Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Capitalism is better than socialism? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Capitalism or Socialism
    Capitalism is the way forward
    36
    45.57%
    Socialism is the way forward
    11
    13.92%
    Im not sure
    0
    0%
    Somewhere between the two?
    32
    40.51%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The market is orders of magnitude superior to government when it comes to allocating resources albeit it is best moderated by elements of social democracy to correct market failures. The markets greatest strength is that human nature is based upon satisfying self interest while its biggest weakness is that it peruses efficiency at all costs and is somewhat inhumane (hence it works very well when moderated slightly).



    Socialism is based around the notion that government can dictate supply and demand via a command economy. History has proven time and again that government is too slow or just plain wrong in its assessment of what needs allocating and where and which course of action is best. In China in the 60's Mao ordered x tonnes of steel to be produced and his people starved for it because to produce that amount, they sacrificed food production. The market on the other hand produces price signals so what when demand outweighs supply the price increases and there is an incentive for both new firms to enter the market and existing firms to produce more. This is why typically we have enough steel and food versus the China situation at the time.

    Modern socialists decry the USSR and China as examples but in actuality most modern socialists have simply engaged in a marketing exercise and are essentially extreme social democrats rather than socialists.

    Communist countries are those which go a step further and prohibit private ownership (state distribution keeps them fed and housed ect..), Cuba until 2006 was one such example. The problem here is that without property rights that are defined and enforced, there's no incentive to innovate. Why would i create a new and improved engine if far from being able to sell it, you (the state) will steal it from me and copy it.
    It is also true that without the government providing welfare, some kind of compensation for a risk taken that went wrong, there will be little incentive to innovate, because people will be more concerned with keeping their heads above the water line.

    Anything that makes life hard for ordinary people will suppress innovation - they will spend more energy on making ends meet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Modern democracy is less about ideology than it's about vested interests. You're not so much voting for a person, or the ideology they claim to subscribe to: You're voting for the people who paid them, or will pay them when they leave office.

    I think back in the 60s or something ideology was more of a thing, these days politicians and their friends more or less know what the game is, and how it is played, it's just a case of getting a slightly better deal for themselves and their friends.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    Compare the success of Hong Kong with the USSR. I think it definitively proves that free market is more successful with minimal government intervention.
    USSR failed because it was impossible to allocate resources efficiently and living standards plummeted.
    Plummeted from what, and when?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Plummeted from what, and when?
    Living standards plummeted, it was really always bad but went even worse as the arms race had drained the Soviet economy. Roughly during the 70s,80s, before the USSR collapsed
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    Living standards plummeted, it was really always bad but went even worse as the arms race had drained the Soviet economy. Roughly during the 70s,80s, before the USSR collapsed
    If things were bad in the 80s, they were outright dire after the collapse. Market liberalisation proved catastrophic for the majority of the Soviet Bloc. And what of life in those countries before the revolution? Living standards may have declined in the last 10 years of the USSR's existence but you can't ignore how far they had come before that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    If things were bad in the 80s, they were outright dire after the collapse. Market liberalisation proved catastrophic for the majority of the Soviet Bloc. And what of life in those countries before the revolution? Living standards may have declined in the last 10 years of the USSR's existence but you can't ignore how far they had come before that.
    For the big years of growth from 1945 to the early 1970s, the USSR's economy actually grew faster than the USA's. Obviously the US had a considerably higher starting point, and unlike the Soviets, hadn't been desecrated by a Nazi regime bent on its annihilation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Socialism is something that follows capitalism. Is the caterpillar better than the butterfly?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalism in a general sense is very nasty. Its brings out the most ugly facets of human behavior and makes life a constant struggle. True equality can never been achieved under it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Socialism simply means a system in which the means of production are controlled by their workers. It's nothing inherently to do with states, indeed I'd say the state is what's holding us back from it, as would most anarchists.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Communism is a lot better than capitalism as people aren't then being taken advantage of, but communism is an idealistic political alignment that to truly works requires absolute co-operation with no selfishness. Capitalism however can work, but when left unregulated turns into a state owned by the corporate entities which essentially makes the government a puppet. This could become anarcho-capitalism which will work only for the richest but will inevitably collapse. Anarcho-communism can work but would most likely have to be shut from other societies in terms of trade as everything would have to be locally produced to work in that way. This would probably be for very small communities but would probably end up either collapsing from population growth of decline, but the people would be happier.

