Skip to main content

Socialism vs Capitalism

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.



Socialism Vs Capitalism

This Hub is the last of six in a series. Previous entries include: Define Socialism; Pros and Cons of Capitalism; Experiments in Socialism; and Socialism in America.

All nations that have fully implemented Socialism have experienced a drastic drop in their standard of living, marked by both a lack of goods and food. Each has seen the loss of civil rights, liberty, and freedom. All have witnessed the emergence of a savior figure. The people starve to death.

Socialism promises freedom and prosperity, but it delivers bondage and misery. Socialism means slavery; it assumes management of the lives of people; it accepts nothing less than complete control. Its conscious aim is to regulate the day-to-day affairs of a community. The very men who are most anxious to plan society, are also the most dangerous, as they are most intolerant of the plans of others. From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.

Socialism is a deliberate organization of the labors of society to achieve social goals. It wants to organize the whole of society and all its resources, and refuses to recognize autonomy of individuals. This is totalitarianism de facto.

A Socialist government must not allow itself to be fettered by democratic procedure. On the contrary, it must take vast powers to legislate its ideals by ordinance and decree. As Karl Mannheim wrote, “In a planned society more and more spheres of social life, and ultimately each and all of them, are subjected to state control.”





Central Planning

It is not so hard to plan the economic life of a family, and it is easy enough for a small community. As the size of the community to be planned increases, agreement as to desired ends decreases, and the necessity to use compulsion and force grows. In a small community, there is not much disparity among views as to what tasks are important and what standards are valued.

The wider the net is thrown, the less people agree, and with less agreement on values and ends, coercion and force will be used by those in power. This is the reason America was supposed to have strong rights for individual states, and local control over schools and municipal concerns—away from the long arm of the central government.

It is well known that when small communities were in charge of their own affairs, there was no lack of people willing to help others. When asked to help people whose habits of life and ways of thinking are similar to our own, most people are willing to sacrifice.

When government takes control over the economy, it takes control of the means that determine our ends. The government then decides whose ends are to be served, which values are rated high or rated low—what men should believe in and strive for.





Socialism is not a good idea gone bad but a bad idea

Under Socialism, the government decides what commodities and services shall be available and in what quantities, as well as directs their distribution among regions and groups. From there it can determine where people will live, whom they will live with, and where they will work. The loss of freedom I am describing here leads to hopelessness as people eventually come to realize they have no way to improve their lot in life except by government fiat.

Of all the Socialists who have come to power worldwide by decrying poverty, not one of them has ever increased productivity or abolished poverty—or even reduced poverty. This has caused a shift in strategy among Socialists from declaring that if only they were in charge there would be plenty to go around, to declaring if they were in charge everybody would have a more just piece of the pie, an equitable distribution of wealth. But any such plan must in reality also decide who gets what.

Political freedom is meaningless without economic freedom. Economic freedom is the foundation of all freedoms. Socialism promises freedom from want, but this can only be achieved by relieving the individual of the power—and necessity—of choice. The right of choice carries with it risk and responsibility.

Scroll to Continue

It is rare to find strength of character among those not confident that they will make their own way in the world by their own efforts.

Socialism is not a good idea that went bad. It is a bad idea. It fails everywhere it is tried. Even countries such as China that hang on to the vestiges of Socialism have imported measures of Capitalism to progress economically.





Socialism has caused enormous human suffering

Poland’s Solidarity Movement; Pope John Paul II; and the American president reviled by Socialists, Ronald Reagan, brought down the Iron Curtain erected by Socialists to enslave hundreds of millions of human beings. It should be obvious that a defining feature of Socialist governments is walls to keep people in—as opposed to the usual purpose of walls: to keep people out.

Socialism is a faulty philosophy based on unrealistic psychology. Human nature is not so easily refashioned. Private property is a permanent feature of human life and always has been, at least since farming began. Violence is the only way to enforce Socialism on people. Socialism must have unlimited state authority in order to make people give up their possessions and give up their private interests.

Socialism has caused enormous human suffering, and it always destroys that which it purports to be about: equality. The bureaucracy required to centrally plan and administer a Socialist State grabs power and will do anything to keep it, including mass murder. The enforcement of the equality of possessions leads to inequality of rights.




The collectivization of productive assets leads to their management by bureaucrats who are incompetent and unmotivated. Productivity always declines; technological innovation wanes; incentive is usually non-existent; working hard is often punished. Socialism turns every citizen into an employee of the state—dependent on the state for his or her very survival.

Property rights are the most effective control of state power; the recognition of the right of individuals to their belongings implicitly acknowledges that state power has limits. The goal of Socialism—the abolition of private property—leads to the loss of liberty. Socialism does not free men from exploitation as Marx said. Socialism is a form of slavery.

Utopias of Socialism cost 100 million people their lives in the 20th Century. Some Socialists simply shrug their shoulders and say you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Human beings are not eggs, and no omelette has emerged from the slaughter. The best people of these societies are the ones who were killed off. The populations were robbed of self-reliance, and the ability to make decisions (while awaiting orders). The work ethic and sense of responsibility goes away.

Capitalism has proven it can adjust to any crisis. Capitalism encourages criticism. The emergence of Capitalism caused the emergence of Democracy. Capitalism is about self-discipline and individual responsibility.



Why would bureaucrats be better than managers?

Socialism is the organization of society in which the decisions about how and what is produced, and who is to get what, are made by public authority instead of private companies and individuals. In America, people’s economic affairs are migrating from the private to the public sphere.

Huge bureaucracies, sometimes outside even the control of democracy or politics, interfere with the processes of production and distribution. Private industry and trade are slowly being conquered by the state, leading to Socialism. But it isn’t called that dirty word in America. They now call it Liberalism.

The success of the business class in developing the productive powers of the United States and the incredible standard of living for all Americans—even the poor would not be considered poor in most of the world—has somehow undermined the very Capitalism that made it all possible.

American business was instrumental in the creation of the political system and intellectual class. Capitalism has been denigrated and watered down in the name of regulation and equality. Social Liberals desire greater equality in incomes, rarely defining how far down the road to absolute equality they are willing to travel.

Many Americans bewail the salaries of Fortune 500 CEOs, but they think nothing of the even higher salaries earned by celebrities, athletes, and entertainers. Redistributive taxation is the weapon of equalization. Public control over labor and the money market are means to achieve their ends. Overregulation ignores the vast productive possibilities of Capitalism to lift all boats to a higher standard of living.



Socialists want to rule the world

The idea of a one-world government—as a way to lasting peace—is viewed by some as the next great advance of civilization. But in the world today, wealthy and powerful nations are the object of envy and hatred from poor nations. An international government of Socialism would feel it had a duty to redistribute the world’s wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not, in the name of Class Warfare and Social Justice. They would want to equalize living standards around the world according to a master plan.

This cannot be accomplished without massive violence—and a relative reduction of the aggregate living standards for the population of the world. We cannot prevent the abuse of power unless we limit power, even power proposed to be used for righteous ideals.

Socialists want a global government. It will mean that non-Americans will determine the economy of America. Few Americans are prepared to submit to international authority. To central plan the whole world’s affairs will be impossible. But that won’t keep Socialists from trying. The imposition of the will of a few upon the whole world, especially regarding the distribution of wealth, will require brute force of a magnitude never before seen.

In response to this, American Socialists like to claim that the people of Germany, Russia, China, and Cambodia were especially wicked. Each of these countries was ruled and brutalized by a small band of Socialists, who failed to perceive their actions as evil—they simply did what was necessary to achieve their goals. The nature of their task—to control the economic and social life of people with divergent ideals and values—made their murderous actions inevitable. Their intentions could only be realized through brute force that the recipients surely found highly immoral.

F. A. Hayek

F. A. Hayek


Surely, we have an obligation to assist the poor of the world to raise their standards of living through their own efforts. The world can contribute to these efforts by encouraging the Rule of Law, property rights, general order, freedom, liberty, Democracy, and Capitalism.

