Why does pure socialism fail while capitilism thrives?

Question

In my opinion it is the greed factor. Socialism fails to account for the basic human nature to achieve in life. While capitalism embraces and encourages it.

Capitalists are dedicated to the principle that they have the right to achieve all that they desire in life and are only limited by their willingness to work harder to obtain their desires. They are rooted in the concept of individual responsibility for success or failure.

Socialists hold the opinion that all people should be equal in all things. If someone has more they are not really entitled to the spolis of their effort, but rather should be forced to share because they have achieved more. They hold the opinion that there should be collective control and redistribution of all resources and that people will worker harder simply for the benefit of the collective.

Socialism can be somewhat incorporated into a capitalist system, but pure socialism will always be doomed to fail.

What is your opinion?

Answer 1

Quite the question....there are many reasons why the soviet style communism fell, but one overlooked reason is that capitalism was/is be able to mobilize more MONEY in the ideological struggle. It could be said that the US bankrupted the USSR by forcing them to compete in the constant obsessive building of nuclear bombs, spaceships, etc. The US prospered in the madness, the soviet economy fell apart they simply couldn't afford it.

Socialism also tends to embrace atheism, hoping for citizens to "worship" state institutions taking the focus off heaven- and onto a present utopia. A lofty goal indeed, but it doesn't do much to give one comfort in the face of unavoidable death.

Human nature has a certain and necessary pragmatic greed built in, but this can be somewhat neutralized through society, to a point. Socialism does not prevent one from "achieving" but requires the individuals within a particular population to be committed to greater values, such as pursuit of knowledge, utopian society, poetry, whatever...a direct contrast to true capitalism, which points one toward a nice car. And when that car is a bit old, there is another one to obtain...ect.

It is much easier to maintain order and control of a society focused on possessions, it also much easier to provide more people "power." In a capitalist society, such as the US, you do not have to be elected to have control over others; in fact you could conquest more power by going into business. In a socialist society it would be difficult to obtain power in such a way.

and yes, power? Another form of greed, sure, but the feeling of importance can be found, ideally, in other aspects of life. Writing a novel brings power and influence, as does being a rockstar....

Marx indicated multiple times that his form of socialism would never work unless a society, or country, was at first capitalist...there are very few countries in the world that have gone from capitalism to socialism. It could be said that both Cuba and the USSR became semi authoritarian as there was no history of capitalism to give populist base to the ideas people were to live by...socialism was to evolve from capitalism, but instead it took hold in capitalist dictatorships, which then became socialist dictatorships, not giving the world a true look at the potential effectiveness of either societal form, but surely providing lots of slander as to why the "other" was failing.

"Socialists hold opinion that all people should be equal in all things." True to an extent, but much socialist literature tends to present that idea that everyone is equal, inequalities stemming from socioeconomic factors, not human nature. What is sought is equal access to a society’s resources: education, housing, FOOD. Equal not meaning monotone, but equal in the sense that economic class differences will not impede one persons “opportunities” over another’s. There should still be individuality, unless individuality is nothing more than monetary expression. All modern societies will need bakers, soldiers, entertainers, rebels…(Yes, this is not the case in strong armed robotic Mao’s China…) Capitalists on the other hand, often view the world through a more evolutionary context, if some one is not achieving, they are some how responsible for their inferiority, therefore their respective situation (poverty) becomes justified, however unfortunate. Hence the giant income disparities in the richest capitalist nations.

Within an individual nation modern capitalism can continue and even appears to function very well, but it’s future hangs precariously on a few factors. In order for the lower classes to not despise, and even revolt against the ultra rich that modern capitalism produces...there must be at least enough money for the lower classes to be comfortable, with the ability to, at least "feel" that they can move up, or, progress... (The new car!) The problem with this is that in our modern global society borders are increasingly difficult to maintain and defend, financially and physically. As immigrant’s pour into rich countries, and at the same time rich countries pour money (outsourcing) in to the poor countries, we will see (and are seeing) the creation of a small super rich upper class in the poor countries, and more poor populations in the rich countries, which the rich countries cannot help as their resources and INTERESTS are tied up in global affairs...

