Socialism vs capitalism ,which one is good for us ??

[RAMSHIVDEEPAK]

In my opinion Socialism is good for us.
Because,capitalism is associated with unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power.So there is no chance for equal growth.In this model "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
If we think like environmentalist,then capitalism requires continual economic growth and will inevitably deplete the FINITE natural resources of the earth.

[1714041777]

1714041777

[1714041777]

1714041777

[stantpro]

If ideas must be developed, if competition is to be encouraged, then capitalism
should be encouraged.Merit is the way to develop a society competitively. If socialism
is implemented, a lot of talents would definitely die down knowing that you are not expected
or encouraged to solely depend on personal efforts to survive.Naturally, a lot of citizens
would rest on their oars.Hence, capitalism harnesses the talents in everyone and gives the
opportunity to appreciate your good efforts after all.

[DooMAD]

There's no simple answer to this one.  Both ideologies are dangerous if taken to extremes.  It's generally better to find a happy middleground.  Places we tend to perceive as "capitalist" countries are, in reality, becoming increasingly crony-capitalist or corporatist.  And when taxpayer funded assets get sold to companies through privatisation at a reduced price, there's often a stench of corruption.  Governments that engage in the practice of privatising profits and nationalising debts are only perpetuating the flow of money to the top of the pyramid scheme.  All of these things are signs of a system gone wrong and in dire need of rebalancing.

[eminemcookie]

Who is 'us'? Capitalism and Socialism each have their merits and the best solution is likely a combination between the two. Either in any extreme is going to be majorly flawed. My personal opinion is that for the majority of people a capitalist society is actually better as they are unable to do things for themselves and make the decisions and such they'd need to do make a socialist approach succeed. This is mostly born out of distrust and a negative outlook of the human population than anything to do with either approach.

[doge_shit666]

If you pursue finance and economics, then capitalism will help you more. Capitalism has a very strong policy of economic backing so if you go this route choose the capitalist countries. I am living in a socialist country and it makes me feel very upset by the country's restrictive policies. My next destination would be Japan, where there is a very large crypto market.

[loyaeskiron]

Socialism and capitalism are both having good contribution to the economic developnment in the world, so, we don't consider that socialism and capitalism are danger, although it has a large effects on how our countries become highly develop because of socialism and capitalism, because without capitalism and socialism different countries are nothing in terms of economic development.

[Hydrogen]

Over the last century, we've seen hard socialist nations like russia(USSR) and china(under Mao) adopt facets of capitalism to better compete economically with the united states. While nations like venezuela who retained hard socialism whilst waging a war against capitalist enterprise have slowly but surely destroyed themselves.

I'll contend that capitalism is better suited to harnessing the imagination, resourcefulness, creativity and intelligence of a population than socialism is. 

Under capitalism everyone generally has the freedom to start a business, pursue their dream, invent or build something. Under socialism generally only the state has the power to do these things, which sets civilization and society back as only a fraction of the total population has the freedom to exercise their ideas of business, inventions and similar things.

People forget that large corporations like google, apple and microsoft had their humble beginnings in someone's garage. Capitalism having these tiny businesses which have the freedom to grow into large megacorps in turn creating jobs and prosperity is what socialism generally lacks. And that is a big part of why socialist regimes like stalinist russia and maoist china have been forced to adopt capitalism over time, in order to compete with the united states and not be left behind.

[liseff3]

In my opinion Socialism is good for us.

Of course this is true!.
Socialism is a sense of concern, sympathy and empathy between individual to another individual regardless of status. A view of life and certain societal teachings who desire control the means of production and the distribution of the products equally.

Because,capitalism is associated with unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power.So there is no chance for equal growth.In this model "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

Capitalism which means capital's the only political-economic system that tends toward the collection of individuals wealth without interference from the state nor royal laws. This mean individual from within or from outside the country is entitled to own property, industry, commerce and add to their wealth. Not surprisingly at this system will reveal gaps which are clear between the rich and the poor.
The system opposed to this ideology is socialism.

[Neutrality]

Socialism invetably leads to a totalitarian society dut to its very core, which implies the centralized decision-making and prohibition of free enterprise and entrepreneurship. These things cannot be achieved without suppression of personal freedom. As we can see on histrical examples, there was no socialistic society which attained prsoperity and didn't turn into a totalitarian state. Venezuela nowadays is perfect example of how on of the richest Latin American countries may be driven into a complete poverty where people are nearly starving to death. And all because of socialism.

[cryptohoodz]

Both have their pros and cons.

Socialism can provide a social safety net. Such as social welfare for the 'weak' ones (handicapped people, elderly people) and to provide a good pension (which can be partially carried out with commercial pension funds). The negative part of socialism is that people can get lazy if it's easy to get money from the government instead of getting a job.
Capitalism provides the foundation for economic growth; history has proven that one the main drivers of economic growth (=jobs) is from innovation, done by companies. When capitalism reigns, companies can create new products/business models which can lead to new jobs and more wealth in general. The negative side of capitalism is that people can lose their jobs if the company wants to make more profit. Another disadvantage is that if no regulation exists, companies can really get away with a lot of scams.

So I think both can be used in society for the best results; create low regulation to foster innovation, but try to create regulation to avoid big scams. In addition, don't give unemployed people welfare too easy but motivate if people go to work (lower taxes).