There is more beauty and decency found among free people, who are naturally more happy and content without the deadly blight of centralization. The key to freedom is Democracy, where men can understand and participate in decision-making; not Socialism with all of the important decisions made by an organization far removed from the common man. Democracy only works with a great measure of local self-government, which provides a school of political training for the people at large as well as their future leaders.

It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is the awareness of one’s neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Where the scope of political measures becomes so large that the bureaucracy almost exclusively possesses the necessary knowledge, the creative impulses of the private person must flag.

This article was not written for any personal gain but only to explain the difference in the ultimate result for my heirs and those of my fellow citizens. A true explanation of what Socialism is creates hysterical reactions, generally malicious and disingenuous, among its true believers.

Books have been written to make these explanations far better than I that were rejected by publishers not because the book would not have been successful, but because the publisher deemed it “unfit for publication” due to their own prejudices. This type of subtle censorship is typical of Socialists.


My research sources for this article are Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Communism by Richard Pipes.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 16, 2017:

Buildreps ~ Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate your astute observations and you ask a great question. Socialism is being indoctrinated into our youth through Government Schools. Just the other day, a new survey found that Millennials favor Socialism over Capitalism - by a slim margin but disturbing nonetheless.

Buildreps from Europe on June 12, 2015:

Interesting well crafted Hub about capitalism, James. You're absolutely right in the point that communism hopelessly failed. The result: ex-communists became one the most blatant capitalists alive today. Ever been in Kiev or Moscow? You won't see more Ferrari, Porsche, Bugatti dealers than there. Communism is clearly wiped out, no doubt about it.

What I don't understand, and that fascinates me, what is your motivation to write this Hub? What made you decide to promote capitalism 25 years after the collapse of the USSR?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 12, 2015:

Wayne Brown--- You are so right in everything you wrote, my friend. Your commentary here is truly extraordinary. If I may quote you: "If you support what is going on in this nation today, you will be very surprised when the culmination of that effort is reached to find that there is not a place for you at the Utopian table but only a shelter from the rain with the millions upon millions of poverty-stricken people who have been stripped of all freedom and opportunity as these madmen take over the world. Nations are no longer brought down by military assault--they are destroyed by poisoning the minds of those who inhabit it." Awesome!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 12, 2015:

Vladimir Uhri---I know you have gone to heaven now. I miss our interactions, my friend. You were a great and needful witness as to the true evils of socialism, since you escaped from behind the Iron Curtain. None of these American armchair political commentators have ever experienced the harsh and severe life under the slavery of socialism. One of my jobs is to try to prevent them from ever having to suffer so. It is a tough task because they are indoctrinated from Kindergarten all the sway through postgraduate studies that socialism is great.

Wayne Brown from Texas on May 08, 2015:

One of the biggest factors standing between a new world order--essentially a global government and economy, is the middle-class or middle income wage earner in the USA. That sector is the backbone of America; the home of patriotism and the resistance to stand-off the onslaught of socialism and eventual communism. The agenda in the USA today (seemingly supported heavily on both sides of the aisle) is to break the backs of that portion of the American population while promising the rest a Utopia existence. Ironically, the process is carried out under the guise of "saving the Middle-Class" but the true goal is just the opposite. Once that effort is successful and that sector joins the poverty ranks, the move to globalize will pick up steam rapidly. The quickest way to break the spirit of that sector of the American population is to drive them into poverty in a manner which makes them believed that they failed and require the government to assist them. That step becomes a function of loading the national debt and ultimately devaluing the buying power of their earning, yoking them with ObamaCare which quickly eats up their earnings, and saddling them with a litany of welfare programs all justified by the guilt of human compassion and entered into without regard for the fiscal health of the nation. You are either on one side of that fence or the other. If you support what is going on in this nation today, you will be very surprised when the culmination of that effort is reached to find that there is not a place for you at the Utopian table but only a shelter from the rain with the millions upon millions of poverty-stricken people who have been stripped of all freedom and opportunity as these madmen take over the world. Nations are no longer brought down by military assault--they are destroyed by poisoning the minds of those who inhabit it.

vladimir uhri on March 02, 2013:

all this propergander from america so all the news we see about tent citys

in the usa are lies ,there was this woman jackie in a tent outside michigan

a so called middle class lab tecnician who lost her job ended up living in a tent 58 years of age free market captilism is still not the answer it never will be paul baker winsford cheshire

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on February 13, 2013:

paul baker uk--- Thank you!! Thank you very much! :D

paul baker uk on February 06, 2013:

the new deal prolonged it who are you going to blame next ROCKERFELLA THIS IS THE WORST ONE YET PULL THE OTHER ONE.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on February 04, 2013:

Vladimir Uhri--- You are so right, my brother. Who better than you, who have actually lived behind the Iron Curtain, can tell us the horror of it in real life--not in theory or out of some book or utopian website.

Thank you my friend! And may God Bless You richly!

Brother James

Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on February 01, 2013:

Paul, Socialism is STATE socialistic capitalism. It is system without competition, state monopoly so to speak. The word Capitalism I used is not correct, since free Capitalism is good.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 31, 2013:

PAUL BAKER UK--- The Great Depression of the 1930s was engineered on purpose by the Big Bankers of the Federal Reserve in order that Americans would get into such desperate straits that they would surrender their freedom and accept socialism in the form of a leviathan state.

The New Deal did nothing to end the Depression but prolonged it.

I agree with you about Weimar Germany.

Thank you very much for reading my work. I appreciate your remarks.


PAUL BAKER UK on January 26, 2013:



James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 09, 2013:

paul baker— Somehow your comments ended up in my spam folder. I didn't do it. It must have been some kind of glitch with HubPages.

Free enterprise is all that has ever created mass prosperity in human history. We would be foolish to throw that away from some utopian dream based on a faulty understanding of human nature, the world, and reality.

paul baker on January 07, 2013:

lets make a better world with the zeitgeist movement this captilist and

socailist is no good this shit as got to got to go

paul baker on January 07, 2013:

come james this shit to stop zeitgeisht movemovement is only way forward captilism and soclaism are flawd lets make a better world

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 07, 2013:

paul baker winsford— I certainly agree with your quote from 1 Timothy. The key word there, my friend, is love. God never says you must hate money itself or that money is evil. Jesus paid the two drachma tax. But to LOVE money is to put money above God. And this you must never do. We musn't worship money—or any other created thing—instead of the Creator.

God does not hate bankers. God hates what some bankers do. It is possible to be a banker and a Godly person. All you have to do is think right and act right.

Thank you for coming back with both of your additional comments.

paul baker on December 30, 2012:


paul baker winsford on December 30, 2012:

First Epistle to Timothy New Testament ( 1 Timothy 6: 10

Love of money is the root of all evil.

I go along with that quote from the bible and i am an ATHEIST.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 29, 2012:

PAUL BAKER WINSFORD UK— I appreciate your additional comments. I did read up on the Zeitgeist Movement just now. I have heard of it and the film about it.

This is a Movement that "advocates the abolition of money and private property and promotes a global socioeconomic system in which all resources would be equally shared. . . . a system in which the Earth's resources are equally shared by its inhabitants in a moneyless and stateless system where debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated."

Getting rid of money is the dream of those who want world domination; those who work for Satan, some of whom know it but most of whom don't; the dream of the godless, the anti-Christ, and the global communists, because without money someone will take control of the world who will demand you take the Mark of the Beast—the RFID chip if you will—to be able to get food, shelter, clothes, medicine, health care, etc.

Your Movement wants total anarchy, with no government at all. Fine. Who is going to protect the weak against the strong? The women and children from being gang raped?