Ok then, shouldn’t we wait for the trickle down economic model to work globally? The tide that raises all boats. A strong capitalist ideal which does currently work...but it seems that available global resources, not to mention the earth’s eco-system, will not support the life style that has kept both America, and most of Europe's economic systems intact. As super rich and super poor are forced to rub shoulders all the time, there could be massive revolt, a global revolution of sorts, or some powerful dictatorship to maintain absolute order. Or perhaps both locked in an Israel/Palestine hold.

If this were to happen, some form of socialism, would begin to look like a viable option again, as the unequal distribution of resources would become increasingly more OBVIOUS, (in contrast to our current state, where oceans are the main global class dividers) and would fuel all sorts of dissent. Also, as previously mentioned, the existing amount of resources would not support a super rich class, at least not along side democracy. Assuming that we still hold our "freedom" ideals, which are quite incorporated into to global culture, socialism would become a near necessity...or something entirely different.

And, absolutely capitalism would have to be incorporated in to it, being that human commerce will not dissipate any time soon.

Of course that is a whole lot of speculation, but the world is changing very rapidly these days, and I expect that our ideals will be tested properly, very soon. That "socialism will always be doomed to fail" may not be the case, it really depends on the environment at whichever particular time. Despite assassinations, sanctions, invasions and even internal revolt, little Cuba stayed afloat, as has China and now Latin America, with a it's growing "rich" class, is also moving toward more social governance.



And I now realize that you asked about “pure” socialism. I guess I’m not sure that any system can exist in pure form, but I hope my ranting has been helpful in some way…

Answer 2

Because socialism is a false notion. I recently studied Marx's works (the creator or socialism so to speak) and basically, he vented his angers through his works, such as Communist Manifesto. He lived a poor life, having his wife die and also two of his children because of conditions in which the conditions of living could have been made better by a socialist utopia. Also, Marx saw that the need for a scaliest government was in the social system set up in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, not today's society were everyone is equal.

Take China, in example. They lived under communism, including the socialist economy. But there people were still in poverty, although it was more widespread than before. In a capitalist government, those who make the most sometimes give back to the poor of their country out of generosity. capitalism also gives incentive for people to work harder and live, which produces a stronger will for success.

All in all, capitalism creates a drive in the society that socialism, honestly destroys. Would you rather work in a economy that you were paid by how much you work, rather then not getting paid, no matter if you worked hard, or hardly worked.

Answer 3

Pure Socialims is based on the believe that life is greater than material things. Have you ever thought what would happen in a capitalistic world if everyone was rich? My answear to this is that everybody would be poor because nobody would want to work anymore. Why do we focus so much on accomplishing our financial goals? I think that we do that because at some point we don't want to work anymore. Therefore in a capitalistic economy the poor people are the reason rich people exist. There can not be capitalism without the poor. Therefore capitalism is evil, it depends on the poor to do all the hard fisical work. Capitalism is for all those who do not believe in God but trust in the "riches" of the world no matter who they have to step over.

At some point in life you are going to learn this. To have, to do or TO BE what my dear friend do you desire?

Answer 4

The answer can be summed up with few words.
Capitalism creates national wealth.
Socialism consumes national wealth.

The fact is, socialism cannot succeed without a successful capitalistic system. Socialism and capitalism can coexist if the social program provides a net gain. Public schooling is an example of a social program that benefits capitalism.
Entitlements that pay money to the poor are a drain on capitalism and are of no true benefit to the culture nor the recipients. Social programs for the poor should be designed to place opportunity for the poor to raise themselves up out of poverty, not give motivation to stay poor as the current system does.

Answer 5

I agree to your point. Capitalism thrives on innovation, or the need for something better, and prosparity, or greed. Socialism fails because ones idea of "the collective" is different from anothers. In a capitalist society, the collective that should benefit from what society has to offer refers to those who work hard and succeed in advancing themselves as individuals and thus advancing society. Socialist societies believe the other way around, meaning that the collective works hard to advance the collective itself, and thus benefiting the individual. Socialist "projects" can be incorporated into a capitalist society, but until that project is advanced to its limit, it will be ever changing and an individual will profit from the innovation. When capitalist societies reach the limit of innovation, then socialistic ideals will take over in order for the collective to benefit from the highest level of ones prosparity.