    The best policies are really left-libertarianism. The state has the responsibility to redistribute wealth, and create services for citizens to take advantage of. It'll however be a small government to allow for the citizens to act more freely. Few laws would be in place and the ones that are would just be for the health of the society as opposed to an individual. Essentially, you can do whatever you want to yourself, but other people would have to agree for you to do what you want to them. It's pretty much a live and let live society. Live and don't let people live and you're ****ed
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Pretty sure it failed because largely they went bankrupt.
    Really? Any evidence? Any source?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    Well there's a number of reasons USSR failed, one of which is that their planned economy simply didn't work. It is stupid and naive to suggest there's only one reason. 'US propoganda' isn't a real reason. Instead it was because Gorbachev allowed such reforms and gave the people freedom.
    Why did he do that? It was because the US media? He got brainwashed,right? Russians got brainwashed. They failed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    Why did he do that? It was because the US media? He got brainwashed,right? Russians got brainwashed. They failed.
    No, it wasnt because of the US media. He realised change was necessary. You lack knowledge of the issue, search up 'Gorbachev's new thinking' which will give you more information
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neb789)
    Is the free market the way forward?


    or


    Is the security of communism something we need?

    Reminder: This thread is to debate ideas and open them up, not to bash those who believe them so keep it clean.
    It's the wrong question.

    Capitalism is the order of the day and it has been for a long time.

    The question is when will it turn to a socialist of communist society.

    Throughout history people have always needed others to create wealth and gradually in the coming decades that won't be the case with automation.

    This means at some point people will have to be paid by the state to simply exist a citizens income if you like that means enterprise will either have to be state owned and the profits redistributed or tax levels above 90%


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It's the wrong question.

    Capitalism is the order of the day and it has been for a long time.

    The question is when will it turn to a socialist of communist society.

    Throughout history people have always needed others to create wealth and gradually in the coming decades that won't be the case with automation.

    This means at some point people will have to be paid by the state to simply exist a citizens income if you like that means enterprise will either have to be state owned and the profits redistributed or tax levels above 90%


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indeed, political theories do not exist in a vacuum, the world we know is changing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It's the wrong question.

    Capitalism is the order of the day and it has been for a long time.

    The question is when will it turn to a socialist of communist society.

    Throughout history people have always needed others to create wealth and gradually in the coming decades that won't be the case with automation.

    This means at some point people will have to be paid by the state to simply exist a citizens income if you like that means enterprise will either have to be state owned and the profits redistributed or tax levels above 90%


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Once Karl Marx already had predicted fall of capitalism.
    Are you going to write "Capital-2"?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Once Karl Marx already had predicted fall of capitalism.
    Are you going to write "Capital-2"?
    Lol I'm no Marxist or anything like that I'm a big thatcher fan for instance.

    The point is as someone mentioned political theory doesn't act in a vacuum, capitalism was needed for the last millennium but if the rules change I.e. A persons labour is no longer needed to create wealth then those people need to be provided for under a different system.

    The tricky bit is when to do it, now isn't the time but 20 years from now it is likely it will be


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Youngmetro)
    No, it wasnt because of the US media. He realised change was necessary. You lack knowledge of the issue, search up 'Gorbachev's new thinking' which will give you more information
    Gorbachev's new thinking? Why new thinking? What deleted old thinking then? Of course US media did. Have you ever watched the movie 'firefox '? It's part of US propaganda. American thief can be a hero. Lol.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.