You want to share all the resources of the world with everyone equally? That is the dream of a kindergartener. How are food and all other goods going to get from one place to another? Who is going to be in charge of distribution of goods and services? Who is going maintain roads, the internet, libraries, clean water supply and sewage disposal, as well as stop piracy on the open seas?

Who will bother to work with nothing to gain? After all if I work for six months growing beans they are not MY beans. Why do it? Are you going to force people to work? That is what all utopias get around to eventually.

People against private property are against God for He Himself said "Do not steal" which certainly implies one must have something that belongs to one before it could possibly be stolen. So I cannot even "own" by shoes? Anyone can take them away from me at any time if they are man enough? This is Darwin's ideas writ large.

Money serves quite a useful purpose. It is a form of barter—that is why it was invented. If I grow corn in your new utopia and you make shoes, and we both want some of what the other has, money fills the gap when, as in most transactions, what each of us wants from the other is not equal. You may want 10 bushels of corn but I only want one pair of shoes. You give me money for the difference. Everybody wins. That is why money has proved so popular and long-lasting. Oh wait . . . under your system the corn I grow won't be mine and the shoes you make won't be yours since private property has been abolished. So you will make shoes and if I want a pair I will just take them.

Your movement asserts the ridiculous notion that "there was no real historical figure Jesus and that he was invented by early Christians." That idea is a product of Satan. If you believe that whopper you are on the road to perdition, my friend.

In regard to the Zeitgesit Movement, one article notes that "Karl Marx set the stage for the official denial of Jesus within communism. That is why Marxist–Leninist atheism became part of the state ideals in communist Russia in 1922. The communist state not only supported the Christ myth theory but embellished it with scientific colloquialisms, and school textbooks began to teach that Jesus never existed, making Russia a bastion of Jesus denial."

Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and Mao. These are your bedfellows. All mass murderers.

I do agree with your Movement that "the Federal Income Tax is illegal." And I believe in "the existence of a secret agreement to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into a "North American Union". The creation of this North American Union is then alleged to be a step towards the creation of "One World Government." I agree that "under such a government every human could be implanted with an RFID chip to monitor individuals and suppress dissent."

So there. We found some common ground. :D


ps The Profit Motive has lifted the standard of living of the human race more than any other single thing. Check it out. Think about it. Even Marx did not deny that.

PAUL BAKER WINSFORD UK on December 26, 2012:




James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 20, 2012:

THANK you for coming back by with your excellent comments. Yes, there is relative poverty in the Appalachian Mountain regions. Relative to those living in Manhattan, yes, they are poor. Relative to the one million souls living in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks of Calcutta hoping to catch a rat for dinner, no, they are not poor.

I know about this region because my family comes from there. My mother grew up in a house with a dirt floor. My dad's family lived in a house where snow fell on you in bed, where you slept 3 to a bed, huddled together for warmth as there was no heat and it was zero degrees outside sometimes, through huge holes in the roof and he had nine brothers and sisters, all of whom had to work picking fruit in the fields from the time they were little but big enough to do it. All of them became middle class or upper class people through their own efforts. None EVER took any government help. All ended up wealthy by world standards. Only in America, a country based on economic freedom, is this possible. In most places, being born dirt poor means you will stay that way. In socialist countries such as North Korea, EVERYBODY lives more poorly than Americans in the Appalachians today.

paul baker uk on December 15, 2012:

poverty in the USA it is terrible in the APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS with no running water or electricity, they live in squalid conditions

Those people could do with some SOCIALIST HELP

ONLINE poverty in the Appalachian Mountains.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 16, 2012:

Paul Baker— Thank you very much, Paul, for the 3 sets of fine comments you posted here on my Hub the other day. I would like to enter a gentle correction to some of your assertions, kind sir. And that is this:

In 2007, Margaret Thatcher became the first living former Prime Minister to be honored with a statue in Parliament. And with good reason. The total personal wealth of British subjects increased 80 percent during her leadership. She slashed inflation from 22 percent to 4 percent. The British People all benefitted from lower prices and increased efficiency from privatized industries. Home ownership increased 65 percent. Unemployment fell drastically. The economy grew strong and stable.

Britain was on the verge of complete collapse when it turned to Margaret Thatcher to save it from disintegration. In order to appreciate the heroic accomplishments of Margaret Thatcher, first one must comprehend the condition that Britain was in before she came to power in 1979: it was an international laughingstock. By the time Thatcher left office in 1990, Britain was admired around the world.

Despite a concerted smear campaign by hateful Leftists that has been a non-stop barrage lasting thirty years, Thatcher was voted by the British people in 2008 to have been the best Prime Minister since the Second World War by a three to one margin.

She was also the first Prime Minister of Britain to win three straight elections in over 150 years. Thatcher was elected by the British People to serve as the head of their country for a longer period of continuous time than any of her predecessors since 1812.

paul baker WINSFORD UK on November 14, 2012:

hitler comes to the gates of heaven and says god can i come in god says no hitler even if you got the iron cross later jesus comes and says lord can i come in and god says no jesus and jesus says way and god says you could

not manage a wooden one ha ha ha!!!

paul baker on November 14, 2012:

did germany had it right the waffen the elite fantastic unforms tiger panther tanks

paul baker winsford cheshire uk on November 12, 2012:

james watkins i have read your hub on margaret thatcher,i went from a decent paying job to an unemloyed pauper thatcher was the most hated prime minister of the 20th century,she never got more than 44% of the votes. She brought out a poll tax which was ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE

TAKE FROM THE POOR GIVE TO THE RICH. The word of a former tory prime minister Ted Heath a totally unfair unworkable tax. The Tories are finished as a party they will never hold a majority in parliament again. Our current PM DAVID CAMERON is an incompetant fool; that is the words of some of the tory party.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 11, 2012:

Vladimir! I love you too Brother! Thank you!! Thank you very much. :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 11, 2012:

Paul Baker— You spoke a lot about the poor people of America. I thought it good to perhaps define what kind of life the "poor" have in America, since you live in the UK.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Compared to the people of the world, there are NO poor people in America. There are people who have less than others. And their feelings of inadequacy are exploited by demagoguery from evil politicians who play on the twin sins of envy and covetousness. They play on people's minds that it is not about what you have but about what some other people have.

Thank you for both of your most recent comments.

Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on November 11, 2012:

Love you brother, agape.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 09, 2012:

Vladimir Uhri— That is great news about Richard Dawkins!

I love what you said: "what we do not see is more than what we see."

You know that even scientists agree with this.

Thank you my friend.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 09, 2012:

Paul Baker— I know who Richard Dawkins is. The point Vlad was making is that Dawkins is a hard core Atheist and the Soviet Union was officially hard core Atheist. So, while Dawkins had nothing to do with the USSR, as you noted, he and it had a similar outlook on Atheism.

paul baker on November 08, 2012:



James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 08, 2012:

Vladimir Uhri— You are quite welcome, my brother.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 08, 2012:

Paul Baker— I did go and watch the video by Leonard Wells. Here is the thing, if you don't believe in bankers, don't bank! What banks do is simple: it is dangerous for every person to keep their valuables and all their cash laying about in their house. You might have to be well armed to guard it. Banks are given money to GUARD because it is easier to guard the money of a million people in one place than in a million places. Banks loan the money out with interest, and pay their depositors a cut of that interest, keeping the rest to cover their own expenses. It is a perfectly reasonable system but YOU can opt out. Just keep your money at home and don't use banks.

As far as stock markets go, if you don't like them don't participate in them.

I do not agree at all with your friend that 50% is not a high enough tax rate. God only asks for 10% and if you ask me, the almighty State should also be content with that much.

If a person makes money illegally, they should go to prison. Otherwise, who are you to take it from them? If you steal your neighbors property it is called robbery, right? If you talk a politician into taking their property, it is legalized robbery. Is it not?

