Online Business Accounting - Why does pure socialism fail while capitilism thrives?

Why does pure socialism fail while capitilism thrives?

In my opinion it is the greed factor. Socialism fails to account for the basic human nature to achieve in life. While capitalism embraces and encourages it. Capitalists are dedicated to the principle that they have the right to achieve all that they desire in life and are only limited by their willingness to work harder to obtain their desires. They are rooted in the concept of individual responsibility for success or failure. Socialists hold the opinion that all people should be equal in all things. If someone has more they are not really entitled to the spolis of their effort, but rather should be forced to share because they have achieved more. They hold the opinion that there should be collective control and redistribution of all resources and that people will worker harder simply for the benefit of the collective. Socialism can be somewhat incorporated into a capitalist system, but pure socialism will always be doomed to fail. What is your opinion?

Public Comments

You can only keep people under your thumb for so long!!!
I think you're just about spot-on with what you said. Nearly word for word how I'd say it. Capitalism is the only system that will ever work with humans, unless all the humans in the world are stripped of freedom of choice and freedom of thought. Which is a good thing, really - for humans to ever get anywhere as a species, we need to reward greatness, not mediocrity.
Cause I refuse to share
Because I want a nicer car,and more money than you, so I can get more girls.
The answer can be summed up with few words. Capitalism creates national wealth. Socialism consumes national wealth. The fact is, socialism cannot succeed without a successful capitalistic system. Socialism and capitalism can coexist if the social program provides a net gain. Public schooling is an example of a social program that benefits capitalism. Entitlements that pay money to the poor are a drain on capitalism and are of no true benefit to the culture nor the recipients. Social programs for the poor should be designed to place opportunity for the poor to raise themselves up out of poverty, not give motivation to stay poor as the current system does.
Pure Socialism or pure Capitalism do not exist in practice, just in theory. the fact is, all economic systems today are a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, in varying degrees. National economic systems are usually more aggressive and successful when the effects of Capitalism are more pronounced, but this economic growth, in democratic systems, usually allows increase in the Socialist aspects of national economy, which increases the rights of citizens and slows economic growth.
You are perfectly correct, but pure capitalism is a recipe for disaster as well.
Humans are not naturally altruistic. Socialism cannot work simply because we are human.
The same reason that guerilla war is often succesful in fighting racist collectives, all of whom are the same. "Strength in numbers" of troops who might be nincompoops, can threaten an enemy temporarily. But individualism can differentiate the excellent!
Canada has a social democratic political system. I think differing socialsim to communism should be kept seperate. The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labour as a commodity
Well, the other reason socialism fails is because it pretends that the raw materials needed to make the goods have no cost. The cost of the raw inputs are not accounted for in socialism, so it runs out of money.
The fundamental ideals and assumptions that are the basis for pure socialism are false that is why pure socialism always fails. People are not all inherently "good". People are not all equal in all things. Therefore a society that tries to base its government on these assumption will always fall short of their goals. I agree that the biggest failing of the system is human greed.
socialism came to the world with Christianity and before it was free trade within the civilized countries in Mediterranean when the Turks blocked the middle east traders were looking for deferred ways to go to china and India to continue the flow of silk spices and someway thing and they discover America can you imagine if they follow the teachings of the Vatican the earth was like pizza and you fall off at the end?? now people getting to realize the bible have some holes..
I think that the in order to have the ideal (which is not probable to ever exist) state would be socialism with capital.
Because theory of socialism (class struggle, expropriation) is immoral, and in practice it never existed
Your thoughts on this subject are correct. However, one might also consider that in a Socialist form of government there are clearly obvious abuses of power in the form of graft, bribery, etc., and that while Socialism and it's "all equal philosophy" generally applies to the masses, it rarely applies to the upper crust of the governmental levels. The people see this, and want what the "they" have. This in turn brings about a black market, stricter governmental controls to combat this, which then brings about even more resentment and hostility. The bottom line is that if no one knew there was something better, socialism could survive in its purest form. Unfortunately, being human and falable, we tend not to play by the rules. Your premise is correct, I add only my two cents worth.
Because people who work hard and really are successful dont want to carry the lazy stupid people.
Let answer by asking a question: Is socialism moral, immoral, or amoral? Is capitalism moral, immoral, or amoral? Further, there has never been a true socialist society by definition. I guess you could say the same for capitalism, with the exception that the false socialist countries are involuntary after a certain point.