[hao2067755834]

Socialist one-party dictatorship is prone to corruption and human rights are not guaranteed!

The capitalist society multi-party in power, people's rights guaranteed!

[niteroy]

These are absolutely different ideologies, which have their pros and cons. Socialism collapsed, proved the lack of vitality. And all because the economy is not able to live according to plan, because it is impossible to plan the tastes and wishes of consumers, as well as scientific and technological progress. Consumer demand is selective, changeable, but it is he who is the pledge and stimulus for the development of the economy. The state plan was unable to plan the variability of demand, he was not at all able to plan basic things.

Socialism is possible only with a one-party, authoritarian system that survives only due to forcible retention of power, which means that money and resources are spent primarily on weapons and state security, as well as the army of "defenders" of the regime. Therefore, socialism is the history of a total and incessant deficit, when people can not feed even without delicacies. In the Soviet Union, even toilet paper was scarce.

In conditions of deficit, there is nothing to do with quality, therefore everything that is produced under socialism - from the point of view of reliability and strength has poor quality, practicality and ergonomics. Socialism is not in a position to plan progress - the Internet, mobile phones, artificial intelligence. All these things, moreover, expand the space of personal freedom, which can not be under socialism, because power must be retained, and for its retention freedom should be excluded. Socialism steals all progress from capitalism. Socialism tried to be born not in one Soviet Union, but in about 40 more countries - nothing happened, everything collapsed. And there, where they later took up the mind and began to build a free market and democracy, things went into growth, there was a normal development.

[StarLucas]

After researching for a few days and with the help of you fine humans, I'm liking socialism very much. It seems to be the exact opposite of what I have always thought it was.

I'm currently baffled that it has been demonized so much in the US. And also a bit ashamed that I didn't figure this out earlier.

[Tankdestroyer]

In my opinion Socialism is good for us.
Because,capitalism is associated with unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power.So there is no chance for equal growth.In this model "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
If we think like environmentalist,then capitalism requires continual economic growth and will inevitably deplete the FINITE natural resources of the earth.

Capitalism is still way better than socialism. IMO unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth is what we need to keep citizens working hard on jobs, by doing so economy.also improves. Society is more organized too when it follows capitalism, since the wealthy is the one who provides jobs, and there are also enough people to take the job.

[Hydrogen]

Socialism describes a centralized paradigm where the state owns and controls everything. This tends to be a bad arrangement as it gives governments a monopoly which leads to greater fraud, abuse and inefficiency than free markets which are incentivized by competition to be more efficient, less wasteful and more fair to consumers and the public.

Capitalism describes a decentralized paradigm where ownership and power is shared between a state and its people. Many of the advantages people have witnessed from bitcoin becoming more decentralized over time apply to capitalism. As samsung, nvidia, intel, russia and others enter the ASIC market, this application of free markets has a high potential to reduce the price of ASICs while providing far greater performance as well as other benefits. This example applies to capitalism where the competition between corporations like "intel vs AMD" or "coke vs pepsi" has a great potential to offer better terms to consumers and the public than heavily centralized abstracts like socialism where there is no competition to incentivize progress. With socialism stagnation, waste and abuse become the norms as there are no alternatives to compare centralized state ownership/management to.

[dothebeats]

There aren't any right or wrong answers in here, as both ideologies have their own flaws and uses. Socialism promotes a good wealth distribution while capitalism focuses on the people who have the means to create new products for the people in order to make more money. I for one believe that wealth distribution is good, but equal wealth distribution? That will only exist in a distant, Utopian future (if we haven't incinerate this planet into ashes by then) and is not ideal since the economy would go stale and no one would want to work anymore. There is also a high chance of the officials going berserk and corrupt. Capitalism, on the other hand, utilizes resources in order to create services or new products, which then employs manpower that works for them. Due to this, economies get stimulated, new products are created and a wider competition in the market is created, thus favoring the poor in the ultimate end.

[Hydrogen]

I wouldn't mind discussing examples commonly utilized in an effort to compare capitalism versus socialism. 

Pundits often look at healthcare in an effort to gauge capitalism vs socialism. They cite universal healthcare in europe and canada as being superior to capitalist healthcare in the united states. Its a flawed comparison. Both universal healthcare and american healthcare are monopolies and both are in dire circumstances being underfunded, extremely expensive while providing subpar care to patients. American healthcare is composed of a system of state based monopolies with it being illegal for consumers to venture out of state for coverage. Universal healthcare is a monopoly as the government is the sold provider and has no competition to incentivize industry wide innovation, lower prices or progress. They're essentially the same thing. Comparing healthcare in this manner is a flawed comparison and a poor choice for comparing socialism vs capitalism.

Pundits also often compare capitalist USA with its population of 300+ million with socialist nations like norway which only have a population of around 5 million with a population density 2-3 times lower than america. The differences in wealth distribution, health and other factors are better attributed to differences in climate, population density and overall population size than they are either capitalism or socialism. The disparity between "socialist" norway and "capitalist" america is like comparing crime rates between a rural town and a big city like new york. Its yet another flawed comparison biased in favor of promoting socialism.

A better example of socialism is NASA's Ares I rocket versus Elon Musk and Space X's Falcon Heavy rocket. NASA spent upwards of $60 billion dollars developing the Ares I and still don't have a working prototype. Space X spent $150 million to develop the Falcon Heavy. What we have here is an example of capitalism and the private sector developing the same thing socialism and NASA tried to develop at 100 times lower cost. This is the type of counter argument to socialism which should be standard in schools but for whatever reason its ignored in favor of pro socialist perspectives which never pan out.