He is right that there used to be plenty of work. If the British Labor Unions had not killed manufacturing, there still would be. I have a Hub you might like:

He quoted the Bible, but only in the phony way the Devil does. Yes, Jesus says to feed the poor, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and the prisoner. AND what else? While you do this you must most importantly TELL THEM THE GOOD NEWS. The Gospel. That is why Christians invented charity. The State has created a counterfeit charity. It mimics everything the Christians do except the most important part: It does not preach the Good News.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 08, 2012:

Vladimir Uhri— Thank you, my friend, for your astute riposte to my other visitor. Your comments are heartfelt and absolutely brilliant. Your encouragement is a blessing to me. I appreciate you very much.

God Bless You!

James :)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 08, 2012:

Paul Baker— I appreciate the 4 sets of comments you posted here for us. Thank you for visiting my Hubs and engaging in conversation.

I understand you love the idea of Socialism. Most people who do could use a better understanding of what Free Enterprise, Capitalism if you will, is. I have a short story that explicates that here:

As far as "equality" goes, I think Kurt Vonnegut explained "crab mentality" better than anyone, and I summarized his ideas in a brief little Hub you can find here:

If you had two towns side by side and one was socialist and one was free enterprise, there is no question as to which one would become more prosperous. In the free enterprise town the people might produce ten million dollars of wealth, and it would be split unequally—according to what each contributed that the others were unable to do. For instance, the only guy in town who was a surgeon would command a high paycheck compared to a street sweeper. And if others sought to steal his wages, he would move to a different town and that town would no longer have a surgeon at all.

If things run their natural course, 5 of the people would make a million dollars a year, 5 others might make almost half a million a year, while 10 would only be making $10,000 a year, but most would be averaging around $30,000 a year. Now the socialists would cry to the heavens that some made more than others, but in their own town NOBODY would make more than $10,000 per year.

In the socialist town 100 people might produce a one million dollars worth of wealth, and in theory they would have $10,000 each. In reality, we know that would not be the case. Before the Soviet Revolution 5% of the people had most of the wealth and power, and after 5% of the people still did—but far different people. The first group had earned their money and station; the second group had taken it through mayhem and murder and kept it by killing fifty million human souls.

You say you want a "balance between state run enterprise and free enterprise." The best thing the state can do to create a free and prosperous people is stay out of enterprise altogether. Without Economic Freedom there is no real freedom.

You write that "corporate greed has finished America off" but that is not what is causing America's problems. The average corporation makes 5% profit per year. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how you get people to voluntarily invest money, by giving them the hope of a return on their investment. Under socialism you just take people's money at the barrel of a gun and let the state spend it. How that is supposed to be 'better' or even more 'fair' I do not understand.

Now, if a certain corporation makes zero profit and another makes 10%, you would probably blast the one that made a 10% profit as "greedy" and praise the one that made zero. Don't you see how silly that is? The one made better use of its resources, both capital and human capital, it made wiser decisions than the other. That should be rewarded by any sane man.

I read the article you provided a link to, which I appreciate. I even agree with the writer on some major points. I do not think America should be engaged in any conflicts; I think we should close all overseas military bases; bring all of our soldiers home to our own soil; and cut defense spending in half.

What he implied about America being a police state is way off base.

And yes, Muslims hate us. Their own societies are such miserable failures that their leaders naturally blame the "others." They have to blame somebody, and the most wealthy people in the world always make for a good target.

As far as news manipulation goes, your writer should know all about that. The Progressives are masters of Propaganda. The news is manipulated—by people of HIS persuasion. But only the Main Stream Media. Thankfully, we get news from plenty of other sources as well.

If you want to discuss health care further, I have written about that in detail here:

You claim that "God does not exist." I am sorry you feel that way. God most assuredly exists. Fortunately, He does not depend upon your belief for His existence. I have an article that might interest you about this subject:

paul baker on November 08, 2012:


Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on November 07, 2012:

Hey, Paul, I did not say Darkings is soviet author. I know him. Recently after talking wit an inteligent person Richard changed from atheist to agnostic. I would like to let you know that what we do not see is more than what we see.

paul baker on November 07, 2012:

Richard Darkings is an English author nothing at all to do with the Soviet Union. Neither has Leonard Wells.

Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on November 07, 2012:

Paul: I do not need Richard D. book to read. I had soviet schools in university.

James: Thanks for good words.

paul baker on November 07, 2012:

I advise you to read Richard Darkings book the God Delusion

Also look up on youtube LEONARD WELL'S Haslinden uk on the BANKERS politics aside Leonard beliefs in GOD by the way Vladimir

Americans use propaganda as well.

Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on November 07, 2012:

Hi Paul. God loves you weather you belive in Him or not. I risked my life to come to this country. It is sad you believe in propaganda. Communists were very good in it. But they never hid their intention. Yes, we are not perfect, but this is why we needed Jesus salvation. Actually word Jesus means salvation. *** Greed, you mention is not characteristic only who are rich also who are poor. It is materialists phenomenon. Capitalists most of them are working hard. The greed applies also to those selfish who expect to be taking care by government. There is only me, me and me. They can sit drink beer and wach TV. Perhaps smoke grass. ***

We do not need more control. We are overcontroled. But communists want take all what rich people have. They will elimminate rich and when sources will gone all will become equally poor.

paul baker on November 07, 2012:

AS FOR GOD or as you say GAWD i am sure that he doe's not exist;

if he did he is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

God bless America God forgive America !!!

paul baker on November 07, 2012:

It is a matter of balance between state run and free enterprise.

Uncontrolled unregulated freemarket capitalism causes problems of inequality boom and bust. No more so than in the case of BANKERS who

get obscene amounts of money for doing what? having computers set up

for buying and selling shares in fractions of a second, i call them WANKERS !!! THEY HAVE CAUSED THE MESS. As for health care the USA has the best for people who can afford it hard luck for the one's who can not.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 06, 2012:

Vladimir Uhri— Thank you very much for chiming in. Mr. Baker doesn't know, I am sure, that you escaped from behind the Iron Curtain. Czechoslovakia, wasn't it?

Anyway, you know the evil of socialism first hand—not out of a stupid book. God Bless You Sir!


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 06, 2012:

paul baker— Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate your comments.

America has 4 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's wealth. This tells me that America has been doing something right economically over the past two centuries. And it was not socialism.

Only Free Enterprise has lifted ANY nation up to prosperity. Look at East Germany and West Germany when one was Socialist and the other under Free Enterprise. Both sides had something in common—plenty of Germans. But the West had a Standard of Living ten times higher. I will take South Korea over your model in North Korea any day of the week.

Socialism has left 100 million dead souls scattered upon the ashes of its false utopias in the 20th century. How many murders would be enough for you to give up this foolish and evil ideology?

The only reason the US has any unemployed people is because of Socialist policies that have crept in, especially under the President we have now. We spend $1.4 trillion a year just to comply with the 833,000 pages of stupid regulations nitwits have passed in Congress. We confiscated $1.5 trillion last year from people who rightly earned it and gave it to others who didn't. Is that not Socialist enough for your taste?

Socialism makes everybody equal—equally poor. Any thriving economy will have inequality because human beings are decidedly unequal in nearly every way.

Health insurance is not health care. Every American gets free health care. Access to a waiting list is not health care, either. You can keep your rationing and letting the old die over there in the UK. We have by far the best heath care in the world.

People who hate God have nothing larger than themselves to worship, so many of them worship the State. Forget your Marxist theories, Beelzebub, let's look at how your ideas play out in the real world:

paul baker on November 06, 2012:

Look up

: opednews

: Immanuel Wallerstein

Corporate capitalist greed has finished America off. i

Thank you for the sound advice to stay where i am Mr Uhri

paul baker on November 06, 2012:


Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on November 05, 2012:

To: Paul Baker. Trouble of America is since communists infiltrated America. Please stay where you are.

paul baker WINSFORD UK on November 04, 2012:




23,000,000 UNEMPLOYED




James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 05, 2012:

Vladimir Uhri— Of all the people I know in this world, there are none whose opinion I would value more than yours on this issue. Thank you very much for taking the time to come over and peruse my article. It means a lot to me, so I appreciate your kind words.


Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on July 01, 2012:

James, very good description. I would like to make one comment. Every start of socialism claims they knew mistakes previous regime but promised never will repeat them. They did exactly the same mistakes. As you said it is erogenous system.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 09, 2012:

Kebennett1— You are welcome. I humbly accept your high praise indeed, my friend, even if you might be "biased" in my favor. :-)

I had almost forgotten that I tagged the C.S. Lewis essay on education onto the end of this Hub. Thanks for reminding me. I might have another use for that.

I always appreciate your visits. Thank you for the blessings.

Kebennett1 from San Bernardino County, California on March 04, 2012:

This has got to be the most politically convincing article I have read yet! True, I am a bit biased to your writing :), but if I didn't agree with you I would certainly say so! I have a much better grasp at what exactly Socialism and Capitalism achieve in the end by reading this and where I actually have stood and do stand! I love C.S Lewis, thanks for adding his writing to your Hub, it was a great idea, and I agree with what he said as well! Stay Blessed my friend!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 02, 2012:

WD Curry 111— Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article. If you like this Hub, I think you will be interested in my book I am now working on finishing. It is about socialism somewhat but also much more, including New Age religion and the New World Order. :)

I appreciate the visit and your excellent comments.

WD Curry 111 from Space Coast on February 27, 2012:

This is an excellent comparison. It is true and tight.

You stated, "Social Liberals desire greater equality in incomes, rarely defining how far down the road to absolute equality they are willing to travel."

It looks like they want to ride all the way to the end of the line.They are supposed to be for workers, but they don't share profits in their own enterprises.There are more billionaires in Moscow than New york City.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 23, 2011:

homehubber— Thank you. I know that Africa is a mess. Its experiments with Marxism have not worked out well either.

I very much appreciate your comments. Thank you for reading my article. Welcome to HubPages!

homehubber on December 22, 2011:

Good article. You do seem to focus on the extremes and any extreme is very bad. In Africa you have pure Capitalism (whatever you earn you keep - no taxes) but that doesn't work so well either.

There is a balance somewhere between socialism and capitalism that is ideal.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 21, 2011:

Josak— Thank you for visiting my Hub. I appreciate your remarks.

Fear mongering? Can you dispute the truth of my words:

"All nations that have fully implemented Socialism have experienced a drastic drop in their standard of living, marked by both a lack of goods and food. Each has seen the loss of civil rights, liberty, and freedom."

That is the absolute truth. Only an insane person would wish such a thing on his fellow citizens—or a person motivated by envy and covetousness. Or the power hungry perhaps who want to run the socialist system.

You are wrong about slavery. Slavery was a worldwide institution. Where was it first abolished? In Europe and America. Instead of wrongly blaming the West for inventing slavery you should be thanking it for ending slavery.

It is true that a majority of Russians regretted losing their empire, gained by subjugating hundreds of millions of people from other nations. I think any lost empire laments its loss.

36 % of Americans have a "positive view" of socialism. They are mostly godless libertines. Most of them have no idea what socialism even is in reality. Considering that our ublic schools have preached the virtues of socialism for forty years that number is not large.

Josak from variable on December 18, 2011:

*Sigh* the usual American fear mongering, slavery this new world order that. Failing to mention offcourse that only capitalist countries like America have had real slavery also failing to mention the way those within socialist systems felt ie just three years before its collapse national studies conducted independently found 78 percent of the USSR's popululation wanted the union to remain unchanged and only 8 percent wanted a free market return. In america 46.5 percent recently polled that they supported a socialist future...

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 08, 2011:

Monkey-_— You wrote: "Capitalism encourages him [a rich man] to keep it, or to invest it in another profit boosting scheme."

Great! We should all WANT him to invest in another "profit-making scheme." Rich men invested in Apple, General Motors, and Microsoft; and virtually every other worthwhile "scheme" that has benefitted mankind. Who is apt to know more about what "schemes" will work, a successful business man or a government bureaucrat? Do you know anyone who ever bought a Russian car?

You write: "Giving it away is counterproductive to what Capitalism is about."

That is simply not so. Capitalist nations far and away are the most generous of all nations in history. What country has given more to charity around the globe more than ALL other countries combined? The one that is the most capitalist: America.

You say: "The only possible reasons Capitalism would cause someone to give to charity is that they might receive good public reputation or use it as an excuse to show off their wealth."

No doubt that goes on but wealthy Christians also have given billions of dollars to charities anonymously.

You make a good point about sports players. If they become free agents, there are so few of them, and so few teams, that an auction basically develops around them. But people who work everyday jobs do not have that experience.

In an ideal world what you said might be true: "Making the most of resources is something that does not have to be related to the chase of profits. It could be done for its own sake."

But in the real world it is not true. Who is apt to make the most out of his resources, a man who has his whole life savings wrapped up in a business or a government bureaucrat whose personal livelihood will be in no way affected by the success or failure of an enterprise?

In fact, bureaurats are often rewarded for failure and punished for success. If a bureaucracy is founded to, say, clean up Lake Erie and five years later it is so clean you could drink right out of it, what happens? The bureaucrat is no longer needed! But what if a bureaucracy fails to solve the problem it was created to solve, what happens? Think carefully about it! Usually, it gets an INCREASED budget.

You seem to think that profit is a dirty word. It is not. As I noted earlier, the average corporation makes a profit of 7.5%. So what? The investment required to start that corporation could have been put into a Certificate of Deposit with a bank and drawn maybe 3.5% interest with NO risk! And most corporations lose money the first several years while investors get nothing. Many investment never pan out. But when they do, why shouldn't the people who bankrolled the project get a 7.5% return on their money?

Monkey-_ from Thanet Island on November 04, 2011:

The struggle may never end, but that doesn't mean we as a race shouldn't try and make it easier.

It's important to educate people about the values of benefitting society so that we can avoid selfishness whatever the cause.

The rich man who gives to charity may have the choice of where he sends his money, but he also has the choice to keep it.

Capitalism encourages him to keep it, or to invest it in another profit boosting scheme. Giving it away is counterproductive to what Capitalism is about. Charity has no place in either ambition or profit.

Only good nature would make him give it away with no return for himself.

The only possible reasons Capitalism would cause someone to give to charity is that they might receive good public reputation or use it as an excuse to show off their wealth.

You wrote: "Well, this is only partly true. Few people quit working for a company that has been good to them—and sharp managers know this—even if they are offered a few more dollars."

I'm not sure how true this is. Take sports players for example. They grow up, join their hometowns team and play for town pride. Then they are offered a place in a higher league team with more money and loyalty is forgotten.

Not only does this show people to chase money, but it also shows how groups with money will not allow groups without money to make any for themselves. That talented player may have brought the local team more success, but as he has left for his own greed, the team stays behind and loses out.

No doubt it is the same in business, as people are headhunted and bought by the bigger industries.

Making the most of resources is something that does not have to be related to the chase of profits. It could be done for its own sake.

In regards to the horse buggies and the car industry. I do not believe that the horse industry should be held up. But the people should. Maybe they could be offered jobs in the car industry. If not then they should have a safety net. It is not their fault that society and technology moved on. They spent their lives learning a trade and becoming good at it. They worked to earn their living and it should not be taken from them.

You seem to be forgetting that I am not in favour of Socialism as a system either. My argument is for a middle ground which takes the best of both.

I realise that Capitalism has its good points with its ability to encourage people, but I strongly feel that the good people who are forced into poverty by it are being treated unfairly.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 02, 2011:

Monkey-_— I am not convinced that the "struggle" that is survival in this world will ever end.

You wrote: "A great legacy is one the improves the lives of people."

