Capitalism vs Socialism

1. 54

   TruthDebaterposted 13 years ago

   Does Capitalism create equal opportunity for all or just for the elite? The same with socialism, does it create equal opportunity for all or only those affiliated with government? Is both capitalism and socialism simply illusions making false claims of equal opportunity while those in power and wealth only grow?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Morgan Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      While both have their pros and cons, I believe a capitalistic system is more geared toward equal opportunity than socialism. In a capitalistic system people have the equal ability to create their own opportunity. And by people getting successful through either capitalizing on the opportunities created by others or themselves, they can in turn, provide opportunities for success for others.
      
      In contrast, socialism takes away the ability for people to independently pursue opportunity (to the extent capitalism does) but redistributes freedom to the masses (if that makes sense) in the way the government see fit.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I see the opposite as true - I am here in China where everyone is making some kind of business in every little niche that presents itself.  Everywhere there is a huge diversity and this means that I can get anything I need at any time, from people who are genuinely in competition with each other and all making a living. Simple test wherever you are, go set up a stand in the road outside your local supermarket and sell cold drinks to passers by - if you are not arrested or moved on in less than an hour then it will be because nobody is buying anything from you anyway.
         
         I see around me real opportunities, people working toward success or getting by doing it - against the legions of idle unemployed in the west. 
         
         What I see contradicts everything I hear.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            ..yea, you have a totally different perspective...i try to see the world...but of course NA gets in the way because that's where I am.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Morgan Fposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I agree that the people of other nations may make opportunity for themselves regardless of the governmental system of their country, and that yes, alot of us Americans are lazy and abuse the rights and abilities we have in this country, but you find that everywhere. However the topic was whether or not a specific system in and of itself created more/equal opportunity. And while both have their faults I stick by capitalism.

            replyreport
         3. 58

            rlaframboiseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            yea you also can't type "democracy" into Google or find out what actually happened at Tienanmen square. Government control of information is necessary for socialist governments to survive. It is therefore automatically negated as a system for fair human interaction. I also don't see capitalist countries limiting how many children you are allowed to have and fining you or taking your land if you break that barrier.
            
            If I was you personally, I'd pick up guns and take my government back for the people -- that is if your government trusts you to own guns.

            replyreport
   2. 58

      babalon1919posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Considering that capitalism has not been ideally manifested as "equal opportunity" in the United States, and after 200 years, there are thousands of families living below the poverty line while a dozen or two individuals have more wealth than they could possibly know what to do with, I do not think it is the way to freedom or a way to pursue happiness.
      Socialism, on the other hand, is misunderstood and tainted by the stigma of the last century in which fascism dominated socialist systems and therefore became a pariah. To truly oversee the well-being of the citizenry, by nature a government must be socially-oriented.
      The problem with capitalism in America is that is not truly a free market system and can not function as such because government regulations and interference have repeatedly prohibited the market from correcting itself, which is absolutely necessary to a true free market.
      Capitalism demands, to a certain degree, government involvement. To me, this is a disastrous conflict of interest, especially in the current situation where many of the legislators and cabinet department heads are involved with corporate finance, either as owners or share holders. As a result, the acts of the government are inevitably geared toward the financial interests of those who administer the government, rather than serving the populace.
      Owning the means to production is so intrinsically linked to the agencies of government that oppression is unavoidable.
      Socialism might not have the debilitating effects on ambition and industriousness that most believe. To give the workers a say and a direct way of profiting from their participation in production would increase the GNP by improving quality of goods as well as decreasing import trade from other countries. Unemployment would decline and morale would increase.
      The government should be concerned not with private industry but rather take over the utilities and other services and supplies that every single citizen needs to survive and thrive on a daily basis. There is no question that the incentive would be to find the most economical solutions for managing resources as well as eliminating much of the practices that are damaging to nature.
      When the citizens have less anxiety and worry over having the minimum required for survival and are able to set their sights on more worthy endeavors such as job satisfaction and education, everything will improve in ways now seen as impossible.
      If each citizen had the financial breathing room to pursue that which they are good at and love to do, there would be far less crime as well as welfare burden. Taxes could be lowered and incentives given for private efforts toward the public interest.
      Socialism doesn't necessarily demand conformity or loss of individuality. In fact, it is the opposite, if administered in the true sense of Socialism. It only requires the people to see themselves as a connected community that has the means to take care of its own as well as sustain the efforts of everyone who is willing to contribute. Those that are unable, such as the elderly, would not be the burden commonly assumed if resources and services are managed unselfishly without any motivation of personal profit or advancement by the administrators of government.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Wayne Brownposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Capitalism does not necessarily guarantee any particular result. It offers a system in which the opportunity and freedom are there to allow one to attempt success in a relative free market system.  If you have a product or service that people desire or need, then, if you work at it, you can be successful. In turn your are able to keep the majority portion of what you earn less the associated taxes imposed.  Under a socialistic umbrella, the concept leans to toward equal distribution of that which is produced. Under such a system, if I work harder than the guy next to me, he still gets just as much as I do. Eventually, I figure this not and lower my productivity. He then gets less because there is less and in  turn lowers his productivity.  Since I am now working  harder than he is, I in turn lower my productivity again...it's an endless cycle that can only lead to failure but such a romantic idea when one is sitting around the camp fire solving the world's problems and singing "Kum-Ba-Yah"! WB