[Komobit]

If ideas must be developed, if competition is to be encouraged, then capitalism
should be encouraged.Merit is the way to develop a society competitively. If socialism
is implemented, a lot of talents would definitely die down knowing that you are not expected
or encouraged to solely depend on personal efforts to survive.Naturally, a lot of citizens
would rest on their oars.Hence, capitalism harnesses the talents in everyone and gives the
opportunity to appreciate your good efforts after all.

About merit, I see tons of ppl yealling that you have to have your own merit so that you could be in good terms with all th things you have - that you have battled for everything in your life.

Buuuut, for example if Im a very rich doctor and my son, as a new doctor, received from me a full instaled clinic just for him, is it his merit? For a loooot of ppl he doesent deverved it. For me there is no problem in my merits being used by my son in this case. Buidilng everything was my merit and I can give its fruits to whoever I want and my son should not be critisiced for that.

There is a predominant way of seen thing that if you didint suffer before getting things it was 'easy' for you.

My son getting a full clinic does nothing to do with every personal battles that ppl need in their lifes.

[Tynovten_]

Both must be successive, both are chain that keep on related. In certain situation we must use one of it,

Capitalism to jack up economy, capitalism look as inflict the people because with this system, private companies rise the price so high for more profit. Where people sometimes not friendly in half of them. In this case, intervention of government make for as little as can to interfere the economic. Government only use profit without interfere.

In socialism, government is do the meddle, with the interfere of the government, it's for the price to be more easy on people. And in this side, it's not fully success yet because private companies sometimes use the moment here.

Good nor bad in this system just like how their comprehension in their heads.

[brontosafar]

since socialism and capitalism is a ideology of the country, it's no single answer that can answer which is better. different people have different point of view, but let me say this as an netral person. all have the pros and the cons, for example in socialism:
There is no market in a socialism economy and therefore, there is no competition. The quantity of products produced and distributed is regulated, including the price that the consumer will pay for the products. While, the capitalism is an economic and political system that is based on the principle of individual rights. It believes that it is inequality that will drive the people to be more innovative and productive.

see the difference?to conclude, i think both is good and always have pros and cons in every sector. but which is the best is depends on the citizen , the way of thinking, and the condition of the country who use that idelogy.

[uberua]

In my opinion Socialism is good for us.
Because,capitalism is associated with unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power. So there is no chance for equal growth.In this model "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
If we think like environmentalist,then capitalism requires continual economic growth and will inevitably deplete the FINITE natural resources of the earth.

Under socialism, there is a weak motivation for work and self-improvement. It does not matter whether I'm smart, or stupid - my income doesn't change significantly.
As for capitalism - everything depends on you. Everyone can achieve anything if he makes every effort

[Sithara007]

From my experience, I'd rather go with capitalism. Socialism is a failed strategy, as evident from history. None of the countries that have adopted socialism has succeeded, and the list includes North Korea, Bolivia, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Venezuela.

[squog]

If ideas must be developed, if competition is to be encouraged, then capitalism
should be encouraged.Merit is the way to develop a society competitively. If socialism
is implemented, a lot of talents would definitely die down knowing that you are not expected
or encouraged to solely depend on personal efforts to survive.Naturally, a lot of citizens
would rest on their oars.Hence, capitalism harnesses the talents in everyone and gives the
opportunity to appreciate your good efforts after all.

True. In a socialistic frame. No matter how hard you work, you will not get richer. No matter how talented you are you will not move foreward. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get ahead. So you will tend to be lazy like everyone else. Socialism is shared wealth, whereby everyone will pull in their funds and divide it equally. But what if i don't have funds to give? Socialism will work well if everybody actually works well for a single goal. We humans haven't worked for a single goal in our history.

[CCRBNews]

I always love socialism v capitalism debates on the internet which is a product of socialism.

Anyway this graph shows the historica UK debt. In 1945 the UK moved to a socialist/capitalist mixed economy. Check the effect on the debt.

From 1979 onwards it has been moving to a capitalist one. Check how the debt has changed.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_nationl_debt.php

[brontosafar]

If ideas must be developed, if competition is to be encouraged, then capitalism
should be encouraged.Merit is the way to develop a society competitively. If socialism
is implemented, a lot of talents would definitely die down knowing that you are not expected
or encouraged to solely depend on personal efforts to survive.Naturally, a lot of citizens
would rest on their oars.Hence, capitalism harnesses the talents in everyone and gives the
opportunity to appreciate your good efforts after all.

True. In a socialistic frame. No matter how hard you work, you will not get richer. No matter how talented you are you will not move foreward. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get ahead. So you will tend to be lazy like everyone else. Socialism is shared wealth, whereby everyone will pull in their funds and divide it equally. But what if i don't have funds to give? Socialism will work well if everybody actually works well for a single goal. We humans haven't worked for a single goal in our history.

yea the fact is, socialist make us to be just "ordinary people". and it will end young generation creativity, but for some people the walfare will be well distributed all over the class. or i can said that you work hard for the welfare of all citizen. for example china is very developed although he follows the socialist ideology. so it will depends on the citizen of that country itself 

[DrYe5]

If ideas must be developed, if competition is to be encouraged, then capitalism
should be encouraged.Merit is the way to develop a society competitively. If socialism
is implemented, a lot of talents would definitely die down knowing that you are not expected
or encouraged to solely depend on personal efforts to survive.Naturally, a lot of citizens
would rest on their oars.Hence, capitalism harnesses the talents in everyone and gives the
opportunity to appreciate your good efforts after all.