Well, I certainly agree with you. Part of this is the fact that most past generations of Americans have been focused on posterity. Surely the "Greatest Generation" of Americans, that withstood the Great Depression and fought in World War Two, qualify under this standard. But since the Sixties, a cultural revolution took place in the West that had wonderful ideals but in the end produced a certain nihilistic narcissism that pays no heed to future generations.

You ask: "If a rich man builds a new school or park with his money isn't that a socialist move? Isn't he giving away what he rightfully earned?"

The answer to the latter question is undoubtedly yes. But is it socialism? Absolutely not! Socialism is forced philanthropy. Not voluntary giving, which is a whole nother animal my friend.

You wrote: "Capitalism might have given that individual the wealth, but it didn't encourage him to part with it. He could easily have kept it for himself."

Actually, philanthropy is embedded in Capitalism. The chief difference is that a person sharp enough to create enormous wealth, is also sharp enough to chose wisely WHAT charities or public projects do the most good. Socialism means that a government bureaucrat who has never made an honest dollar in his life decides who gets the largess. And this then becomes a political issue, meaning that those with access to political power get the largess.

You wrote: "They had no loyalty to you, just the money you could offer."

Well, this is only partly true. Few people quit working for a company that has been good to them—and sharp managers know this—even if they are offered a few more dollars.

You wrote— "When profit is the goal, good human virtues are forgotten."

That is not true. What is profit? Profit in any company can be from a negative to maybe 50 percent. The average company in America has a net profit of 7.5 percent. If a company is profitable above average it means this: They made the most out of their resources. Is that not a good thing?

You say: "the Capitalist system has failed you personally through no wrong-doing on your part."

No, that is not true. I did run a great company but bad decisions on my part eventually proved our undoing. This is too long a story to fully recount here but suffice to say I made long-term gambles—and any business is a gamble—that killed me in the end.

Look at it this way: At the turn of the 20th century, millions of people made horse-buggies, and millions of people shoed horses. The automobile killed their industry. A Socialist government would have propped up horse-buggy makers and horse-shoers with money from taxes. But if they did, they would have been taking money away from those who started the automobile industry. The losers under this system would be financed by the winners. Is that really fair and just?

Monkey-_ from Thanet Island on November 01, 2011:

People may have had to struggle throughout the centuries but that is no reason why future generations should be forced to. A great legacy is one the improves the lives of people. If you do not want lifes comforts maybe you should live as the Amish do.

If a rich man builds a new school or park with his money isn't that a socialist move? Isn't he giving away what he rightfully earned? What capital can he gain from giving away so much? Capitalism might have given that individual the wealth, but it didn't encourage him to part with it. He could easily have kept it for himself.

I do agree that skilled workers should receive proportionally more than unskilled, but on the other hand some unskilled work takes more effort and longer hours so these people should be well rewarded too.

You may have paid your workers the best rates but that just goes to show how they chase the money. If one of your rivals offered them more, no doubt they would have gone to them. They had no loyalty to you, just the money you could offer.

Maybe you made personal friends of some of them, but I still would think they would take the road to more wages if they had a chance. When profit is the goal, good human virtues are forgotten.

Now you say you are broke and owe millions. It sounds like you ran your business well and did the best for your people, yet the Capitalist system has failed you personally through no wrong-doing on your part.

It seems mad to me that you still defend it.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 31, 2011:

Onusonus— God bless you brother! I love your wise and discerning remarks.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 31, 2011:

Monkey-_— There is no doubt that all through recorded time, people have had to struggle to survive. Struggle, it could be argued, is an inescapable feature of life, even for bugs and birds.

As you say: "Capitalism encourages people to gain as much for themselves, often meaning not paying others what they are worth in order to keep more money"

As to the first part of what you say, what if those people motivated by the capitalist system, who let's say live in a town of 10,000 souls, invent something great, like a new communications system that saves every single person in the whole world many hours of their lives? Now they have already benefitted everybody, even outside their own community. Now, what if the riches they obtain—without which they probably would never have had the motivation to do what they did in the first place—are then used to build a new library, civic center, school, and a beautiful park for the 10,000 people in the town they are from? Is this not good? Because this is the reality of the end product of capitalism if you understand how to trace it from its beginnings among the Dutch and English and then the Americans.

As to the second part of your sentence: What is labor worth?

If I need my floor swept at my little grocery store, and I run an ad in the local newspaper, and three people show up who are willing to sweep the floor; if all three are equally qualified to sweep my floor; BUT if one wants $15 an hour to sweep, one wants $12, and one wants $9—what is a man worth per hour to sweep my floor?

You claim that "Haggling doesn't exist in western civilisations so this doesn't happen. People pay what the greedy companies make them because they have no other choice."

Look, I have no expertise when it comes to the UK labor market, BUT I have been involved for decades in the U.S. labor market both as an employer and an employee. I can tell you that over here people have plenty of choices.

I owned an aviation company for 14 years (It went under two years ago and that is why I am now completely broke and I owe millions of debt I can never repay—but that is besides the point). I employed 150 people. For skilled people, it was an employees market. For people who had learned to be a skilled aircraft mechanic or aircraft pilot, I had to outbid my competitors. There were 10 jobs for every 9 applicants. I paid the highest wages in the industry, by the way, which is why I had the best shop. Other companies tried to raid my best people all the time. Now you are right for the unskilled jobs—janitor, errand boy, floor sweeper, night watchman, aircraft fueler, and various apprentices, it was the opposite. I had more applicants than I had positions.

What is wrong with that picture to you? Is that not how it should be? If one guy spent $40,000 and three years of his time to become certified as an aircraft mechanic or pilot SHOULD he not be more in demand and therefore command a much higher wage than a person that was nothing more than a living breathing person with no particular skills or education or training to offer?

I haggled with every person I hired for all posts in regard to their wages. And if we found the "sweet spot" where my willingness to pay equalled their willingness to work for that pay met; they came to work for me.

Onusonus on October 27, 2011:

As you should! Artificial inferiority is what makes socialism work. Now if you will excuse me I have to go rub two sticks together to make fire for dinner time.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 26, 2011:

Onusonus— I'm sorry, my friend. I was not trying to be iniquitous or intolerant. Thank you for bring it to my attention. I will work on toning things down a bit.

I haven't been taking the lessons learned by Harrison Bergeron to heart as I should. I wrote about that here:

James :D

Monkey-_ from Thanet Island on October 25, 2011:

In the UK minimum wage is around £800 a month, which is barely enough to survive on.

These people may be working hard for up to 40 hours a week to earn this pittance, most of which goes to landlords, bills or mortgages, then the essentials like food, leaving them with pennies to enjoy for themselves.

Capitalism encourages people to gain as much for themselves, often meaning not paying others what they are worth in order to keep more money. If the theory is that people are meant to get what the are worth, it doesn't work in practice.

You say what something is worth is equal to what someone is willing to pay plus what someone is willing to sell for. Haggling doesn't exist in western civilisations so this doesn't happen. People pay what the greedy companies make them because they have no other choice. The best they can do is find the cheapest prices or bargains.

I think you are missing my point that Socialism is not the answer, but society does need to adopt more from that system. Things like free education, the NHS and so on are great things that people need and would not exist under a completely capitalist regime.

We need more in place to protect people from homelessness, to allow the unemployed enough to live on and to allow those who do work full time more reward for doing so.

Onusonus on October 25, 2011:

James I've noticed that you write particularly well. So for the sake of equality and tolerance, I'm going to have to ask you to dumb it down a little because you are making the rest of us writers feel inferior.

Keep up the good work, but don't do too good. Let's just shoot for average.......;)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 25, 2011:

Monkey-_— I do not know anybody who thinks people ought to suffer. That is what charity is for; that is what family is for; that is what community is for. I don't anybody has ever "been left to die" in the United States.