      replyreport
   4. 0

      sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Main Entry: so·cial·ism
      
      1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
      2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Republicans love the state and hate the government. hmm???
      3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.      Republicans hate to share, hmmm????
      
      Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
      
      : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.Ideally, when a company registers, they register as a corporation because individuals cannot be held responsible if something really bad happens. 
      The whole idea of 'corporations' is to protect the owners against liability.  There aren't any caps on free market principals let alone accountability so a few have complete control over everything and distribute the goods accordingly to their own practices.
      
      
      
      
      
      -If anything, the Republicans and Tea Partiers are creating the transition into communism.  Seems to me that America was already a socialist country by definitions because they privatized everything and took control away from the people and the government making them great decoys.
      
      Mostly everyone agrees that the problems we see today are because of greedy corporations that are too big to fail.  It says that Capitalism is a dead market so the next step is socialism but not because Obama is a socialist because he is doing everything he can to make sure we don't fall into communism.
      
      Its a short answer to a good question.  The rep. are angry because the OA bailed out big business.  He had to.  I wish they would have landed on their asses but billions of billions of people, not just American's had already become dependent on this infrastructure.  Because Obama is pushing back with legislation that will prevent business from growing into entities that are the corner stones...steeples communism, we must already be living in a socialist society but folks like Beck and Palin are too stupid to figure it out and helping transition into the big C.
      
      Go figure.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         i've been saying the exact same thing in my posts... So refreshing to see someone agree.
         
         I'd like to point you to my hubs - you might enjoy them!
         
         Also, I'd like to point out that Tea partiers were, originally (not anymore) capitalist loving freedom fighters. the movement started when over 300,000 people donated to Ron Paul's presidency campaign on Dec. 16th 2007 - the anniversary of the tea party, and, proudly, my B-day, to get a true capitalist in office.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I read a couple of your hubs and I love your middle perception. How does that saying go, "The one with the money rules."  Or my new favorite motto, "Poor people don't have lobbyist."
            
            Your perception on the CRA 1964 is interesting as well as your Ron Paul rant.  The Ron Paul one reads like a secret society montage, "If you don't want to lose your money you better give it to me."  *evil laugh*
            
            You are right though about the Civil Rights Act, while it was meant to give people equal rights, some rights are restricted but low and behold, that is why Republicans love statehood because they get to call the shots and hate the government because the Constitution suprecedes the state.
            
            The whole thing is ridiculous really, they all have seemed to have lost their minds by waving their confederate flags and stupid racist signs and fear about big government. 
            
            They should really be worried about McDonalds and Foster Farms and Coca Cola etc...doh!!! that's right... under the Bush Administration, the Republican party was able to pass legislation making it possible to own, yes that's right! own, the rights (patent) to certain crops like corn...*shutter* and have passed some low key but very important legislation that will soon make it illegal to grow your own vegetables. lol -meaning organic or buy seeds from any one other than certain distributors like Monestro.
            
            But hey, you have to love the Republicans for tricking all their followers into thinking Obama is a socialist just to get them off the scent of their own ill practices and god forbid! they have to start paying taxes.  Gotta love Bush for all his remarkable compassion for the rich! lol
            
            I did enjoy your hubs. Even if we possibly have different views.

            replyreport
2. 0

   china manposted 13 years ago

   Socialism is just the reaction to Capitalism and so many of its policies are simply an alternative to it.
   
   Capitalism can not create equal opportunity by its nature, it just creates opportunity.
   
   Socialism cannot create equal opportunity because it does not focus on opportunity in the first place.
   
   Both system have the same inherent failings and both will ultimately fail because of them.
   
   There are many other variations of politics and social control of humanity that do not require us to fight each other for the money, or forcibly make us work together. We just have to find them and promote them.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      TruthDebaterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks. What do you believe is the correct or middle ground between the socialist and capitalist policies? Should it be everyone for themselves or the wealthier paying for the less fortunate?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         the average dick/jane is paying for the social supports - not the wealthy.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      capitalism easily creates equal opportunity. The problem is, however, that we all AREN'T equal!!!
      