Because socialism is a false notion. I recently studied Marx's works (the creator or socialism so to speak) and basically, he vented his angers through his works, such as Communist Manifesto. He lived a poor life, having his wife die and also two of his children because of conditions in which the conditions of living could have been made better by a socialist utopia. Also, Marx saw that the need for a scaliest government was in the social system set up in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, not today's society were everyone is equal. Take China, in example. They lived under communism, including the socialist economy. But there people were still in poverty, although it was more widespread than before. In a capitalist government, those who make the most sometimes give back to the poor of their country out of generosity. capitalism also gives incentive for people to work harder and live, which produces a stronger will for success. All in all, capitalism creates a drive in the society that socialism, honestly destroys. Would you rather work in a economy that you were paid by how much you work, rather then not getting paid, no matter if you worked hard, or hardly worked.
Flawed question. The real question is, why doesn't pure capitalism thrive? And the answer, of course, is that pure capitalism depends on an entirely free market, which cannot exist without disastrous shifts. No system exists or can exist in its 'pure' state, socialist, communist, or capitalist. Government intervention is required to requlate the extremes of each and maintain relative equilibrium in society. Twas ever thus.
Pure capitalism doesn't exist..
Your opinion is correct, there must be a combining of the two systems and a hybrid from of government must emerge. So far the U.S. seems to be doing reasonably well, but it is far from perfect. Time will tell if old style government with an obligation to land and population will survive or if a new world order of corporate government with no respect to boarders or population will replace it.
Well if you read the 'communist manifesto', like some of you say you have, you would understand that communist states are meant to rise and fail, like Russia did. The Chinese and Cubans may also fail, but ultimately, it will succeed. Its simple really. Predict the future. The earth is running out of fossil fuels, like oil & timber, and new fuels are too dangerous, like nuclear energy, or too futile, like wind or solar power. This, in combination with overpopulation (which will eventually get to psychotic levels, even in the US) will foster more communist states to arise. The only thing left to save Capitalism is Technology and Marx predicted that our invention and inovation with plateau. This is becoming more and more a reality. Technology would have to take us into outer space and other planets, its the only thing that makes sense. But if we cant do that and space becomes a barrier that we cant cross, as the recent space shuttle disasters dictate, then the only alternative would be communism. Its the only way the people of the earth will be able to maintain order and civility. Those who have faith in the never ending capitalist society are ignorant. It may take 200 years but eventually it will end. And as for the human nature element of greed, well that is taught to people all their lives. If people are, from birth, taught to share and that this is a good thing then I anticipate it wont be so hard for them to do as adults. Our society rewards hard work but also greed, and this must and will come to an end. If you don't think it will read the communist manifesto again. Its only about 50 pages and thus a short read. You will see communism fails because it hasn't been able to work just yet, but it will and for the betterment of man kind.
I agree to your point. Capitalism thrives on innovation, or the need for something better, and prosparity, or greed. Socialism fails because ones idea of "the collective" is different from anothers. In a capitalist society, the collective that should benefit from what society has to offer refers to those who work hard and succeed in advancing themselves as individuals and thus advancing society. Socialist societies believe the other way around, meaning that the collective works hard to advance the collective itself, and thus benefiting the individual. Socialist "projects" can be incorporated into a capitalist society, but until that project is advanced to its limit, it will be ever changing and an individual will profit from the innovation. When capitalist societies reach the limit of innovation, then socialistic ideals will take over in order for the collective to benefit from the highest level of ones prosparity.
well for one thing there's no incentive to do anything. If a ditch digger and a doctor make the same amount of money, no one would want to go through the trouble of becoming one. And on that same principle, no one would ever want to start a buisness if they know all there hard work will lead to nothing. And on top of that, socialism is often flawed at it's source. Very rarely can you give someone complete economic control of a nation and expect them to redistribute it without giving themselves a large cut of it.
