Has It Been Proven that "Capitalism" Works Better Than "Socialism"?

DKG writes:

So you do not want anyone on your socialist blog to hear about capitalism because they may change their mind and realize it works much better than socialism.

It depends on what you value whether you think that one works better than the other. There’s no empirical value in your statement, which is why economics is a social science, and a particularly dismal and non-empirical one that.
Radical neoliberal free market capitalism doesn’t “work better” than socialism, at least not in my book anyway. I believe in survival. Radical capitalism doesn’t allow people to survive. I am against that. What it boils down to is that I will always support a system that allows people to survive (socialism) against a system that doesn’t (radical free market socialism). So to me security > wealth. You’re free to differ.
Many varieties of socialism have been 100% proven to be better for workers than radical free market capitalism. I also believe in a strong safety net. Your argument is that zero safety net works better than a strong safety net. Well, as one who supports a strong safety net, I just don’t agree with that.
My definition of socialism includes social democracy.
We have basically centuries of evidence that radical free market capitalism is catastrophic to working people. We can go all the way back to the 1800’s and even further back to the fencing off of the Commons in England if you like.
The debate is settled. It’s over. Radical free market capitalism is a disaster. If you ask me, it doesn’t work. I drive around my town and see countless homeless people wandering the streets every day in one of the richest countries on Earth. Now to me that is not a system that is “working better,” sorry. Don’t buy it.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

19 thoughts on “Has It Been Proven that "Capitalism" Works Better Than "Socialism"?”

  1. It boils down to what the majority want. Do they want to live in a country where the Federal Government controls and administers social justice and safety blankets.
    I struggle with this everyday because we are a country of mostly compassionate people who want to see everybody get a fair shot. We also want freedom and the ability to be individualistic.
    With this in mind those seeking a socialist or communist style are in the minority. History has not been kind to these experiments and the reason is man always is susceptible to power and money. Socialist style government make it easier to control people and power by handicapping anybody wanting to be more than average.
    Americans like a Democratic society that decentralizes power which is what the founding fathers wanted. Problem is we have managed to centralize what shouldn’t be centralized by making Washington DC the center of power and control.
    That’s why the future looks shaky because States are going to try and move that power back to more local control and this is where I think we are in for trouble.

    1. As far as Communism goes, you may have a point that history has not been kind to it. But even that judgement is somewhat up in the air as it depends on what you want. After all, Cubans live longer than we do, and their health and education figures are some of the best in Latin America. Everyone has a roof over their heads, a job, access to transportation and culture, a TV, a radio, a refrigerator, and all education is free through the graduate level.
      As far as many types of socialism are concerned, the record shows that these are the some of finest systems that man has ever created. They are hardly deficient in any way whatsoever as far as I can tell.
      And the record is clear that certain types of socialism are simply better for workers, period. They are not as good for business owners and owners of capital (the bosses), it is true. But the system is not designed for them.

  2. The theory is good but it still depends on the elite who control the strings. Cuba is an example where the workers are content but those who seek freedom and the ability to be control their own destiny flee the country or try to escape from it’s control..

    1. That’s true, Cuba lacks a lot of freedoms and you don’t exactly have the ability to control your own destiny. Personally, I think the Cuban system has a lot of problems…

      1. Robert why don’T you cover the problem with Indians and Ethnic Problems that were Developing in that Lavatory
        India a degenerate Shithole is again boiling but indian government is trying to cover up everything
        When do you think that shithole will explode?
        Till how long the world has to see these degenerate people living Feeding on other nations

  3. It’s generally argued that Capitalism is a reliable engine for generating wealth whereas socialism is great for spreading that wealth around. Not every country that generates wealth is a first world country, that distinction is can be achieved through a higher standard of living via socialism. Lee Kwan Yew had explicitly stated that Socialism might only be implemented after capitalism does its job generating wealth.

    1. That makes alot of sense. As long as capitalism is properly regulated by the government, it seems the best way to generate wealth which can then be utilized for the benefit of the people. As long as the ruling body allows the captialists to keep a profit, but not without limits, I think socialized services combined with a regulated capitalist economy is potentially the best of all systems. That’s social democracy in a nutshell, isn’t it? Works for me.

      1. Take Bangladesh for example. The BBC reports that the government is investing in the ship building industry. Since 2008 Bangladesh has earned about $500 million from exporting small ferry type vessels to Europe. While investing in education and healthcare is vital, for now investing in ship building would be more worthwhile than investing in pension plans, retirement funds, safety nets and welfare cheques. Investing in industry will generate thousands of jobs. In time the government might then extend social spending through the programs I listed above.

      1. Yew was always a Marxist and he admits this in his autobiography. He just realized that a socialist economy wouldn’t generate wealth as quickly as a capitalist one. This was his main reason for adopting Neo Liberalism. That being said, the PAP has certain concrete socialist programs in place today, which include Singapore’s famous public housing. Yew believes in targeted socialist programs which are implemented to help the very needy, while still keeping taxes to a business friendly low. It’s a very carefully calibrated system which owes its uniqueness to the peculiar cultural and geographic variables that make up the Island state. I doubt many countries would be able to replicate this model. Dubai tried but failed due to cultural reasons.

  4. Actually capitalism is inherently unstable and flawed.The returns to capital are always much greater than returns to labour ,that plus compound interest means uncontrolled capitalism will create very skewed wealth distribution within a generation.
    The much touted social market economy is an aberation which addresses the symptoms not the cause.It involves the best and brightest 5% to voluntarily giving up 70%+ of their income in direct and indirect taxes.This is inherently unstable as in the absense of an existential threat like Nazi Germany or an ascendant communism the best and brightest will naturaly over time find ways to chip away at this state of affairs.In the US social market economy worked through WW2 and the cold war but as soon as the cold war ended the natural propensity of the best and brightest to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses surfaced again.
    Even now if Obama gets reelected and a social market economy ala 1950s is reintroduced I will give the system 10 years till the elites start chipping away at it again.

  5. With all these examples you have listed it still boils down to who the people are in control. If the people are fair and open minded individuals who want to see everything run by the book then these systems ca work in theory.
    The big problem is power is corrupting and when a socialist system gets corrupt people running it then it becomes an oppressive form of governance.

        1. You are from Greece, the country that was just completely destroyed by capitalism, and you are pitching this Libertarian bullshit.
          Sheesh, not only are you a reactionary, but you’re also retarded.
          You’re also banned.
          HAND!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.