Arts & Humanities >
Political Philosophy
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedCapitalism vs. Socialism: Which do you prefer?
Results so far:
| Capitalism | 61% | 430 votes | Total: 708 votes | |
| Socialism | 39% | 278 votes |
Capitalism
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesCapitalism can be the most ruthless and unforgiving economic system ever devised. Yet there are many advantages that it has over socialism and most other systems. It rewards hard work with sufficient pay much of the time. Those with the most capital to invest make capitalism successful. It provides incentive to those that want to better themselves. Socialism, on the other hand, tries to make unequals equal which is like considering a dog equal to a horse. But I would rather try riding a horse than a dog.
Capitalism built this nation. People with vision sought what has been described as the American dream and often achieved it. Our economy wouldn't be the greatest in the world, despite the recent downturns. If you do a better job than those around you, you ought to get rewarded. Socialism, or sharing the wealth, as Barak Obama says, takes from those with the most capital and gives to those with the least. It also doesn't provide incentives. Socialism was tried in the Plymouth Colony at the beginning. All products of ones labor were shared with everyone equally. Those who grew more crops didn't keep more than those that grew less crops. With no incentives, those who could produce more decided to produce only enough and no more. The investors in England didn't make a big enough return and the common store didn't have as much in it as what was possible.
But when capitalism was introduced to the colony, the people tried to produce as much as they could because they knew they could keep more. The excess was delivered to the common store to be sent back to England or sold to others. The abundance was great enough that the first Thanksgiving was held to celebrate the bounty God allowed to be provided. The local Indians in the area were curious and joined the people of the colony for a few days of hunting and feasting. If socialism had remained the common practice, there might not have been a first or subsequent Thanksgivings. The colonists might have starved.
People like to point to the first century church and say they practiced socialism since they had all things common. Yet they forget about the example Jesus gave of the talents of money given to the servants. One was given five, another three, and the last one one. Their master went away and returned much later. The first two had doubled the amount of money they had been given and were rewarded accordingly. The last one hid the talent of money he had been given and gave it back to his master. The man was angry with him and gave the money to the one who had earned the most. If socialism had been practiced, everyone would have been given an equal amount of money; even the one that didn't make a profit. So it appears God approves of capitalism and investment for profit.
Liberalism has been associated with socialism. But a century ago, liberalism could have been associated with capitalism. A pre-FDR liberal was one who believed in giving from his wealth to help society. People like John D. Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Mellon were wealthy men who started charitable foundations because thanks to capitalism, they could afford to be generous. A post-FDR liberal is one who believes YOU should give from your "wealth" to help society. Often they don't contribute much money to help others. But they can make people feel guilty if they don't give their "fair share" or pay enough in taxes in order to show their patriotism, as Joe Biden suggests.
Socialism doesn't work in societies that consider themselves socialistic. The land sharing program in Zimbabwe has been an utter failure. The land owned by successful white farmers was taken from them and distributed to poor black farmers that had no land. The nation when it was known as Rhodesia was a food exporter thanks to capitalism. But now it is a food importer because socialism has brought the nation near the brink of starvation. Socialism didn't even work in the old Soviet Union. The peasants that fought for socialism during the Revolution sometimes were stuck riding horses while Lenin was driving Rolls Royces; even one that had skis on the front for winter driving. The ruling class in the Soviet Union always had more than the "children of the Revolution." Once capitalism was allowed limited freedom in Russia after the fall of communism, organized crime took advantage of the capitalistic system and became rich. Those who had money made much more money which I believe will lead to a wealthier country and citizenry. The Russian athletes, musicians, actors, and models are taking advantage of captialistic opportunities outside of Russia. Those that have remained dependent on the government as they were taught to do are suffering during the transition from socialism to capitalism.
I prefer an even more capitalistic system I call Applied Capitalism. It would make the government and citizens economic partners. Congressmen would become what I call "bounty hunters" who would cut government waste and spending and receive 0.1% of what is saved. This might reduce spending significantly. If they won't cut spending for the good of the country, maybe greed will do the trick. The government could form companies that would be managed and run by those who are knowledgeable in how to make the companies work. The government could invest in the companies but not have more than 49.9% of the stock so as not to become the majority stockholder. People could invest in the companies through the government which would act like an agent as it takes 10% up front and 10% of the profits the investor makes at the end. Socialistic countries often own companies they start like Saab in Sweden. But with Applied Capitalism, the government could only start a company but never own it. It could still regulate it and demand certain things. But there would be a degree of independence to allow the capitalistic economic system to work to its near full potential.
Also a part of the system would be a suggestion contest in which anyone could submit ideas to the government for consideration that would either save or make the government money. If an idea saved the government $100 million, they would receive between 1 and $10 million TAX FREE. The government would still save a lot of money. But average people would get free money. To paraphrase JFK, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country and pick up free money as a reward.