Quite the question....there are many reasons why the soviet style communism fell, but one overlooked reason is that capitalism was/is be able to mobilize more MONEY in the ideological struggle. It could be said that the US bankrupted the USSR by forcing them to compete in the constant obsessive building of nuclear bombs, spaceships, etc. The US prospered in the madness, the soviet economy fell apart they simply couldn't afford it. Socialism also tends to embrace atheism, hoping for citizens to "worship" state institutions taking the focus off heaven- and onto a present utopia. A lofty goal indeed, but it doesn't do much to give one comfort in the face of unavoidable death. Human nature has a certain and necessary pragmatic greed built in, but this can be somewhat neutralized through society, to a point. Socialism does not prevent one from "achieving" but requires the individuals within a particular population to be committed to greater values, such as pursuit of knowledge, utopian society, poetry, whatever...a direct contrast to true capitalism, which points one toward a nice car. And when that car is a bit old, there is another one to obtain...ect. It is much easier to maintain order and control of a society focused on possessions, it also much easier to provide more people "power." In a capitalist society, such as the US, you do not have to be elected to have control over others; in fact you could conquest more power by going into business. In a socialist society it would be difficult to obtain power in such a way. and yes, power? Another form of greed, sure, but the feeling of importance can be found, ideally, in other aspects of life. Writing a novel brings power and influence, as does being a rockstar.... Marx indicated multiple times that his form of socialism would never work unless a society, or country, was at first capitalist...there are very few countries in the world that have gone from capitalism to socialism. It could be said that both Cuba and the USSR became semi authoritarian as there was no history of capitalism to give populist base to the ideas people were to live by...socialism was to evolve from capitalism, but instead it took hold in capitalist dictatorships, which then became socialist dictatorships, not giving the world a true look at the potential effectiveness of either societal form, but surely providing lots of slander as to why the "other" was failing. "Socialists hold opinion that all people should be equal in all things." True to an extent, but much socialist literature tends to present that idea that everyone is equal, inequalities stemming from socioeconomic factors, not human nature. What is sought is equal access to a society’s resources: education, housing, FOOD. Equal not meaning monotone, but equal in the sense that economic class differences will not impede one persons “opportunities” over another’s. There should still be individuality, unless individuality is nothing more than monetary expression. All modern societies will need bakers, soldiers, entertainers, rebels…(Yes, this is not the case in strong armed robotic Mao’s China…) Capitalists on the other hand, often view the world through a more evolutionary context, if some one is not achieving, they are some how responsible for their inferiority, therefore their respective situation (poverty) becomes justified, however unfortunate. Hence the giant income disparities in the richest capitalist nations. Within an individual nation modern capitalism can continue and even appears to function very well, but it’s future hangs precariously on a few factors. In order for the lower classes to not despise, and even revolt against the ultra rich that modern capitalism produces...there must be at least enough money for the lower classes to be comfortable, with the ability to, at least "feel" that they can move up, or, progress... (The new car!) The problem with this is that in our modern global society borders are increasingly difficult to maintain and defend, financially and physically. As immigrant’s pour into rich countries, and at the same time rich countries pour money (outsourcing) in to the poor countries, we will see (and are seeing) the creation of a small super rich upper class in the poor countries, and more poor populations in the rich countries, which the rich countries cannot help as their resources and INTERESTS are tied up in global affairs... Ok then, shouldn’t we wait for the trickle down economic model to work globally? The tide that raises all boats. A strong capitalist ideal which does currently work...but it seems that available global resources, not to mention the earth’s eco-system, will not support the life style that has kept both America, and most of Europe's economic systems intact. As super rich and super poor are forced to rub shoulders all the time, there could be massive revolt, a global revolution of sorts, or some powerful dictatorship to maintain absolute order. Or perhaps both locked in an Israel/Palestine hold. If this were to happen, some form of socialism, would begin to look like a viable option again, as the unequal distribution of resources would become increasingly more OBVIOUS, (in contrast to our current state, where oceans are the main global class dividers) and would fuel all sorts of dissent. Also, as previously mentioned, the existing amount of resources would not support a super rich class, at least not along side democracy. Assuming that we still hold our "freedom" ideals, which are quite incorporated into to global culture, socialism would become a near necessity...or something entirely different. And, absolutely capitalism would have to be incorporated in to it, being that human commerce will not dissipate any time soon. Of course that is a whole lot of speculation, but the world is changing very rapidly these days, and I expect that our ideals will be tested properly, very soon. That "socialism will always be doomed to fail" may not be the case, it really depends on the environment at whichever particular time. Despite assassinations, sanctions, invasions and even internal revolt, little Cuba stayed afloat, as has China and now Latin America, with a it's growing "rich" class, is also moving toward more social governance. And I now realize that you asked about “pure” socialism. I guess I’m not sure that any system can exist in pure form, but I hope my ranting has been helpful in some way…
Socialism does not value the individual and his/her needs or rights as individual human beings. Some people don't mind being treated as sheep, but most do.
Socialism works at a private level but not a national level. For example, a local Church or charity helping those in need works, because there is private accountability against abuse. While government welfare simply creates an incentive to not work. In short, government socialism is a mostly a failure and even harmful, while private socialism can be very useful and needed.
there can not be pure capitalism so your question is loaded in the first place. The ultimate outcome is one company charging the highest price it can. what most countries have is a mixed economy. Pure capitalism is bad for the people. We only argue about the degree. The American health care system is horrific and the way it cares for its people is shocking to most western democracies, so while it may be more capitalistic and uncaring than other countries it is still an mixed economy
pretty much exactly what you said; socialism assumes that people are all equally capable of doing anything and will do what they are told for the good of the nation, not just whatever they want to for their own gain. humans are of course, greedy and interested first in their own survival and happyness, which capitalism thrives under. also socialism is typically led my just one or just a few very powerful leaders, and no matter how well intended they may be they are still succeptable to corruption and a lust for power, leading towards bad or inefficient leadership
I think capitalism has succeded because it doesn´t exert much control over people and gives individuals some freedom. Socialism, on the other hand is a system doomed to failure because man will always want to make money, whether we like it or not, and very few people are willing to share their earnings with others. As a catholic I must say I´m against both, capitalism and socialism.However I prefer capitalism, since I´m free to go to my church every day and spend my money the way I like without the "State God" telling me what to do.