True. In a socialistic frame. No matter how hard you work, you will not get richer. No matter how talented you are you will not move foreward. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get ahead. So you will tend to be lazy like everyone else. Socialism is shared wealth, whereby everyone will pull in their funds and divide it equally. But what if i don't have funds to give? Socialism will work well if everybody actually works well for a single goal. We humans haven't worked for a single goal in our history.

yea the fact is, socialist make us to be just "ordinary people". and it will end young generation creativity, but for some people the walfare will be well distributed all over the class. or i can said that you work hard for the welfare of all citizen. for example china is very developed although he follows the socialist ideology. so it will depends on the citizen of that country itself 

Socialist countries are succesful Have you noticed that the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) are almost always in the top 10 best nations. They have a high standard of living, high education system, free health care, and low crime rates.

[stompix]

If ideas must be developed, if competition is to be encouraged, then capitalism
should be encouraged.Merit is the way to develop a society competitively. If socialism
is implemented, a lot of talents would definitely die down knowing that you are not expected
or encouraged to solely depend on personal efforts to survive.Naturally, a lot of citizens
would rest on their oars.Hence, capitalism harnesses the talents in everyone and gives the
opportunity to appreciate your good efforts after all.

True. In a socialistic frame. No matter how hard you work, you will not get richer. No matter how talented you are you will not move foreward. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get ahead. So you will tend to be lazy like everyone else. Socialism is shared wealth, whereby everyone will pull in their funds and divide it equally. But what if i don't have funds to give? Socialism will work well if everybody actually works well for a single goal. We humans haven't worked for a single goal in our history.

yea the fact is, socialist make us to be just "ordinary people". and it will end young generation creativity, but for some people the walfare will be well distributed all over the class. or i can said that you work hard for the welfare of all citizen. for example china is very developed although he follows the socialist ideology. so it will depends on the citizen of that country itself  

Socialist countries are succesful Have you noticed that the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) are almost always in the top 10 best nations. They have a high standard of living, high education system, free health care, and low crime rates.

None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist.
All of them are democracies, and most important capitalist countries with a free market and economy.
You're mistaken social security and welfare and socialism.

And if you still don't believe that, here is the prime minister of Denmark telling Bernie that Denmark in not a socialist country.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

The only true socialist countries are those where hunger and poverty rule.

[Palmholder]

   I personally prefer capitalism, yes it creates social segregation but people are not equal by their nature and obtained social skills. It seems to be fair for smart and strong to get success he deserves.
   Socialism limits people much, it takes away motivation to improve selfefficiency because strict rules reduce a space which good skills may be implemented to. Only successful socialism state I know is China, but who wants to be not allowed to use Google or Facebook and get internet access by ID card?

[CCRBNews]

From my experience, I'd rather go with capitalism. Socialism is a failed strategy, as evident from history. None of the countries that have adopted socialism has succeeded, and the list includes North Korea, Bolivia, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Venezuela.

All of the countries you listed are either fascist dressed up as socialist or being torn apart by America economically.

Lets have a look at the worlds best countries to live in. All of them are a socialist/capitalist mixed economy.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10/2016-worlds-happiest-countries/

[spongegar]

In essence socialism is an equal distribution of wealth. Capitalism on the other hand is a form of a merit system. Not imagine yourself in a socialist society. Now you're working hard and busting your ass off and you actually made alot of money. Now your neighbor on the other hand are lazy slobs who spends their days laying around. Now the money you earned will be distributed to them and you have nothing you say about it. In a capitalistic society if you work hard then you can have that. If your neighbor is lazy that person will not be you neighbor after a few months. I say capitalism is better.

[Divine.bc]

Between socialism and capitalism I would choose capitalism any day of the week. Socialism offers no incentive to do anything other than pick up your check. To many people would refuse to do anything any no advances would be made and to society would stagnant and eventually die.

[lmodric]

Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposed to economic thought. The central argument in the debate of socialism vs. capitalism is about economic equality and the role of government. Socialists believe that economic inequality is not good for society, and governments are responsible for reducing it through poor profitable programs such as free public education, subsidized or free health services, social security for the elderly, higher taxes for the rich. On the other hand, capitalists believe that governments do not use economic resources efficiently as private entrepreneurs do, and hence society is better off with free markets determining winners and losers economically.

[varun bee]

there are no such thing as black or white, most of the thing fall into grey areas, so a healthy mix of socialism with capitalism can be a good option, pure capitalism has its own problem whereas pure socialism has proved to be disaster in the past so mixture of both of them would serve the purpose. Pure capitalism or pure socialism has very peculiar problems which arises when either of them are applied in their fullest form. they lead to accumulation of wealth, power & drifts the already wedge between rich and poor.

[brontosafar]

If ideas must be developed, if competition is to be encouraged, then capitalism
should be encouraged.Merit is the way to develop a society competitively. If socialism
is implemented, a lot of talents would definitely die down knowing that you are not expected
or encouraged to solely depend on personal efforts to survive.Naturally, a lot of citizens
would rest on their oars.Hence, capitalism harnesses the talents in everyone and gives the
opportunity to appreciate your good efforts after all.

