Look at past systems that have tried to implement socialism, it simply. Does. Not. Work.
With capitalism it IS the consumers choice to buy what they want, and when the consumers are unhappy the companies will lower their prices and create products that fit the consumers' needs. How is this not logical and doesn't work? Answer: none.
This is the definition of socialism:an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production level. In this type of society there is no reason to work and excel at anything.If everybody gets the same thing why would anyone want to work hard and we already have that problem here in America. When there is an absence of competition things that are produced are mediocre at best. We do have some socialist aspects here, public schools, social security, public roads, public military, Medicare, Unemployment benefits etc.. There are recessions in socialist economies just look at Spain so disregard Kaynex's statement on that.
The main problem I have with it is that it only works in theory. Time and time again it has been implemented and it doesn't work out alright in the end. Capitalism has little flaws of it's own, but I can tell you right now it is pretty darn near perfect compared to anything else, especially socialism.
People like myself who have worked their entire life do not want 60% of their income going to some black lady, with 8 kids, or some government workers vacation. We want the freedom to work hard and prosper. Unfortunately, when lazy minorities, become the lazy majority, (as the left wants) these chances may be taken away.
This question is easy to answer I'm no libertarian ideologue, and there are many problems with unfettered capitalism,but socialism is worse. It has been a historical disaster. Look at the economies of Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela,and the former Soviet Union, among others. Long lines for food and other items, rationing, corruption, etc. Government does some things well, and it does a lot of things poorly. Under socialism society gets the bad with the good.
I have a right to my life, liberty and property. Socialism takes away all but my life in the name of the people. It also really ruins the incentives. For example, If I was a farmer and most of my crops were going to be taken from me to be distributed among the people, I would hide some of them or I wouldn't try as hard to grow them. Why should I work hard when my neighbor, joe, isn't? Why do we both get the same amount of food? It is unfair, it doesn't reward those that work hard, it rewards the slackers. Just look at the rights of man and how wrong things could go with the reversed incentives.
Ignoring the historic record of atrocities occurring under socialist regimes, a larger question is on the issue of how will resources be allocated under a socialist regime, even if it is benevolent. Under capitalism, resources tend to be allocated efficiently as prices tend to gravitate (due to competition) to where the market clears, under which the marginal cost (which can be represented by supply) is equal to marginal utility (demand), or in other words where resources are allocated most efficiently. Granted, their are occasional exceptions with monopolies, monopsonies, externalities, information asymmetries, uneven pooling of risk, human irrationalities and transaction costs, but in general these are occasions in which occurrence is not so common.
However, under any type of institutionalised planning (socialism), whether it be undertaken in the name of the government or the community, a single body will have to unilaterally gather and process all the information on individuals utility and desires, as well as gather and process all the information on costs and calculate exactly what the allocation of resources should be to reach maximum efficiency. After that, they must enforce it and do all this with minimum bureaucracy and little corruption. I think that it should be clear that this is infeasible and impractical.
I don't see how people can be so stupid and ignorant as to even suggest socialism or communism. The proof is in the pudding. Where things are provided without working hard bad products are produced. Native canadians and americans live much better lives outside of the reserve. Also giving handouts just perpetuates unproductive behaviour. People who take welfare checks never improve. It seems to me the only people in favor of it are people wanting cash for simply existing. The people who don't work hard or contribute want a check from government plain and simple and don't give a hoot about production or quality. Talk to the protesters who are in favor of it and ask them what they do for a living.
Socialism is awful, The whole thing has failed before many many times. Socialism and Communism are basically the same thing. There is hardly and difference between them. Communism killed millions of people and has ruined countries economically. Capitalism may suck but its honestly the best thing there is out there.
In socialism there is no ambition, freedom, prosperity, innovation, Individualism,advancement, creativity, luxury,or fairness. It takes away people's ambitions and dreams there are no rich to create jobs. Only depretion, lack of food. It holds society back. Also under socialism new music and art that we love gone. Capatilism for ever
There have been people who always say that socialism and communism is bad as its leaders have killed thousands of people. But this shows they know nothing about it. Karl Marx and Engels's socialism hasnt been actually put to test. What we have seen in case of Stalin and Mao arent communism but dictatorship hidden behind it. Marx had said that communism has through people's choics which didnt happen there. Also communism hates one man show. So you cant yet say its good or bad.