      I have certain abilities that you don't have, and you have certain abilities that I don't have. I have different passions than you, you have different passions than me. We're different. We were born a certain way, to a certain group of people.
      
      But, after this basic undeniable fact of difference - you have the ability to go out and try to make money live your life the way you want to (with the options available with your predispositions).
      
      under socialism... you ... don't have the ability to do what you want. You'd be lucky to be able to eat!

      replyreport
   3. 56

      leebertteaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with most of this, except I don't think capitalism will fail, at least it wouldn't if government didn't involve itself in capitalism and distort it for it's own purposes.
      
      Capitalism is a barter system of trade pursued by free people unconstrained by government, it's as natural as breathing. Even in a socialist society capitalism would exist and it always will even under oppression.

      replyreport
3. 0

   china manposted 13 years ago

   I have to agree with somewayoutahere (as usual) but I would go further, the average dick/Jane is also paying the wealthy their wealth. 
   
   Where else does it come from except from the mass of people in one form or another - this is why life is so expensive, and they don't let up skimming from us even when we have nothing left to give; which is why Socialism started and the various Revolutions etc.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...now I have to agree with you...'paying the wealthy their wealth'

      replyreport
4. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   "...now I have to agree with you...'paying the wealthy their wealth'"
   
   Yup....and when you try to get it back, that's when they scream Socialism!... Communism!...Anti-American!
   
   As we are seeing BIG TIME here in the US of A right now.
   
   Even those who have been taken say it!
   
   Mass brainwashing.....a la Fake news and assorted highly-paid mouthpieces for Crapitalism!
   
   Rush,
   Beckles,
   Hannity....all made OVER 30 million.
   and that's not even TOUCHING the 1% who own everything....
   
   
   The mantle of  the New "Great" Americans:
   
   Gimme more gimme more gimme more.......the HELL with the rest of you! CHUMPS!!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "...now I have to agree with you...'paying the wealthy their wealth'"
      
      "Yup....and when you try to get it back, that's when they scream Socialism!... Communism!...Anti-American!"
      
      It is very unAmerican to take money that doesn't belong to you.
      
      Thats why we have prisons.

      replyreport
5. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   Anybody opposed to looking at a few facts?
   
   The wealthiest 1% in the USA own 34% of the net worth of this county. That's not a misprint. The top 1% own more than a third of everything. Yhe only thing they fear is a government strong enough to change the game which is rigged in their favor.
   
   How is the game rigged? Suppose you are a brain surgeon - highly skilled and well paid for the WORK you do. You tax rate in the top income brakcket (over $375K annual) is 35%. Now if you are in the top 1%, you don't work.
   
   You don't have 'income' in the form of a paycheck. You have 'capital gains' - which is unearned income from paper - stocks, bonds, various financial investments which make BIG bucks. What percent do they pay? (Folks, I don't make this up.) 15%. That's right. The ultra rich have gamed the system to pay less than HALF the tax rate of top people who WORK for a living.
   
   Shen you hear groups screaming about 'socialism' track back the money behind those groups and you find foundatins funded by - Guess who - the fat cats who don't want to pay their share of taxes.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If only Charlie Rangel would pay his taxes then everything would be fine.

      replyreport
6. 60

   kephriraposted 13 years ago

   Capitalism, at least in most countries, tries to create an equality of opportunity, whereas socialism tries to create an equality of ownership.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Capitalism stifles some, opportunity has an ebb and flow. Cronyism and special interests confound the free market, People like Madoff and corporate interests like Enron and BP use the whole system in a way you or I could never hope to or want to. They shake it to it's foundations like a 9.5 earthquake and make us all look like fools, and a fool and his money are soon parted. That's capitalism. Socialism attempts to provide for those who for one reason or another can't provide for themselves. The food stamp program is one of these programs, and I know many people and families who couldn't survive without them. Sometimes it's easy for those who are beyond those things (foodstamps, etc.) to understand that a mixture of socialism isn't always a bad thing.

      replyreport
   2. 56

      andromidaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      well said. we can create equality in opprotunity and in ownerhsip in a political system- I don't understand why  socio-capitalism can't co-exist.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Native Americans lived in a socialist economy that included barter, trade, and gambling. Not to mention the raiding of other factions which was just to break the boredom.

         replyreport
7. 63

   Mishaposted 13 years ago

   Actually I have a hub on this...

   replyreport
8. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   I've written like 5 hubs on this.
   
   The answer is a resounding, absolute, unwavering...
   
   CAPITALISM!!!
   