True. In a socialistic frame. No matter how hard you work, you will not get richer. No matter how talented you are you will not move foreward. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get ahead. So you will tend to be lazy like everyone else. Socialism is shared wealth, whereby everyone will pull in their funds and divide it equally. But what if i don't have funds to give? Socialism will work well if everybody actually works well for a single goal. We humans haven't worked for a single goal in our history.

yea the fact is, socialist make us to be just "ordinary people". and it will end young generation creativity, but for some people the walfare will be well distributed all over the class. or i can said that you work hard for the welfare of all citizen. for example china is very developed although he follows the socialist ideology. so it will depends on the citizen of that country itself  

Socialist countries are succesful Have you noticed that the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) are almost always in the top 10 best nations. They have a high standard of living, high education system, free health care, and low crime rates.

None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist.
All of them are democracies, and most important capitalist countries with a free market and economy.
You're mistaken social security and welfare and socialism.

And if you still don't believe that, here is the prime minister of Denmark telling Bernie that Denmark in not a socialist country.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

The only true socialist countries are those where hunger and poverty rule.

wow thanks for the information, i haven't hear about that before. but im not in any side neither capitalism nor socialism. i just said that both always have pros and cons, and the way of thinking of the citizen itself that can make the cons in other mind to be the pros in their mind 

[criza]

All of the things in this world, if taken into extremes, would be not good for all of us --- just like socialism and capitalism. Both ideologies do have pros and cons. For socialism, it advocates for equal and fair distribution of resources for the society to grow simultaneously. It provides what people need in order for them not to be left behind. On the other hand, capitalism pushes a healthy competition for us to grow. It paves way for a development through giving people what they deserve. But if I were to choose between the two, I would pick capitalism but with a mix of socialism. Because I do believe that people should not be stagnant and complacent and should strive more for them to develop more through a healthy competition. However, we must not forget people who are in the bottom pf the society. Because there is nothing more that fulfilling than to see all of you grow.

[ololesia]

I prefer capitalism because I think that socialism is an ideology for adolescent people. There are many pros of capitalism:

1. Resources are used as efficiently as possible.
2. Production is adjusted to the needs of the market.
3. There is a constant improvement of the ways of management and organization, introducing new technologies, creating innovative products.
4. There is a motivation to improve skills, to work productively.
5. Both the consumer and the producer are free to choose what to buy and what to produce.
6. Commodity abundance. There is no shortage, there are no queues, you can buy any product almost anywhere.

[SkyFlakes]

Socialism involves equal distribution of wealth while Capitalism is somehow what you do is what you get. I must say that the one that is good for us is the Capitalism. Through that, equality can be achieved as when you worked hard, you will be paid off and if you don't, then you also don't have to get from it. It is not being selfish, it is being fair on everyone. We all should do something for our lives and we are the one who should lift our life not anyone in the society. People in the lowest part of the society should be helped but not in the way that they will not do something for their own. Maybe that's the reason why I prefer Capitalism over Socialism.

[MinarchistCoin]

Capitalism is a voluntary system.

Socialism requires force.

You choose Force? Why?

[KingScorpio]

In my opinion Socialism is good for us.
Because,capitalism is associated with unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power.So there is no chance for equal growth.In this model "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
If we think like environmentalist,then capitalism requires continual economic growth and will inevitably deplete the FINITE natural resources of the earth.

jes ehm modern capitalism that the usa spreads is a neofeudal form of capitalism where the rich own income sources and the poor are forced to sell their times.

this system will never end as the rich always try to secure their position better and better.

[Sithara007]

Capitalism is a voluntary system.

Socialism requires force.

You choose Force? Why?

Socialism is meant for the lazy people, who want to live off others hard work. The problem with socialism is that as the system progresses, we will be having less and less hard-working people with every passing year. Such people will either emigrate to other countries, or stop working altogether.

[Chusnul]

Socialism is better for the economy as it implies an economy that is watched closely by those in charge and is manipulated to be at it's peak at all times. On the other end of the spectrum, Capitalism is better for the individual as it allows the individual to do what they want with their life without government interference and allows for maximum happiness. Overall, which is better depends on whether you value the economy or the individual more.

[joebrook]

In my opinion Socialism is good for us.
Because,capitalism is associated with unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power.So there is no chance for equal growth.In this model "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
If we think like environmentalist,then capitalism requires continual economic growth and will inevitably deplete the FINITE natural resources of the earth.

But with socialism everyone has the chance of creating wealth for themselves and i will not say that Capitalism is associated with the unfair distribution of wealth because i have seen people without a dime make an unimaginable fortune but the same cannot be said about socialism.

[popcorn1]

Capitalism the few benefit < The rich get richer until they suck it all up collapsing the currency ..

Socialism the many get by < Borrow high taxes until it's all gone then it collapses ..

communism everyone the same < A trained pilot on the same as an unskilled bin man in the end it collapses
because why should i train and learn and be on the same as someone who doesn't ..

None of the 3 can survive all on their own ..
Need to mix all 3 for the world to keep turning ..

A universal income for everyone will make this planet way way better just the greedy who have it all cannot see this because they love people being DOWN ..