Before saying anything, I want to note that the only socialist mass-murder in the picture is Mao. Stalin and Hitler led fascist governments, which have nothing in common with socialist governments. The picture is misleading.
Anyway, I do not condone many of China's practices, but they do have one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and will overtake the United States. There are no recessions under socialism. Those who say that the economy fails under socialism are wrong; the economy is what socialism does best.
The biggest problem with socialism is politics. People take advantage of the government, silence the media, and damage the country. Capitalism is better here, since people have more control over the government.
If computers, and not people, could control the government, socialism would be the best government out there. I predict that this may one day happen.
The communist manifesto is pretty considered the rules and instructions from communism (and socialism is essentially the same with money and a couple changes). No where in the manifesto does it say to kill or discriminate; It's quite the opposite. Also, both are defined as political ideals, meaning they pertain to political and administrative structure only. Even if you didn't follow the manifesto, both aren't remotely connected to the common misunderstandings: racism, mass murder, DICTATORSHIP etc. And through the course of history, we can clearly see a desire for equalization between social classes. How much more does society need to scream before communism and socialism are acknowledged as what the people want. And a state like that with fair rights, and a rich happy populace would work perfectly as long as democracy is retained.
Hitler didn't actually kill 6 million Jews and there were no gas chambers (If you want to do your research on that go ahead). And he didn't try to start wars and kill people he just wanted to rid Europe of the Jews and "The Red Pest". So Hitler was a Socialist and was responsible for many deaths, he still was very good.
Many people say that socialism is a bad idea and they take the soviet union or china as examples. I think that these countries only claimed to be socialist/communist but in realty their governments were just monarchies basically. It's like when North Korea calls itself a "democratic" country even though everyone knows that that is not the case.
But if we try REAL socialism I think it would work, especially if you throw automation in it.
The reality is that socialism is required; in the world mixed economies generally have more socialist propositions than capitalist ones regardless of those who decry the systems even though they directly benefit from such systems. For instance having a community run Fire Department is actually a socialist idea, taxes in general are pretty much used for socialist services, and conceptually speaking socialism is one of then more natural economies for those who acknowledge that humans are a social species.
First of all don't ask a loaded question, you don't know anything about it if you think China and Soviet Russia were Socialist. Those were Communist countries and there is a big difference. Second you try to sell your misconception through exploiting fear and hatred. Im not going to comment on Communism since this is a post about Socialism. Social Security, community colleges, and unemployment are socialist programs. It simply means there are state owned (although not exclusive public options) for services. In Europe and Canada it takes the form of public medicine--what Americans attempted here, but could never secure because of a cynical tide against an exaggerated freeloader problem. However the supposed counterbalance to Socialism is unfettered capialism. Capialism is the theory that might makes right and might comes in the form of capial. Kind of, actually this is a cynical outlook as well. In reality capitalism is the idea that (regulated or unregulated by goverenment) the overall free market will respond to events and return to some sort of stability after the event (bull or bear) comes to a close. In other words businesses and nations will face good phases and bad spells, but will get through them--and not the idea the best companies will survive (which is a corrupted form of Darwin's theory of evolution). In other words Socialism works and its intent is not to simply to combat casualties of events, but to try to insulate people from devastaing hard times.
Ideas like single-payer healthcare, minimum wage, free education and other aspects of a social democracy have successfully been implemented in Europe. These ideas do not hurt the market. Free college education gives a more educated workforce and less people in debt. Minimum wage creates less poverty and happier workers. Some might argue the minimum wage raises costs, but the people getting paid higher minimum wage now have more money to spend and benefit the economy. A single payer system makes ALMOST EVERYONE pay less for healthcare then they would have before. It also guarantees treatment no matter what you make. Their is still some class difference, incentive to work, and higher quality goods then both a total free market or a communism. Social democratic nations like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany and Switzerland have some of the highest per capita GDP in the world, wealth equality, and highest happiness index in the world.
The U.S.A.Loves socialism and they dont even know it. I loved the tea bagger who held up a sign saying keep your Govt. Hands off of my Medicare. The people in Denmark and Finland report to be among the most happy in the world. Bernie Sanders in 2016! Raise the marginal tax rate on millionaires and billionaires.
What other options are there. Poor people and capitalism is comparable to bleeding children in a piranha tank. Then there is communism, and well it's communism. Socialism may not be the best for the rich, but overall it helps most everyone. The main issue with capitalism is that rich people stay rich, and the poor people don't have many opportunities to improve.