C.O.R.P.O.R.A.T.E. A.M.E.R.C.I.A.
Simple, Greed everyone wants to be better than the next door.
I think part of it is human nature, but let's not forget human nature also encompasses compassion, camaraderie and rallying to the aid of those truly in need and deserving of assistance. What greater socialist institution than education, where knowledge is shared and proliferated to all who desire it (whether online, in class, through books/CDs/Videos/etc.)? Where socialism does fail is in the inherently despotic and anti-spiritual concept of MAN controlling MAN. You can't expect a system where a few dictate the needs and distribution of wealth and services for the many to be viewed by reasonable people as anything but unfair and perenially limiting. Capitalism is limiting as well, but a great proportion of that restraint is within and at the control of oneself, as you mentioned. Socialism is a disease of guilt and remorse, an artificial charity network imposed on the framework of natural inclinations to contribute, aid and assist others. Capitalism is often viewed as unfair, oppressing, life-deflating, greedy, self-centered and destructive. This is an attempt to lay blame on SOME THING rather than assume the blame yourself. Capitalism is a method of trade and wealth development and accumulation. That's it. No evil puppeteer or controlling mechanism is at play, no unwritten rules that one must decipher, just the result of hard work, applied intelligence, opportunity exploitation and appropriate execution. These are characteristics that virtually ALL HUMANS are wired for and can develop should they so choose. Nothing in socialism is really wired into the human cognitive process, except perhaps the infantile and counterproductive tendency to look for parenting far beyond the age where parental patronizing is required. The French are an example of a wonderfully creative and industrious society, broken into incalculable pieces and fragmented almost beyond repair, because they refuse to look to the one source that can provide them all they could ever hope for: THEMSELVES. There is always a government to blame, an employer to be disgruntled with, a benefit to be claimed, a right to be granted, but rarely, if ever, a personal culpability involved. That is the essence of socialism, the stripping away of personal achievement and accomplishment, into a commoditization of humans and their needs. It is disheartening and almost dangerous to continue to sing the praises of socialism, when everything in our being screams individuality and self-determination. Socialism has no place in a modern society, outside of the realm of government programs that either introduce new capitalists to the market and society as a whole in a responsible way, or to phase out capitalists who are ready to retire and have contributed to the markets and society sufficiently, earning a quality transition to a more leisurely lifestyle in their twilight years. Socialism is always doomed to fail...the human being. Capitalism is always available to enable and uplift...the human being. Few are the examples of two concepts being so diametrically opposed.
The problem with socialism is - people. The people in the top positions in a socialist government - live like people in a capitalism government; houses, cars, fine food, fine clothes, etc, etc. While the majority of the people below them, live in poverty. In socialism, unless everyone is equal, it will fail, every time.
First of all; Excellent, Interesting Question!!!! Second of all; I am a NY Registered Socialist Voter -- and your very points here have crossed my mind. I agree with you 100%. I know the US will never have Socialists as any kind of majority with any kind of control. Hey - Everyone's allowed to think whatever they want -- that's the real beauty - capitalist, socialist, psychopath --
Pure Socialims is based on the believe that life is greater than material things. Have you ever thought what would happen in a capitalistic world if everyone was rich? My answear to this is that everybody would be poor because nobody would want to work anymore. Why do we focus so much on accomplishing our financial goals? I think that we do that because at some point we don't want to work anymore. Therefore in a capitalistic economy the poor people are the reason rich people exist. There can not be capitalism without the poor. Therefore capitalism is evil, it depends on the poor to do all the hard fisical work. Capitalism is for all those who do not believe in God but trust in the "riches" of the world no matter who they have to step over. At some point in life you are going to learn this. To have, to do or TO BE what my dear friend do you desire?
Sociualism ignores one of the prime aspects of humanity; GREED. Babies are greedy. Morons try to change that starting right after birth. It never works. Greed is as much a part of being human as charity, Love and Hate, Compassion and cruelty. Creating any sort of social system for humans that ignores any part of what makes a human, human is doomed to failure. It would be like building a car without wheels.