10k starting point to live every year when we reach 21 years old ..
10k doesn't make you rich just helps for the domestic things in life so we can find better jobs or even do a job for £20 extra a day plus your 10k  makes life so much better ..

Yes but it's OK for a POLITICIAN to be on 100k for talking complete bullshit..

Some of those MPs have been put there by parents ..KINNOCK robbing scum ..

[lockes007]

socialism vrs. capitalism
The 21st century is dominated by free trade and multinational corporations who are principal agents who produce and goods and services. This gives us (consumers) a variety of goods and services to choose from for satisfaction which allows for the efficient operation of the forces of demand. Contrary to Socialism which has the central government at the heart of the economic affairs.This limits consumers freedom to trade and choice of goods and services to consume. Capitalism has government afraid of their increasingly reduction of sovereignty.This is evident in the initial rejection  of  the cryptocurrency by the world governing bodies . So I would like to ask anyone regardless of their predisposition, which do you prefer, a system of freedom of choice  or one of constant interference and scrutiny by the government? PONDER OVER THIS

[popcorn1]

socialism vrs. capitalism
The 21st century is dominated by free trade and multinational corporations who are principal agents who produce and goods and services. This gives us (consumers) a variety of goods and services to choose from for satisfaction which allows for the efficient operation of the forces of demand. Contrary to Socialism which has the central government at the heart of the economic affairs.This limits consumers freedom to trade and choice of goods and services to consume. Capitalism has government afraid of their increasingly reduction of sovereignty.This is evident in the initial rejection  of  the cryptocurrency by the world governing bodies . So I would like to ask anyone regardless of their predisposition, which do you prefer, a system of freedom of choice  or one of constant interference and scrutiny by the government? PONDER OVER THIS

You cannot have free choice        no such thing unless you want chaos ..

I want laws made by elected people who know what they talk about ..
Not some unelected bullshit talker who promises you the world then turns out to be a scumbag political
bum thief ..

Freedom of choice is i will kill you and take your monies   WHY NOT?  it's my free choice?..

Now everyone PONDER OVER THAT

[popcorn1]

Lets do some more FREE WILL   FREE CHOICE ..

1,200 people are killed each year over sneakers — Quartz
https://qz.com/554784/1200-people-are-killed-each-year-over-sneakers/
20 Nov 2015 - And while each fatal incident may seem like a freak occurrence, sneaker-motivated deaths can mount over time. An estimated 1,200 people die over sneakers every year, according to a video posted Nov. 14 by GQ magazine. ... In particular, critics have accused basketball legend Michael ...

I feel a SONG COMING..

Fluffy clouds and candy floss makes the world feel boss
fluffy clouds and candy floss
fluffy clouds and candy floss

If only the world was fluffy clouds and candy floss
we would all feel really really boss


I will finish the rest of the song when the world turns to fluffy clouds and candy floss td whiles the world then maybe we can have free choice  when we have fluffy clouds and candy floss..

And whiles the world turns into a capitalism globe we will expect many more dying for someone else stinky trainers < Shot in the head for STINKY TRAINERS ..

So ENJOY this FREE CHOICE because it sure does sound very crazy..< shoot you for trainers < Free choice.

No but i am well off and that's not right?..

Trading Places - "Winthorpe As Santa - (HD) - Scenes from the 80s ...
Video for trading places christmas scene▶ 0:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykqq6ZSyFGU
22 Jan 2016 - Uploaded by Scenes From the 80s
Trading Places - "Winthorpe As Santa - (HD) - Scenes from the 80s - (1983) ... Winthorpe has just left the ..

[xbrain]

for me, both system are not ok. capitalism will promote inequality while socialism will promote popularity without distribution of wealth equally

[KingScorpio]

In my opinion Socialism is good for us.
Because,capitalism is associated with unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power.So there is no chance for equal growth.In this model "rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
If we think like environmentalist,then capitalism requires continual economic growth and will inevitably deplete the FINITE natural resources of the earth.

you need both, a capitalism with sufficient socialism inside,

it will nevertheless create a wealth and power parity with few holding a lot of power and many holding nothing but at least a bigger portion of the population will be able to develop educated skills and will look much less like illiterate money earning cattle like in afghanistan/pakistan.

[morufu2016]

Socialism is good for us because, capitalism allows the rich to remove money from the economy, making the quality of life for everyone else worse. While socialism takes the excess that people do not need, and gives it to those who do.

[Mojo2012]

I’ve read alot of different opinions in this thread and it happened waht always happens. People start talking about a word they think has a clear meaning but actually has not.
Before we keep talking we should actually define what ‚socialism‘ means to you.

Socialism in the way marx though about: a basic democratic socienty whre everyome has the chance to persue his or her personal ideas.
Socialism ‚soviet style‘ (ignoring mhalf of marxs‘ texts): actually a better suited word for it is ‚stalinism‘ a oligarchy/dictatorship under the proclaimed ideals of socialism. The people are oppressed to fulfill ome or a few men‘s ideas. Individualization is suppressed.
Social-democratic countries like austria: free markets but heavily regulated to reduce the negative effects of capitalsm (like the rich getting richer) but harmess its potentials, like free persuit of ideas.

I personally would love to see a real socials/marxis society to be created. Aworld where I can live my dreams free from the need to make money.
Realistically a social-democratic socienty is the best way to live. It‘s easy to implement in short terms.

