Capitalism vs Socialism

Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of thought in economics. The central arguments in the socialism/capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government: socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor. e.g. free public education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich. On the other hand, capitalists believe that government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprise and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers.

The U.S. is widely considered the bastion of capitalism and large parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are socialist democracies. However, the truth is every developed country has some programs that are socialist.

An extreme form of socialism is communism. (see Communism vs Socialism).

Comparison chart

Capitalism Socialism
Philosophy: Capital (or the "means of production") is owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits for private owners or shareholders. Emphasis on individual profit rather than on workers or society as a whole. From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce in addition to receiving a wage.
Ideas: Laissez-faire means to "let it be"; opposed to government intervention in economics because capitalists believe it introduces inefficiencies. Free market produces the best economic outcome for society. Govt. should not pick winners and losers. All people should be given an equal opportunity to succeed. Workers should have most say in their factory's management. The free market suffers from problems like tragedy of the commons. Government regulation is necessary.
Key elements: The accumulation of capital drives economic activity - the need to continuously produce profits and reinvest this profit into the economy. "Production for profit": useful goods and services are a byproduct of pursuing profit. Economic activity and production especially are adjusted to meet human needs and economic demands. "Production for use": useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.
Economic coordination: Relies principally on markets to determine investment, production and distribution decisions. Markets may be free-markets, regulated-markets, or may be combined with a degree of state-directed economic planning or planning within private companies. Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Ownership structure: The means of production are privately-owned and operated for a private profit. This drives incentives for producers to engage in economic activity. The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).
Political movements: Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, Libertarianism, Neo-liberalism, Modern Social-Democracy Democratic Socialism, Communism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarchism, Syndicalism
Economic System: Free-Market economy. Wealth redistributed so that everyone in society is given somewhat equal shares of the benefits derived from labor, but people can earn more if they work harder. Means of production are controlled by the workers themselves.
Key Proponents: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Fredrich Hayek, Ayn Rand Robert Owen, Pierre Leroux, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, John Stuart Mill, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman
Way of Change: Fast change within the system. In theory, the relationship between buyer and seller (the market) is what fuels what is produced. Government can change rules of conduct/business practices through regulation or ease of regulations. Workers in a Socialist-state are the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by the workers can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.
Religion: Permitted/Freedom of Religion freedom of religion

Contents

Tenets

One of the central arguments in economics, especially in the socialism vs. capitalism debate, is the role of the government. A capitalist system is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. A socialist system is characterised by social ownership of the means of production, e.g. cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.

Proponents of capitalism espouse competitive and free markets, voluntary exchange (over forced exchange of labor or goods). Socialists advocate greater government involvement but the differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

Criticisms of Socialism and Capitalism

Criticisms of Capitalism

Critics argue that capitalism is associated with: unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism, counter-revolutionary wars and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; repressions of workers and trade unionists, and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability. Critics have argued that there is an inherent tendency towards oligolopolistic structures when laissez-faire is combined with capitalist private property. Capitalism is regarded by many socialists to be irrational in that production and the direction the economy is unplanned, creating many inconsistencies and internal contradictions.

In the early 20th century, Vladimir Lenin argued that state use of military power to defend capitalist interests abroad was an inevitable corollary of monopoly capitalism. Economist Branko Horvat states, "it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom." Southern Methodist University Economics Professor Ravi Batra argues that excessive income and wealth inequalities are a fundamental cause of financial crisis and economic depression, which will lead to the collapse of capitalism and the emergence of a new social order.

Environmentalists have argued that capitalism requires continual economic growth, and will inevitably deplete the finite natural resources of the earth, and other broadly utilized resources. Murray Bookchin has argued that capitalist production externalizes environmental costs to all of society, and is unable to adequately mitigate its impact upon ecosystems and the biosphere at large. Labor historians and scholars, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, Tom Brass and latterly Marcel van der Linden, have argued that unfree labor — by slaves, indentured servants, prisoners, and other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations.

Many religions have criticized or opposed specific elements of capitalism; traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam forbid lending money at interest, although methods of Islamic banking have been developed. Christianity has been a source of both praise and criticism for capitalism, particularly its materialist aspects.

Criticisms of Socialism

Criticisms of socialism range from claims that socialist economic and political models are inefficient or incompatible with civil liberties to condemnation of specific socialist states. There is much focus on the economic performance and human rights records of Communist states, although there is debate over the categorization of such states as socialist.

In the economic calculation debate, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek argued that a socialist command economy could not adequately transmit information about prices and productive quotas due to the lack of a price mechanism, and as a result it could not make rational economic decisions. Ludwig von Mises argued that a socialist economy was not possible at all, because of the impossibility of rational pricing of capital goods in a socialist economy since the state is the only owner of the capital goods. Hayek further argued that the social control over distribution of wealth and private property advocated by socialists cannot be achieved without reduced prosperity for the general populace, and a loss of political and economic freedoms.

Hayek's views were echoed by Winston Churchill in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945:

a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.

Further Reading

There are some good books on Capitalism and Socialism available for further reading on Amazon.com:

See Also

References

Comments: Capitalism vs Socialism

Comment anonymously

Anonymous comments

So all you people who think socialism is good and capitalism is bad and people who are CEO's are bad and the inly good people in the world are those with average jobs and payed less than a CEO. One i think your all jealous of the people are are doing well and working hard to do it. You people act like you know every business owner in the country and they somehow wronged you and they were just born with that job. Most of those guys started the company or business or whatever. So a guy who starts with nothing pay his way through college and dental school and is then is $400,000 in debt after 8 years of grueling school doesnt deserve to get payed more than a factory worker? How would he ever pay off his debt? And lets say he works 12 hrs a day 6 days a week, with peoples lives in bus hands! And he saves some money to build his own practice and then after 20 years doesnt have to work anymore but still gets a ton of money from the business that he started but still pays all his employees extremely well while living a very comfortable life with bus family is a bad person because now after years if hard work that guy doesnt deserve to reap the fruits of his labor!!?? If you want to live like that guy, then work as hard as he did to do it!

