Which is the superior system--capitalism or socialism?

Question

Please provide the reason for your answer.

Answer 1

I think socialism is a much better form of government if your citizens' well-being is top priority. Capitalism forces people to struggle with social darwinism and tends to neglect a huge percentage of its own citizens... capitalism holds economies at highest priority.

Answer 2

Capitalism is far more compatible with human nature. In today's world economy, capital is dragging socialism forward financially (kicking and screaming). All the time that the two have coexisted, that has been the way of it.

If the whole world was ruled by socialism tomorrow, the economy would decline for a long, long time. There might be some good effects of that, but the bad effects are pretty bad.

Answer 3

Because capitalism rewards the productive, it more effeciently allocates capital (something all economic systems must do) than socialism. The net result is a wider income disparity in a capitalist system, but also much greater productivity such that even those with lower incomes benefit. Capitalist systems also provide more access to wealth (for those who are productive) while socialist systems tend to lock wealth, or lack thereof, in place.

As an example, one can look at France, which dropped in GDP from the top 5 in the world to 19th in the 25 years that socialism expanded in that country.

Answer 4

Capitalism is superior if you feel it is more important to promote the good of the whole as opposed to the individual. Captialism is superior for those that already have money that is for sure!

Answer 5

Socialism is superior if you want government to control people. It may equalize wealth, but everyone will be equally poor. For proof, just look at most socialist economies now and in the past.
Of course there are the exceptions, like Norway and Sweden, but they have a strong work ethic and a homogeneous culture, and a strong capitalist base for their economy, plus Norway has lots of oil.
Capitalism is superior is you think people should control their own lives. I tend to think most people are quite capable of taking care of themselves, even the poor. If you are poor, but smart and want to work you can raise your standard of living.

Answer 6

Capitalism. In this system there is chance for creativity and not to be bound what to do by higher authority in the government.

Answer 7

Capitalism is the world’s dominant economic system. Within it, the means of production and distribution are owned by individuals: private ownership and free enterprise are believed to lead to more efficiency, lower prices, better products and rising prosperity. Socialism advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and industry by the community as a whole: the community is believed to be both more just and more efficient through central planning. In Marxist theory Socialism represents the stage following capitalism in a state transforming to communism; for many, however, it is a goal in itself.
This binary view of potential political and economic systems may be thought simplistic, but it is a debate that is extremely common. Necessarily, many other systems are not touched upon.

Arguments

>The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including land, businesses and goods) gives individuals security and a means to control their own affairs. Ownership brings responsibility and allows individuals to plan for the future so as to provide for themselves and their families. For example, owning a house, a business or some land makes it possible to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future. The lack of private property rights in much of Africa makes such borrowing and investment impossible, and is one reason for the continent's lack of economic growth.

>>The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.

>The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating factor a human being can feel in their work. When work is uncoupled from reward, or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who don’t work hard, society suffers. The fact that individuals are driven to succeed is in all our interests.
>>Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man. Over time, as the benefits of this better way of life become obvious, all will. The impulse to share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind, is one of the purest mankind can experience. It is not merely possible – it is a demonstration of the progress of our species to a finer, more humane state of being.

>In capitalism, the market determines price, including pay - the price of labour. If some people are paid huge sums, that is because other people believe they have unique talents which are worth paying for. If they fail to perform, then they will stop being rewarded so highly. This is all part of a dynamic capitalist system which values individuality and rewards ability and risk-taking.
In any case capitalism isn't a monolithic system - capitalism can have elements of control in it. After all, taxation is a capitalist creation and almost all capitalists accept a role for state regulation to prevent market rigging and to help those in absolute poverty.
>>Capitalism rewards people in perverse ways. Some footballers or company chief executives earn a thousand times more than nurses. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The poor are fooled into thinking that they can gain in capitalism, when really all their wages do is hold them in place – their savings are swept away in the first moments of unemployment, a concept central to capitalism but one that socialism destroys.

>The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system; it means that change is slow – which means that innovation is missed. This isn’t just pro-business, it has real effects on the lives of citizens - people are poorer because of it. In a capitalist system, economies are diverse enough that when problems happen in one sector, others are often insulated by their differences. In a socialist system, where everything is centrally controlled and diversity is non-existent, when government gets things wrong, everyone suffers. Ultimately, socialist systems are so inefficient and corrupt that labour has to be forced for the state to continue functioning (though this may also be a logical outcome of thinking less of the importance of individual freedoms compared to some abstract communal good).
The failure of the USSR and other command economies shows the poverty of socialism and the failure of central planning, as on a smaller scale does the failure of nationalised industries in many western countries. >>Economies in capitalist systems are essentially unplanned, so they often crash, producing depressions that damage the lives of millions. Socialist economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented. Ultimately, socialism guides with the aim of human happiness in mind, rather than the glorification or gratification of a particular individual or class. To gain this for all rather than just for some requires an element of social control – the excesses of capitalism will forever mean that too many fall by the wayside as the strong profit, and the weak are left behind.
Critics who point to the failure of the soviet bloc don't understand that this was not true socialism, which has never been properly tried, but a corrupt version of central planning which served selfish elites rather than the good of the people as a whole. Examples such as Britain's National Health Service, or the European social model of welfare provision show the strengths of a socialist approach.

>In capitalist systems, society is ruled by the individual. Who would want to live any other way? In socialist systems, society is ruled by the state. Why would one want to live like that? >>In socialist systems, society is ruled by the people. Who would want to live any other way? In capitalist systems, society is ruled by money. Why would one want to live like that?

Answer 8

Well, theoretically, when you look at them they both seem to be good economic systems, but of course putting them into practice proves otherwise, mainly because of human greed.

Answer 9

all failed miserably.gandhism with human values only can save world and peace