[silent_jay]

Socialism, but with the help of an comprehensive computer system for economic planning and without any kind of dictatorship. The problem is, that socialism is impossible in a certain country, as it is a threat for capitalism in the others.

[Moana]

Capitalism has already failed. There is no true concurrence any more. Corporations are the new dictators, and they have no mercy. I guess that a socialistic society is the lesser of the evils. Capitalism is about money and gadgets, socialism is about humans.

[coolcoinz]

Socialism is good for us because, capitalism allows the rich to remove money from the economy, making the quality of life for everyone else worse. While socialism takes the excess that people do not need, and gives it to those who do.

And socialism wants the rich to pay for the poor's inability to work, laziness, and everything else. It creates a society where you are afraid to set up a business and make a lot of money to fuel the economy and give jobs because the more you will make the more taxes will await you. And the majority will be given for free so that the poor can learn to rely on the state and vote to keep everything going.

Politicians get elected by the majority which in most countries are the poor >>> they give money to the poor and take it from the rich >>> get elected again. But this has a huge flaw. The rich may one day decide they don't want to live in a country that steals from them and move somewhere else. France serves as an example.

[KingScorpio]

Capitalism has already failed. There is no true concurrence any more. Corporations are the new dictators, and they have no mercy. I guess that a socialistic society is the lesser of the evils. Capitalism is about money and gadgets, socialism is about humans.

capitlism failed multiple times, last time it failed was, just before the holocaust,

now i am afriad capitalism will fail again, because everyone wants to create cryptocurrencies and find money earning cattle that work for it.

[eddie13]

A step towards socialism is a step towards genocide..

[3acaga]

I am now 41 years old and I have lived almost 15 years in socialism (Ukraine).
And this is what I will answer you:
Socialism is a system in which all are equal, and you can not translate your ideas and dreams into reality if it is not accepted by the rules for all.
Capitalism - always gives a chance to a person to do what he likes and choose his life according to his personal taste.
There are many good things that I remember from socialism, but I do not want to go back there !!!

[popcorn1]

Capitalism is Superior Competition between private owners of production creates lower prices, greater efficiency, and improved quality. People are motivated to do their best when they see the results of their effort. Capitalism aligns the incentives, and people thus are motivated to work hard and overall help the economy. People have economic liberty. Socialism removes these incentives, if John works twice as hard for the commune, he doesn't see another dime. In Capitalism, John would benefit from his work.

Capitalism has lifted far more people out of poverty, and raised standards of living higher than any other economic system. The evolutionary force of the market inspires innovation and ingenuity. Over time, this system ensures economic liberty, prosperity, and human progress.

Some don't talk to newbies  BUT this involves everyone  so lets break it down what you had to say..

Capitalism aligns the incentives, and people thus are motivated to work hard and overall help the economy..
Everyone has to capitalise or how do you socialise ?..The difference is when you capitalise do you share the profits or do you let people keep them all?..

So who pays for police army roads trains hospitals schools ..
Now the point is you could privatise it all?   You have toll roads on every 1 mile?  less money out your wages well you need to pay for roads..

Police privatise the police?    Then you won't get protected if you get something stolen or attacked because you never paid your monthly police bill  plus what other things will a private police company do ?   meaning even more gone out your wages..

Hospitals privatised most cannot afford the insurance now in the USA so millions have no medical aid basically die you never paid  so paying medical insurance means even more gone out your wages ..


A home how much does that cost to get a mortgage   so because of low paid high costing plus all things private your paying just to live and get by ..

And this is why so many will take a risk at doing some crime to be rich   factory job dead end job that leads to nowhere ..

See ok if your from another country and your countries wages was low   It's like me from the UK going to DUBAI and getting a factory job for 1,500 a week for a factory worker   I can send loads back home and my family would benefit ..


You can have a choice ..IMAGINE for 1 minute  you have 100 people ?..

Now if 10 are rich and 20 are doing ok  BUT 70 are doing really bad  what would you rather live in because 70 people are going crazy in your 100 people village..

Now imagine 3 was rich and 70 was doing good and 27 was really poor then only 27 people going crazy in your 100 people village ..
And that is SOCIALISM^^^^^^^^^

So imagine an overall population of millions the less that are poor the less crazyness FACT..

Do you know the cost to the tax man because of poverty cost more than just saying here their is 10k a year..

1 POOR PERSON CAN COST MORE THAN 10K IN CRIMINAL DAMGE ..the law cost police cost all cost more than just saying here you go 10k every year and go and find a job and you still keep your 10k...Where does it come from?   DIDGETS ON A SCREEN  same as what the bank does ..

You YANKS are 20 trillion in debt so where is your capitalism ..  Borrowing off someone else future children is not CAPITLISM it's borrowing ..


I say a UNIVERSAL INCOME a starting point of 10k every year till we die    we all get it no matter how rich we become  we still get it ..

So how did people make a crypto token    money out of thin air    all the erc20 tokens  money out of thin air ..

OK for a UNIVERSAL INCOME   i will give everyone 10k and borrow it all on the strength of me finding a planet fall of gold ..
Well it's the same as some devs promises   and you invented free money out of thin air..