174.✗.✗.193 on 2013-04-25 07:34:17

What I've never understood (and the comments on this board don't do much to make me understand any better) is how Americans have classified what Obama has done as "socialism". In fact, they were claiming this before he even took office. Obama is as much a "socialist" as China is "capitalist", simply because they now allow some businesses to sell products for profit. China couldn't survive without some sort of business and innovation, nor can America survive without some sort of social programs supporting the population. That doesn't make you "socialist". I have no problem arguing Obama's positives and negatives, but the false equivalency of pointing fingers and claiming he's a socialist (thus, shouldn't be supported) reduces such conversation to ignorant levels. And no, just because I called such conversation ignorant doesn't mean I have classified you as an Ignorantist in all facets of life. See how that works?

66.✗.✗.3 on 2012-10-13 16:17:27

In France their minimum wage is always above the poverty line. They also have minimum payed time off (5 weeks) just like every western European country Americans are oblivious uneducated and blind to all this. The top 1% have more money than 99% of the rest of Americans combined you know why? That 1% pays you a really shitty wage and gives you what 2 weeks paid time off while they pay themselves 40 million a year. Get educated almost every american has never even heard of minimum paid time off its pathetic.

76.✗.✗.53 on 2012-07-18 19:47:26

To people saying it is hard to rise from "Rags to Riches" in European states. They have to realize that European countries don't endorse Socialism as in Communism but rather Social Democracy. This means that there is a heavier emphasis on Keynesian economics, as in government spending and government planning of the Economy, but this proved very beneficial for the United States when they utilized it during the New Deal under FDR. There is a distinct difference between Socialism and Social Democracy, as Social Democracies have free markets, and the government does not intervene in all aspects of the Economy, it is largely consumer driven, but with a bigger emphasis of redistribution of wealth rather then private profit. The high taxes ensure that it IS possible to rise from Rags to Riches because no one is given an unfair advantage from birth due to a higher financial status the parents have. In Social Democracies, a good universal public education is provided, while the Us have lower taxes so many public schools are underfunded, while the rich can afford to send their kids to private school. In my eyes this disadvantage is much more of a limp than Europe's high taxes in the stride to obtain riches coming from rags

74.✗.✗.28 on 2012-05-25 00:51:45

Please don't refer to United States as "America". A big continent is not a country alone.

190.✗.✗.172 on 2012-03-10 17:51:55

It is not true that people in the United States are pushed aside because of their poverty. People are pushed aside only because they allow themselves to be pushed aside. Maybe in Sweden it's more like a hand out instead of a hand up. I know that in The United States we work hard for what we have and if a person has an idea, or product that can make them rich, it is a lot of work to make it become reality. Unlike some parts of the world, then it is yours, and nobody else's. As far as healthcare, I like to choose, and not wait.

71.✗.✗.133 on 2012-01-29 16:00:07

^^ All problems you contribute to socialism exist in a capitalist society as well. In capitalism people are content with their jobs earning megabucks but not contributing to society, only contributing to the load in the higher up's bank account. Also High tax + low cost = high cost + low tax. Money is worshiped over feats because of capitalism. Capitalism also limits the spread of knowledge because of the overhyped cost of education and media. People who could do so much more good are pushed to the side because of their poverty. Money replaces intellect and willpower. When you speak of Sweden you seem to also be forgetting that they have one of the best healthcare systems and have one of the best crime rates in the world.

141.✗.✗.238 on 2011-04-09 14:37:00

Clearly, this is composed by a socialist. It is extraordinarily difficult to rise from "rags to riches" in any of the European states, because the taxes are so high. Socialistic organization encourages less commitment to excellence. In Sweden, a model Scandinavian socialistic system and one of the few European states not completely bankrupted by their idealistic but unworkable Utopian socialist systems, there are a dozen or so very large and successful industries with very deep pockets, who are able to fund the socialistic system, with the help of repressive taxation of the individual. But because of the tax burden, it is much more difficult to really rise in power and influence. That is what is desired by the puppet masters of these economies. The aim is to keep the people contented and happy with their state of being, not creating problems... and not creating dynamic growth or new ideas. Socialism is the effete degeneration of capitalism.

66.✗.✗.102 on 2011-01-02 01:09:24

Making a comment such as - "Yes taxes are higher" and then saying that you have "Free" programs like schooling etc is the epitomy of ignorance. Nothing is free. For every free porgram or entitlement its paid for by others via Gov Taxes. I choose to work to earn for msyelf as much as I can in a free market Capitalistic environment

208.✗.✗.36 on 2011-06-08 12:45:33

To say that it is impossible to succeed in a socialistic country is painting the world black and white. Yes the taxes are high but the costs are low. In Denmark - it is in Europe, we have socialism and we have free schools, the government actually encourage people to get an education by offering free tutoring, and we have free health care. Just because socialism helps people with less money it does not pull others down from succeeding in the global world. United States - who always has favored capitalism, had a debt on $13,050,826,460,886.97 in 2010. When a country keeps lowering taxes to keep the people happy it will increase the debt since spendings keeps going up. The U.S import in 2010 was $497.8 billion which was way higher than the export.

216.✗.✗.13 on 2011-03-25 13:04:15

Related Categories

  1. Economics
  2. Philosophy
  3. Politics
Search for a comparison
Mail