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.

[1714854546]

1714854546

[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.