There is constructive destruction in capitalism but when that happens it is all about 1) When you were doing well were you as smart as a squirrel? (Did you save any acorns for winter, which inevitably comes to all creatures?) 2) Are you able to adapt to your changing environment? (Which is necessary for all organismsto thrive.) 3) Have you lived your life in such a way that you are beloved and repected by your family and neighbors? (If so, will they really leave you in the street to die?)

I do not believe I said what you say I said, "that the Capitalist system relies on there being a class of people who suffer so that the few may prosper"

Where did I say that? That is not what I believe. Here is what I believe:

I believe that under socialism 95 of 100 people in a community will have the same income, let's say $10,000 a year. The 5 percent who run things will have much more.

I believe that under capitalism, all 100 people will have more than $10,000 a year because the whole community will be twice or three times or five times as prosperous. Yes, some people will make $20K, some $30K, some $40K, some $50K—according to their usefulness to everybody else. And yes, some smart aleck with probably make $250K because he invents Windows or the I-Phone or Google.

The point is that the lowest earnings on BOTH scales is $10,000. The difference is that under capitalism some will be envious and covetous and that can be fed upon by the evil pushers of socialism. Not the focus on what you have—the focus becomes what other people have. Because anybody who thinks the unskilled, uneducated poor will have MORE stuff under socialism is nuts. That has never happened in human history. It goes against fundamental human nature. Because under socialism, EVERYBODY stops trying—as the old Soviet saying goes, "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."

It is not an accident that Google, Windows, the I-Phone etc etc etc were invented by Americans and not North Koreans.

Monkey-_ from Thanet Island on October 23, 2011:

That's why I said before that Socialism isn't the answer either.

I realise that human nature is greed and laziness and we need some motivation.

I see Capitalism and Socialism as two extremes. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Some sort of system where people are free to produce and be rewarded for doing so, while those who fall behind are not left to die.

In your hub, Pros and Cons of Capitalism, you even say that someone who works hard at a skill becomes obsolete when new technology replaces them. They lose their livelihood and everything that they worked for. How does the ambition and hard work that Capitalism supposedly encourages reward them then? People are fooled into believing that Capitalism means that hard work will be rewarded where the world around me tells a different story.

You even say that the Capitalist system relies on there being a class of people who suffer so that the few may prosper.

People may say things like 'Life isn't fair' and that the world is cruel, but that is only because that is the way the human race makes it.

I can see no justification for letting people suffer.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 22, 2011:

Monkey-_— I do appreciate what you are saying. As a political philosophy on paper, your ideas show a big heart and a loving soul. If only they matched up with the actual world we live in.

When I was about ten years old, I had this big idea: Why not just take all the food, clothes, houses, cars, toys, land, and everything else in the world and divide it up equally among all people?

I didn't think about the fact that the dividing up requires someone to be in charge of the dividing up. Have you not noticed that when the U.S. sends a million pounds of wheat to some African country, it gets stolen by some militia the minute it hits the dock there. Why? Because controlling that food is power and men love power everywhere, always.

As I said in the article above:

"Socialism promises freedom and prosperity, but it delivers bondage and misery. Socialism means slavery; it assumes management of the lives of people; it accepts nothing less than complete control. Its conscious aim is to regulate the day-to-day affairs of a community. The very men who are most anxious to plan society, are also the most dangerous, as they are most intolerant of the plans of others."

In the first colony of the Pilgrims, they first tried communism. The leader told the people: "Let's all work hard this year. We'll plant, water, and harvest crops together; the men will hunt for food for all of us. The women will make butter and clothes for all of us. Whatever we all produce, we will put it in a big old communal pile and we will share in it equally."

There is your socialist dream right there. It has been tried in tiny hippie communes of ten people, and in whole nations like the USSR—and in every size community in between.

So what do you think happened, my wild-eyed idealist friend? They went hungry and cold and many of them starved to death. You know why if you know anything about people. Many of them "acted" like they were working (when somebody was watching). They all hoped that "others" would produce enough for all of them even if they only did as little as possible.

The next year, the leader had a new plan. He gave each family a plot of ten acres. He told them: "You do not have to share anything. Whatever you produce is yours. But you are not getting anything you did not produce yourself."

How do you think that turned out? They produced so much of everything that not one person died, nor was hungry, nor was cold. They gave away a ton of food to keep it from spoiling.

America was born.

Monkey-_ from Thanet Island on October 22, 2011:

Injustice in my view is people taking as much as they can for themselves while leaving others to die or live in poverty when it can be easily avoided.

There may be laws against lying and cheating, but they don't seem to work when politicians make their living from doing both of those things.

As I said. In the countries where it has been supposedly adopted in modern times, it really hasn't.

A dictator is the ultimate capitalist. Of course people are going to driven to poverty and want to escape when everything is taken from them.

The ideals of socialism is that everyone shares. That includes the leaders.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 20, 2011:

Monkey-_— Thank you for reading my article and responding. If you have never read anything that convinces you of the virtuous results of Capitalism, I would suggest my sister Hub to this one, which you can find here:

What is injustice in your view?

I disagree with your concept of Capitalism as "greed" and "lying and cheating."

Capitalism is based on ambition—not the same thing as greed. Greed is bad but ambition is good.

And as for lying and cheating, there are laws for that. Unlawful gain is wrong and should be prosecuted. Lawful gain—without limit, in my view—is good for it raises all boats.

One example of lawful gain being good is Steve Jobs and Apple. He started out not wealthy at all. His genius made him six billion dollars. Bad? No! Look at the tens of thousands of people he created employment for. And look at how his products enriched the lives of a a hundred million people!

As to the rest of your comments, I must quote myself from this very article:

"ALL! nations that have fully implemented Socialism have experienced a drastic drop in their standard of living, marked by both a lack of goods and food. Each has seen the loss of civil rights, liberty, and freedom."

That is ALL. Without exception.

"Of all the Socialists who have come to power worldwide by decrying poverty, NOT ONE of them has ever increased productivity or abolished poverty—or even reduced poverty."


"Socialism is not a good idea that went bad. It is a bad idea. It fails everywhere it is tried."


"a defining feature of Socialist governments is walls to keep people in—as opposed to the usual purpose of walls: to keep people out."


I could go on, but I think this is enough for you to try to rebut in one sitting.

Monkey-_ from Thanet Island on October 19, 2011:

I've been becoming deeply interested in this subject lately. I came into as a blank slate who before had little to no interest in politics. But the more I see the injustice in the world the more I want to know about the causes and what can be done about it.

I have never read anything that convinces me that Capitalism is the answer. The basic premise of it is that greedy people go out and do anything that they can to earn money. This often includes doing so at the expense of others, cheating, lying and a whole number of other negative tactics.

You can boil it down to basics.

When someone is looking for a job, they send in a CV which twists the truth to make the applicant sound more appealing. They turn up wearing a suit whether or not it is something that they would normally wear and they answer questions with the responses that the employer wants to hear.

An honest person who went through the process in an honest way admitting flaws and so on would not land the job compared to the liar, despite the possibility of being more qualified.

This pattern follows all the way to the top.

The society we live in tries to teach us that 'greed is good', which is completely the opposite of any good natured person.

It certainly is not the Christian way.

Your article describes Socialism as a regime which takes everything from people and turns them into slaves. You use Nazi Germany, U.S.S.R and Korea as examples.

We all know these models did not work, but that was not due to socialism. What happened was that the dictators took everything and left the people with nothing. In other words, the country became socialist while its leader was the ultimate capitalist, having tricked the nation into giving up all their belongings to him.

Real socialism would not have a dictator at the head.

Having said that, I do not believe that Socialism is the answer either.

It can not work simply due to human nature of greed.

What is required is a balance of the two. A system which allows those at the bottom to live without fear of poverty or even homelessness and death, while in the meantime allowing individuals to remain productive and be able to reap the rewards of doing do.