Answer 6

I think capitalism has succeded because it doesn´t exert much control over people and gives individuals some freedom. Socialism, on the other hand is a system doomed to failure because man will always want to make money, whether we like it or not, and very few people are willing to share their earnings with others.
As a catholic I must say I´m against both, capitalism and socialism.However I prefer capitalism, since I´m free to go to my church every day and spend my money the way I like without the "State God" telling me what to do.

Answer 7

I think part of it is human nature, but let's not forget human nature also encompasses compassion, camaraderie and rallying to the aid of those truly in need and deserving of assistance.

What greater socialist institution than education, where knowledge is shared and proliferated to all who desire it (whether online, in class, through books/CDs/Videos/etc.)?

Where socialism does fail is in the inherently despotic and anti-spiritual concept of MAN controlling MAN. You can't expect a system where a few dictate the needs and distribution of wealth and services for the many to be viewed by reasonable people as anything but unfair and perenially limiting.

Capitalism is limiting as well, but a great proportion of that restraint is within and at the control of oneself, as you mentioned.

Socialism is a disease of guilt and remorse, an artificial charity network imposed on the framework of natural inclinations to contribute, aid and assist others.

Capitalism is often viewed as unfair, oppressing, life-deflating, greedy, self-centered and destructive. This is an attempt to lay blame on SOME THING rather than assume the blame yourself. Capitalism is a method of trade and wealth development and accumulation. That's it. No evil puppeteer or controlling mechanism is at play, no unwritten rules that one must decipher, just the result of hard work, applied intelligence, opportunity exploitation and appropriate execution. These are characteristics that virtually ALL HUMANS are wired for and can develop should they so choose.

Nothing in socialism is really wired into the human cognitive process, except perhaps the infantile and counterproductive tendency to look for parenting far beyond the age where parental patronizing is required. The French are an example of a wonderfully creative and industrious society, broken into incalculable pieces and fragmented almost beyond repair, because they refuse to look to the one source that can provide them all they could ever hope for: THEMSELVES. There is always a government to blame, an employer to be disgruntled with, a benefit to be claimed, a right to be granted, but rarely, if ever, a personal culpability involved. That is the essence of socialism, the stripping away of personal achievement and accomplishment, into a commoditization of humans and their needs.

It is disheartening and almost dangerous to continue to sing the praises of socialism, when everything in our being screams individuality and self-determination. Socialism has no place in a modern society, outside of the realm of government programs that either introduce new capitalists to the market and society as a whole in a responsible way, or to phase out capitalists who are ready to retire and have contributed to the markets and society sufficiently, earning a quality transition to a more leisurely lifestyle in their twilight years.

Socialism is always doomed to fail...the human being.
Capitalism is always available to enable and uplift...the human being.

Few are the examples of two concepts being so diametrically opposed.

Answer 8

Flawed question. The real question is, why doesn't pure capitalism thrive? And the answer, of course, is that pure capitalism depends on an entirely free market, which cannot exist without disastrous shifts.

No system exists or can exist in its 'pure' state, socialist, communist, or capitalist. Government intervention is required to requlate the extremes of each and maintain relative equilibrium in society.

Twas ever thus.

Answer 9

The fundamental ideals and assumptions that are the basis for pure socialism are false that is why pure socialism always fails. People are not all inherently "good". People are not all equal in all things. Therefore a society that tries to base its government on these assumption will always fall short of their goals. I agree that the biggest failing of the system is human greed.

Answer 10

Sociualism ignores one of the prime aspects of humanity; GREED. Babies are greedy. Morons try to change that starting right after birth. It never works. Greed is as much a part of being human as charity, Love and Hate, Compassion and cruelty.
Creating any sort of social system for humans that ignores any part of what makes a human, human is doomed to failure.
It would be like building a car without wheels.

Answer 11

well for one thing there's no incentive to do anything. If a ditch digger and a doctor make the same amount of money, no one would want to go through the trouble of becoming one. And on that same principle, no one would ever want to start a buisness if they know all there hard work will lead to nothing. And on top of that, socialism is often flawed at it's source. Very rarely can you give someone complete economic control of a nation and expect them to redistribute it without giving themselves a large cut of it.