth! Its only the few at the top that are getting the money, it isn't trickling down to those at the bottom. All that nice wealth is going into the pockets of the already rich, while wage slaves are stuck in poverty. There isn't no breaking out of the poverty they are in either.

I'm not saying that capitalism should go, I'm saying that capitalism needs constraints or else it will shamelessly plunder and exploit what it can for wealth. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's the fault of the capitalist, they don't care who gets hurt! Its all about personal freedom for the individual, and sure that sounds nice, but that's the attitude that turns a blind eye to social injustice. There is no choice for those we oppress in the third world. They can either work for peanuts or they can starve. We take their cheap labour, and we privatize their resources and let foreign investment suck up all the profit.

One thing is for sure, there is corruption on the left and on the right. That seems to be the biggest certainty in history
#18 by SweetLiberty, Sep 19, 2008
It is a common fallacy to assume because capitalists value selfishness, we do not care “who gets hurt”. If I open a business for my own profit, operate that business within the law, and hire workers to do my labor – who gets hurt? If I choose to hire Joe over Bob because they can both do the job equally well but Joe is willing to work for less, who do I hurt? Bob will not have a job, but without my business neither Joe or Bob would have a job. By hiring Joe, my personal profits increase with which I may choose to reinvest into my business – perhaps creating an opening for Bob, or simply keep my additional wealth to myself, selfishly purchasing that boat I’ve always wanted. But Bob could have had a job had I not selfishly spent the money on my own pleasures, you shout. However, while Bob is indeed no better off, Sam the boat maker has just made a sale and may expand his business which may at last take poor Bob off the streets. Yes, I am an admitted wicked, evil, selfish capitalist because I support business and individual freedoms. And you can see how my philosophy hurts all involved.

A few questions for you…

1) Is the major fault for the extremely poor countries and their woes due more to the “evils” of capitalism, or due more to the government corruption which prevents even charitable aide from getting to those who most need it?

2) Would you please provide the name of 3 companies and the direct evidence of what you consider exploitation so that we may address your specific concerns as opposed to theoretical demons?

3) Finally, again I shall ask: Will you please provide your reading list so that I may benefit from the knowledge whence you’ve acquired such lofty ideals?

I eagerly await your well-reasoned response!
#19 by GoLeft, Sep 24, 2008
Communism, capitalism, both are economic systems, one is called the command economy, while the other called the market economy. There are three fundamental questions that any economic system need to answer, What to produce, How to produce, and For whom to produce. Both of the systems answers the three questions logically. For communism, all the three questions can be answered: determined by the state in the best interest of its people. For capitalism, what to produce is determined by consumer, how to produce is determined by market competition, and for whom to produce are determined by who has the money. Now, communism place the control of the economy in the hand of the state, whereas capitalism place the control on individuals (consumer, competition, who has the money). Now, the fundamental flaw with capitalism is individuals are selfish animals, by nature we want to hoard resources. So, people who have the means to hoard resources will get most of the resources, while the vast majority will not. So, for the majority (>50%)of us, we would be richer if all the wealth in the nation are distributed equally. You may ask, if we are richer if we lived in a communist regime, why aren\'t we? Because most people are natural followers. The ones that do not benefit from equal distribution of wealth are the ones with leadership qualities, and thus people follow what they say, and the nation goes capitalist. However, just as I said, greed will implode itself, the great depression, the hyperinflation of Germany in WWII, the current collapse of the US economy (3 of the 5 major invest banks declared bankrupt or is trading at penny a share, Lehman, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae. Bear Steam sold to JPM for $2 a share, also government bail out of more than 1000 billion dollars, ban on shorting investment companies stocks, and a major slide in NASDAQ, don\'t tell me this is not serious).
Perhaps a more vivid example will help you understand. The sub prime mortgage crisis in U.S., you know where it all started? Mortgage specialists giving out mortgages to people working part time at McDonalds, with low or unstable income. Why would they do that? Because they wanted to maximize profit, so they ask these people to pay the house off in 30 or 40 years. But can they make regular payments for 30 or 40 years? I don\'t think so. And boom, the collapse of the economy. Lehman brothers recently declared bankrupt, for those who do not know what Lehman brothers is, its a major investment company, if you graduated from Harvard with a business degree, your dream would be getting a job at Lehman Brothers.
I want to say this again and again, greed will cause capitalism to implode, that is a fact.
#20 by SweetLiberty, Sep 24, 2008
Nice try, GoLeft, but the banks and mortgage lenders had their hand forced by Liberals who mandated the loans to people who couldn't afford them. The following article details much of this, although more is coming out daily: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306544845091102