Any system that thinks letting people die on the streets is fine is clearly doing something wrong.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 15, 2011:

Storytellersrus— Thank you for coming over to read my article. You ask a very good question. I appreciate the link to that impressive article. I will try to answer while also being as brief as possible.

Firstly, Norway is NOT a Socialist country. The author of that article is drastically mistaken. If I may quote from the article: 'This is socialism, the sort of thing your average American CEO has nightmares about. But not Dalmo—and not most Norwegians. "The capitalist system functions well," Dalmo says. "But I'm a socialist in my bones."'

That is nonsense. Dalmo is rich and owns his own company! Under Socialism, the State owns all property, all companies.

Norway is offically "a constitutional monarchy with a representative parliament." It is known as "a capitalist welfare state."

Cuba, China, North Korea, and the USSR are or were Socialist States. Never Norway.

Socialism is a system in which ownership of assets, and the control over the means of production, are completely owned and controlled by the government. The central governmental authority takes over the economic affairs of society from the private sphere. Socialism is inimical to democracy.

Socialism requires a central planning board to decide how much work each person will do at what occupation.

In Norway, the world's highest per-capita income entrepreneurs fork over millions of dollars in taxes. Under Socialism there are no taxes—all wealth and income already belongs to the state.

The article says: "In 2009, Nordlaks pulled in $62 million in profits on revenue of $207 million, making Berg, the sole owner, a very rich man."

There are NO profits under Socialism and NO entrepreneurs. All is owned by the State. There are NO rich men in business—unless they are part of the political elite.

Norway has only five million people on lots of land and they are nearly all white Norwegians—a very homogenized society. There is no "amazing cultural diversity" as the article says. That is a joke. A Japanese restaurant doesn't mean your are culturally diverse.

Norway is a very rich country because of huge oil and natural gas production. Norway is the world’s number-two oil producer.

Barbara from Stepping past clutter on September 13, 2011:

My immediate response to your first line is, What about Norway?

I have to read this carefully, as I have not considered myself socialist. You might! I am going to mull this over.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 13, 2011:

MysteryPlanet— Thank you ever much for the laudations. I am well gratified to read your warm words. I appreciate the encouragement.

MysteryPlanet on April 12, 2011:

OH MAN! Your 6 hub series about socialism has a lot of good info in it. A person would need to re-read some of it and take notes to really get the most out of it.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 29, 2011:

Harlan Colt-- Thank you, Harlan, for your gracious comments. I am glad we are in agreeance. Did you notice the bonus section below the comments by C.S. Lewis about social engineering through state education? Most people have missed that. It is the only time I have had words below the comments. I thought the Hub would be too long otherwise.


Harlan Colt from the Rocky Mountains on March 28, 2011:

After browsing down the comments there is not much left to say. Great Hub though, and I am completely on board with allowing people the avenues with which to succeed - and liberals are all about slavery, not success for anyone.

my 2 cents

- Harlan

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 26, 2011:

hemustincrease— Maybe I should move that section. I don't think many see it there—though my last sentence does provide a clue. :)

As you stated so wonderfully: "everything stands on the shoulders of education. It sets the tone for the entire next generation.:

Yes. Indeed.

hemustincrease on January 25, 2011:

Oh wow! No i did not see them. LOL Good to be in cohorts with the likes of C S Lewis. :)

He certainly saw it coming then. Lets hope and pray the tides will turn sooner rather than later. And pretty much everything stands on the shoulders of education. It sets the tone for the entire next generation.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 25, 2011:

hemustincrease— I hope you noticed the box of C.S. Lewis below the comments. I rarely put anything down there but it was an afterthought.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article. Your comments are extraordinary. I agree with everything you wrote. You are a wise soul. Thanks again for your contributions to this page.

hemustincrease on January 24, 2011:

I applaud you for this hub. The cry for 'equality' is one without any sensible foundation. Nobody CAN be equal (in the manner which socialism purports) to a person who is clearly NOT their equal. I remember back when i was a student nurse, my tutor always reminded us to "treat our equals equally and our unequals unequally". That has stayed with me more than perhaps anything else she said. To a socialist, it no doubt smacks of 'bigotry' or 'injustice' etc. But the truth of it is far different. When we treat everybody the exact same way, irrelevant of who they are or what has shaped and influenced them, or what their personal capacities are for differing things we serve up the most cruel injustice their could be to humanity as a whole. Yet when we treat people according to who they ARE (as such treating our equals equally and our unequals unequally) we are raising humanity and living according to true justice.

A concise study of the history of China (even without looking at the other communist countries) ought to be sufficient to liberate people to defend their inequalities. Britain (i am a Brit in the USA) has taken a dangerous road and is far further down it than the USA at this point. At every turn the state is 'dictating' to the people. I prefer to consider these issues in terms of 'justice' rather than 'equality'. Equality seekers have a tendency to overlook justice. And in the end they are not doing themselves any favors at all. It never ceases to amaze me how readily people are to hand over their entire living to the state for pig swill! (Sorry if that is too strong a statement for some......but it is about the weakest term i could think of! LOL)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 21, 2010:

dreamreachout— Thank you so much! :D

Yes, you are right that Socialism creates dependence and denigrates accountability. I just love everything word you wrote; especially the quote from the great Churchill.

dreamreachout on April 21, 2010:

Awesome hub as usual!! Socialism is a bane, creates dependence and denounce accountabilty to one's own self!! If you get your food without a report card, you will more often than not become worthless!! It also supports the rogue worker without rhyme or reason!!


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 21, 2010:

rls8994— I don't know. But I suppose an investigation is in order. :-)

rls8994 from Mississippi on April 20, 2010:

Yeah, that's alot of rls. Who are all those people?? :)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 20, 2010:

magnoliazz— Me too! I too am in awe of the Founding Fathers. More so all the time. I love your comments here. Each word is perfect. Thank you!

magnoliazz from Wisconsin on April 20, 2010:

Excellent observations. Excellent and thought provoking hub.

The number one lesson animals teach their young is to fend for themselves.

Humans could learn from that, because socialism strips away those principles completely, and people are left with no incentive whatsoever to create their own destny!

Once again, I stand in awe over the wisdom of our founding fathers!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 19, 2010:

rls8994— Who knew that there were 8994 rls?

rls8994 from Mississippi on April 19, 2010:

Just noticed I spelled country wrong...sorry. I hope and pray we see a reverse soon too. Doesn't look good right now. Nice to see you also!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 19, 2010:

rls8994— Thank you for the laudatory remarks. I hope we reverse course, and soon. I appreciate this visitation. It's nice to see you. :-)

rls8994 from Mississippi on April 18, 2010:

This was a great explanation of socialism. I too believe that our "leaders" are trying to lead our contry into that direction. It's very scary!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 18, 2010:

boba020682— It's funny you should come by today. Just last night I went to your profile page to see if you had written anything yet.

The goal of Socialists is for EVERYBODY to receive exactly the same education. That is "fairness" and "Social Justice." The fact that it dumbs down the nation and lowers our national achievement is not considered to be important.

Thank you for reading my article and responding.

boba020682 from Silicon Valley on April 18, 2010:

Excellent hub James with some terrific points!

And I especially like the piece by C S Lewis.

If we don't recognize the under-achievers (slackers) and cull them out of higher education then how do we properly acknowledge the achievements of the over-achievers? That kind of education system relates so closely to Socialism in the end result that it frightens me.

And nice job of responding to your detractors.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 17, 2010:

bill yon— That is a great point Bill. You are right, of course. I should have said largest percentage of any population in a middle class, not the most number of people. Thanks for the piercing gaze.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 17, 2010:

Paraglider— It's nice to hear from you again, my friend. I am all for cooperating if half the folks can stop thinking about what other people have. It could be that all this is a distraction, as you seem to imply. But I must point out that fascists are not at all capitalists. Hitler and Mussolini are clearly on record that they hated capitalism and they central planned their countries. There was no free market there. Thanks for the comments.

Related Articles