   Not corporatism, not croynyism, not government-funded X-ism, and not anything else involving the government
   
   100% unbridled Free-Market, Laissez-faire Capitalism is the ONLY way to ensure people who work hard CAN work hard, and that people who deliver what other people want CAN deliver what other people want.

   replyreport
9. 68

   ledefensetechposted 13 years ago

   The first incorrect assumption you make is the fact that anyone had to be bailed out.  Why exactly?  When Lehman Brothers fell, the world didn't end.  The would wouldn't have ended if AIG failed either.  What happened was that big business called in all the favors they had, which were considerable in order to get the bailout to save themselves from their stupidity.  But the government couldn't come out and say that, so they relied on the scare tactic of telling people the whole thing was going to come apart if something wasn't done.  They capitalized on the average American's ignorance of economics and got away with the swindle of the century.
   
   That's not to say the "poor" don't have lobbyists.  What do you thing public assistance is?  We now have generations of people who have never done anything but collect a check every month.  Don't you think a person who promises them more and more assistance will get reelected as much as they want?  Public assistance is a form of slavery. 
   
   The only people who don't have anyone in their corner is the middle class.  The rich have the resources to get exceptions written into the bill, while the poor have their welfare champions.  Is it any wonder the middle class is shrinking in this country?

   replyreport
10. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 13 years ago

    A thorough analysis will show that every policy is oriented towards the upliftment of people, whether they are rich or poor. Rich people tend to go richer and poor tend to catch up with the rich. Both policies aimed towards a common goal: to become rich or richer.
    
    While the capitalist, ie., the rich have an additional burden of safeguarding the richness, the socialist try hard to become rich. If they are unable to catchup or fail in their endeavour, they become frustrated and create problems for the rich.
    So, capitalism is enough for the society.
    
    Everyone should work towards becoming a capitalist, ie., rich. Socialism, communism, and all other "isms" which offends others will certainly fail.

    replyreport
11. 88

    WryLiltposted 13 years ago

    http://hubpages.com/hub/My-Socialism-Be … Or-Does-It
    
    Misha's hub on this subject.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you for the plug, o beautiful one!

       replyreport
12. 68

    ledefensetechposted 13 years ago

    The big problem with socialism is that it's based on classism.  People are arbitrarily divided into classes and their wants and needs are based on that class.  But we are all of us individuals. 
    
    That's why capitalism is so successful.  Or rather the free market system.  Capitalism only describes the fact that all means of production (goods, labor, cash) are privately owned.  A free market is one in which producers and customers interact in order for the individual to have their wants and needs met.
    
    Since a free market empowers the individual, companies are forced to discover ways to meet the myriad wants of every person, whereas in socialism the only thing you get is what your "class" wants and needs.

    replyreport
13. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 13 years ago

    India is the best sample for capitalism;
    China is the best example for socialism or communism.
    
    India, ruled by a number of foreign invaders for nearly 800 years (since 1191, when Md.Ghori entered India) became independent in 1947. At that time, India was a squeezed like sugarcane and almost all the people were left as near-beggars by the English govt.   We chose a path of collective governance, and everyone was treated as his own king. Freedom of choice made Indians become once more rich... though some may say there are beggars, hunger-deaths, etc. There is freedom of living for everyone. If the beggar goes and ask for a job, he can get it. But begging is a easy way of living for them. Even if govt. arrest them and put them into homes, they go for begging at night. So, they cant be treated as beggars, but as law-breakers only. Overall analysis of India will show that we have improved more than 1000 times from 1947 and we can compete with USA and other western countries in richness.
    
    On the other hand, China was not under any foreign occupation from time immemorial. Even the Chiang-kai-sheikh govt. was that of  Chinese origin. It was a revolt by the communists in 1949 which brought them to power. From then on, there were several killings, arrests, displacement of people, etc.  Even now, more than  10 million chinese people are languishing in jails. They are put to hard labour and Chinese economy flourishes because of their time-less, tire-less, wage-less labour.  If China begins paying wages to them, its treasury will drain in one year. China has sent thousands of those prisoners for labour in building a shipyard in Srilanka. In Srilanka, those slave prisoners will learn how the Tamils laid down their lives for the sake of freedom and honour.  It is better for them to die rather than work as slaves to a cruel government. Such a cruel treatment to fellow human beings cannot be imagined anywhere in a civilized world.
    
    These are the differences between capitalism and communism/ socialism. Soon, there will be a revolt against communism which will spell the end of cruelty against humanity.

    replyreport
14. 64

    Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

    Capitalism in an economic philosophy built on common sense...
    while Socialism in an economic philosophy built on common cents
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 59

       VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       .... socialism is an economic philosophy built on common cents from others' pockets.
       
       All pro-communist / pro-socialists get their pay, put it into their pockets and refuse to give it to others.... but are ready to snatch it from others' pockets... that is socialism/ communism.

       replyreport