If government hadn’t been involved, banks wouldn’t have taken the risk.
#21 by Vic, Sep 25, 2008
I've found that absolutely nothing We(The human race) stress over or hope to achieve, morally rich or poor, will ever amount to anything. Who the hell ever said that We are so important? Only other significance starving pieces of evolutionary waste like Ourselves. We need to strip ourselves of what We comprehend of Our place in the universe and evolve where it matters. Take a new look at the picture. Because it is very, very big.
#22 by GoLeft, Sep 29, 2008
hmmm, so Sweet Liberty, you probably should look up LEHMQ, Bear Steam, FNM, and FRE\'s balance sheet. You\'ll realize that 99% of the asset that they possess (or close to it) are liabilities. What does that mean? The investors have no money invested in it. A government cannot result in a bank declaring bankruptcy, no matter what you say, in this \"free country\". However, greed can. Even the leader of the \"free country\" George Bush said the economy is broke. Why do you think there is a 700 billion bailout package? I\'m pretty sure the guys in the white house knows the economy is broke, and I\'m pretty sure they got more resources to come to the conclusion that the economy is broke.
#23 by dollar, Oct 5, 2008
(I've read through all the posts thus far and...)
Capitalism seems to me, to be flawed at the core. Imagine the Capitalist America without all the poor nations around the world making ultra low-cost products American's so love. If not for the people in the poor nations accepting very low wages, the average American life would most likely resemble, more closely than we would like, those of poor nations. Capitalism is greed and the enslavement of the less fortunate. A few keep getting richer, while the majority are stuck in the lower social classes they were born into for their entire life. The promoters of Capitalism say, "you can make it if you only try." Then finally, when one finally makes it big, as if they were winning a lottery, they are brodcasted to our television sets as they tell us how you can make it too, while 98% of us never do. Its a fallacy to say that everyone can make it. We all know deep down inside that everyone cannot, but some keep perpetuating the illusion that Capitalism works for the common person when we all know most will die in the social class they were born into. I can help but feel it is those who have or are succeeded in the Capitalist system as the ones most afraid it may collapse. I suppose the selfishness and greed created by Capitalism runs deep. Capitalism is but a system where the advantaged take advantage of the disadvantaged for their own selfish gain.
Now, like everything, Socialism is not perfect, but I see it as a step toward a more perfect world.
Perhaps, a world more like this: www.thevenusproject.com/
#24 by Jose, Oct 6, 2008
Socialism is inevitable. Eventually the people who are exploited will rise up against the exploiters. When the government comes in and bails out Wall Street to the tune of 800 Billion and the Average Joe gets kicked out in the street if he can't pay his/her debts will eventually cause anger and class warfare.

BTW, when they have robots able to work the menial jobs in the future, what are the lower class going to live off of if they don't have the jobs available? Don't say it's crazy because Detroit has plenty of automation already and we know what's happening to that city.
Post Your Comment:
Name:  
Copy the code into this box:  
Inside Socyberty

Activism

 /

Advice

 /

Crime

 /

Death

 /

Disabled

 /

Economics

 /

Education

 /

Ethnicity

 /

Folklore

 /

Future

 /

Gay & Lesbians

 /

Government

 /

History

 /

Holidays

 /

Issues

 /

Languages

 /

Law

 /

Lifestyle Choices

 /

Men

 /

Military

 /

Organizations

 /

Paranormal

 /

People

 /

Philanthropy

 /

Philosophy

 /

Politics

 /

Psychology

 /

Relationships

 /

Religion

 /

Sexuality

 /

Social Sciences

 /

Society

 /

Sociology

 /

Spirituality

 /

Subcultures

 /

Support Groups

 /

Work


Popular Tags
Popular Writers
Socyberty
About Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Services
Submit an Article
Advertise with Us
Contact

© 2007 Copyright Stanza Ltd. All Rights Reserved.