Capitalism will always seem unfair to those who aren't able to succeed. But if we had a strictly socialistic system in which everyone was truly equal, hardly anyone would be able to succeed. Socialism goes against the human competitive spirit that makes people want to do better than all others. Even Soviet athletes needed incentives to drive them to be the best. Hardly anyone wants to be like everyone else. Capitalism champions the individual while socialism has no champions.
Learn more about this author, Rick Badman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Socialism
Given the economic climate, strong advocates of capitalism are scratching their heads to explain how the perfect economic system is becoming increasingly an afterthought for some of the most advanced industrialized nations. Europe has already begun to socialize most of its industries. America's brother up north, Canada, has always had a government-run health care system. These so called socialists experiments are not the ones that created the financial crisis. The capitalist's unguided hand did. Government regulation could have prevented the financial turmoil. If you must choose between either two economic systems, socialism would be your way to go.
Capitalism is expansive. Once it capitalizes a particular resource and it depletes, the system inherently pushes itself outwards to earn additional profits. While the price of the resource changes according to its location, Americans should not be surprised to ear that some of its swine comes from Canada and Mexico. Lumber is also a resource heavily extracted from Canada. There is lumber in the United States but because there is more wood in Canada, Americans purchase cheaper Canadian wood. But the resource itself will deplete in Canada, and eventually these companies will need to expand, possibly in Europe, to continue to sell their lumber. It's that equilibrium. When there is a lot of a resource, the price of the product is inherently lower and vice versa. But what happens if the product disappears? Trees are an important resource that we cannot lose.
Capitalism is expansive but how much do we really need? Do we need to have all of those barbecues or TVs? Companies have to find a way to sell you a product. Take the TV. We moved from the big box-y kind to the flat and small kind. Granted, the products have become much more sophisticated but also very expensive. The resources required to even produce these items deplete the environment and is waste for consumers. But that is the only way companies can survive. That's why Apple continues to create different Ipods every year.
Capitalist expansion hits poorer nations the hardest. Because of previous trades, contracts and treaties, African countries do not reap the rewards from the resources they extract to sell to countries in the global north. While corporations may enact their ''fair trade'' policy, it is still not enough to quell the economic pressures African nations must face. They have debts that supersede the budgets of the most advanced nations of the global north. They also fail to compete economically at the international level. Worst of all, during conflicts like the one in Sudan, companies greedily aid opposing groups to maintain trade. Oil companies, it can be argued, are exacerbating the problems in Sudan by working with warlords to extract oil. Western countries have notably demanded that their oil companies remove significant ties in Sudan. But many are still maintaining ties with warlords who are violating marginalized group's human rights. Exxonmobil anyone? But that's capitalism!
Anything can be capitalized! Sex is capitalized. The pornographic industry makes more money than Hollywood. In Nicola Simpsons work Coming attractions: A comparative history of the Hollywood studio system and the porn business, she noted that in 2002, it was estimated that porn generated more than 57 billion dollars in revenue and 12 billion dollars in the United States. One's lack of dignity can be capitalized. Millions of people are willing to compromise their lives and their dignity on reality shows just for a million dollars. Health, what we need to survive, is capitalized. One would think that the last that they need is to pay for their good health, which is predominantly a necessity of life. But that is also capitalized. Europeans are willing to pay more taxes for better health, but rather, in a country that toots capitalism, we rather pay 600$ for a stupid television. What we fail to understand is that when things go bad, much like the financial crisis, and we no longer have that money to pay for our health. We inherently forget the necessity of life. If health care was government-run, when things go bad, you may not have your TV but at least you will have your health.
Let us not forget that while sex, one's dignity and health can be capitalized, many people outside of the United States are painfully paying for the price of capitalism. We forget about those young children in China who are forced to make shoes so that we can all wear those comfortable Nike's. We forget about the war in Sierra Leone over diamonds just so that rappers can flash their diamond studded cups or for women to justify an alliance that has a 50% chance of survival. We are even willing to fish out women from third world countries who will take care of our home for a little price. We literally undermine immigration policies so that we can be satisfied. For what? Money!
Capitalism means a profit which also means money. Capitalism is not all that bad. We need money to survive, to eat, and to enjoy our lives. But a pure capitalist economic system is a recipe for disaster. Necessities such as life cannot be bought or even sold. When do we say enough when capitalism endangers lives? Socialism would assure that even those auto plant workers have another income as they seek for another job. They will be taken care of once they get sick. Socialism is really an economic system that allows people a safety cushion when things get bad. It is not inherently a welfare system because it cannot work unless everybody works. But socialism understands that the world is not perfect. The motor will not keep turning; it can break down. Socialism is really a tool to repair parts of the motor so that it keeps turning. Its not delusional!
Learn more about this author, F.M.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
