Capitalism vs. Socialism - Truth?

I was watching a program on some northern European country (can't remember which one...maybe Norway or Finland) and their tax rate for everyone was like 50%. But everyone had excellent health care and their college education was paid for. Because of that the country had a high percentage of college grads.

So it's a trade off...the question is...is a society as a whole better off in this type of set up or like that of the US? And I really don't know.

Many "pure" systems of government work perfect on paper and in a vacuum. Since we don't live in vacuums and on paper, none are as successful as purported to be. You cannot erase societies and start over (at least not without creating obscene atrocities).

The key, as you suggest, is finding the appropriate balance. Some countries could care less about inhibiting technology and hindering economic progress that are an inevitable part of socialism. Most people simply want to live lives where they don't have to worry about paying for things like food, housing and healthcare.

Capitalism looks great, but human greed "soils" its principles, some would say. I'd have to say greed is a necessary part of capitalism.

The best system, from my limited knowledge, is a mix of capitalistic ideas with some controls in place to reel in greed, along with some basic social programs.

I guess it depends on one's definition of good is, also. I have no interest in becoming a billionaire, which would be much easier to do with unabated capitalism.

I don't have much time, so I'll just correct a quick point about socialism that I've already posted elsewhere today:

The USSR was never socialist. By, 1919, Lenin had already moved to destroy Soviet Councils, factory committees, and just about every other popular movement with the Draft Decree on Workers' Control then later crowed that "we passed from workers' control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy," While you and I differ on what exactly socialsim is, surely we can agree that workers' control is an integral part of it?

Lenin never--NEVER--wanted popular control of production. He said time and again that industrial production should be top-down from a central authority ("unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labour processes that are based on large-scale machine-industry...today the Revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process") to the point that even Marxists found him hostile to socialism.

And in the same vein he intended to create a powerful state that would unite workers into an army of labor far from collectivism or even Marxism (which itself is authoritarian compared to the anarchists). It is quite a stretch to say that the USSR even _attempted_ communism.

Unfortunately, the people making good money and doing well with capitalism are always the ones in control of the government. The only way America will switch to an equality based communist society is by an actual revolution, and I don't see that ever happening.

I personally see no problem with my doctor and my pizza delivery guy making the same money. The biggest argument to it comes down to you would have less doctor, we would be left with doctor that want to help people and loss all the doctors that get into that field because it pays well. I want a doctor that wants to help people, not a doctor that hates his job, but it pays good.

Communism is a economic system. Neither Russia, Cuba or China really have a working system. Their governments are totalitarian and dictatorship. Lien held that in order to establish a communist economic system the country would have to be a dictatorship. Once in power it is almost impossible to to give it up. Our government is a democracy and capitalism is our economic system. We have so many scoial programs that do not work why add more?

In a capitalism you are only limited by how hard you're willing to work to get to where you want to be, you have the choice.

In a socialism you are limited to what the government provides, unless you have the extra money left over after paying the government, then you can purchase better.

Capitalism provides greater opportunity for those that wish to work for it and socialism takes away the incentive to work.

You question is a mix of facts, false assumptions, and opinions. Capitalism has brought more wealth and improved the quality of life for more people in this world than any other form of economic system. One important fact. More Research and Development is done in America than any country on earth. That is not a coincident.

damn right mate. pure capitalism leads to as much oppression as any other system.

liberal democracy with an enlightened social policy is the way forward. elements of socialism can be taken and used to look after those who begin life with nothing, and whose circumstances prevent from advancing beyond a certain point.

communism may well be a nice thought in theory, but human nature means it can never really work on a widespread scale.

european model liberal, social democracy is the way forward.

peace

Socialism\ Communism look good on paper, and that's about it. It is human nature that makes the idea impractical

Not true.

I came from a Poor Family with 6 siblings.

Because of Captialism, My Sister got her PhD in UPenn and she is now a College Professor and I Got a MS degree in Computer Science and I have a nice job. We all started from Nothing.