[Ava Duvall]

As i learned socialism is only good in theory. when applied to a real life society it doesn't work out,  capitalism has proved to work in  a society although not perfect but  much better than socialism

[Dominic_Johnson]

I think that many governments of wealthy countries had a bit of a mix of socialism and capitalism. People are allowed to own capital, but it is very limited. In those societies people can get rich, but they pay a big price for it. Some countries have more than 50% income tax once you start making a lot of money. These people can still keep earning more and more money, but as they do so they are also putting tons of it back into the society. This allows the government to share more of the wealth among its citizens. Hardcore capitalists are usually against such heavy taxation. Capitalism is more individualistic, while socialism thinks more about the welfare of everybody.

[milkiWay45]

Capitalism has already failed. There is no true concurrence any more. Corporations are the new dictators, and they have no mercy. I guess that a socialistic society is the lesser of the evils. Capitalism is about money and gadgets, socialism is about humans.

capitlism failed multiple times, last time it failed was, just before the holocaust,

now i am afriad capitalism will fail again, because everyone wants to create cryptocurrencies and find money earning cattle that work for it.

Capitalism didn't fail in the Weimar Republic. Capitalism as it is implies that governments do not intervene in the economy by any means. While the hyperinflation in Weimar Republic was caused exactly by governmental inrventions and uncontrolled printing of money.

[MileyPeardon]

Capitalism. Not only because there hasn't been a model of socialism that isn't a utopia, but also because capitalism is functioning well for many. Aspects of both are needed for the perfect world, but in our world today I am happy with capitalism.

[Dominic_Johnson]

Capitalism. Not only because there hasn't been a model of socialism that isn't a utopia, but also because capitalism is functioning well for many. Aspects of both are needed for the perfect world, but in our world today I am happy with capitalism.

Wikipedia defines "utopia" as "an imagined community or society that possesses highly desirable or nearly perfect qualities for its citizens." Isn't that actually a good thing? I guess the problem is that it seems we haven't been able to implement one of those perfect imagined communities in real life yet.

I think capitalism is always great for the people on top. The rich get richer, as they saw. I do think though, in a society with limited amounts of corruption, there is always opportunity. I think that no matter what your origins are, in capitalism, you can always go up if you go about it smartly.

[Adecrypt83]

Finding a middle ground between socialism and capitalism will good for the society. Innovation moves the economy forward. Growth is important in the global economy for a country to stay competitive and to be able to deliver in its budgets. Equality is important for people’s well-being and for the economy’s ability to grow. Social mobility is important because it means that you can be born in poverty and die in wealth, and reverse, depending on how hard you work.

[celtic99]

Capitalism concentrates the majority of wealth at the top.  In America wages have barely moved while housing has risen drastically.  There is a major homeless problem across the world.  I'm not advocating for complete communism but a universal basic income would be a great start.

[Panetymerni]

Capitalism is way better. Every single person has an equal possibility to conquer on the free market with the best and cheapest product. That way the whole society benefits.

[xbrain]

in my opinion, the best between socialism and capitalism is still a mixture of both.

[BADecker]

How One Deleted Scene Turns Star Wars into a Struggle against Socialism

In the era of Disney, many long-time Star Wars fans have bemoaned the supposed infiltration of their favorite franchise by leftist ideology. 

At first, I rolled my eyes at these objections, many of which remain patently absurd. But after Solo: A Star Wars Story gave us a shrill SJW droid hooking up with a pansexual Lando Calrissian, I had to admit that some critics might have a point. 

This wasn't always the case, though. In fact, one of the deleted scenes included in the 2011 Star Wars Blu-Ray collection explicitly connects the evil Galactic Empire with the socialist economic policies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Luke & Biggs - Star Wars DELETED Scene (IMPROVED)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7NVb0OCD5g


Read more at https://fee.org/articles/how-one-deleted-scene-turns-star-wars-into-a-struggle-against-socialism/.

[KingScorpio]

Capitalism has already failed. There is no true concurrence any more. Corporations are the new dictators, and they have no mercy. I guess that a socialistic society is the lesser of the evils. Capitalism is about money and gadgets, socialism is about humans.

capitlism failed multiple times, last time it failed was, just before the holocaust,

now i am afriad capitalism will fail again, because everyone wants to create cryptocurrencies and find money earning cattle that work for it.

Capitalism didn't fail in the Weimar Republic. Capitalism as it is implies that governments do not intervene in the economy by any means. While the hyperinflation in Weimar Republic was caused exactly by governmental inrventions and uncontrolled printing of money.

capitalism creates governments sooner or later, just observe the current cryptochaos people sooner or later will desire a solution for that

[hondapond]

Unregulated Capitalism is so beautiful, A world where Jeff Bezos is worth $150 billion while others are living on $1 a day.

It's so beautiful that owners can extract as much wealth as possible from their workers while paying them peanuts, all hail capitalism.

[aff]

I'm more curious what happens after robots and automation take over. How will capitalism survive when there are no jobs left?

The only capitalism left will be mega corporations that control all the robots.

[celtic99]

I'm more curious what happens after robots and automation take over. How will capitalism survive when there are no jobs left?

They will be forced to implement a universal basic income or else there will be mass rioting and citizens will overthrow the government.

[BADecker]

I'm more curious what happens after robots and automation take over. How will capitalism survive when there are no jobs left?

The only capitalism left will be mega corporations that control all the robots.

In order to maintain capitalism among themselves - since all the poor people will have starved to death because they can't pay for robot-produced goods - big corporation controllers will start capitalism among their robots... between big corporations. It will become like the early years of Solaria in Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Earth.