We all have a tendency to consider things either "black" or "white'. no in between. Here is another way to look at socialism and capitalism.
Consider countries classified according to the follow factors (1) Population density (2) Natural resources. These two classification factors will yield "four" groups of countries when it comes to which economic system will work best. Here are the "four" groups.
(1) Lots of natural resources and a low population density.
This would be countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Canada. I like capitalism over socialism for most situations, but I think that socialism could work and do the job in this group of countries. Most of the wealth comes from the exploitation of natural resources and those can be easily controlled and managed by the state. Given the low population, all would be rich and thus less greedy.
(2) Lots of natural resources and a high population density.
This would be country like the USA or Brazil. They could go either way, but since much of the wealth would have to come from value added work, capitalism would do the best job. With socialism, the people would not have an adequate incentive to work as hard as needed for a good quality of life, that is why I come down on capitalism here.
(3) Few natural resources and low population density.
These are the most numerous type countries and they could go either way. Given that wealth, for these types of countries, has to be generated by value added work, capitalism would be the way to go. They would not be rich enough countries to be able to afford the cost and low efficiency of a socialized economic system.
(4) Few natural resources and high population density.
I am not sure there is any real hope for countries like this. We are talking about most of Africa, India and China. For these types of countries to provide any level of quality of life would require a very harsh government and I don't think that kind of government would be compatible with any form of capitalism.
The point is that socialism is not dead, it is really only a viable option in a very few places and in those places, capitalism would work as well if not better. It is your call.
PS---Notice that countries with a dense population seldom can offer a high quality of life for their people. A country in group (3) is Switzerland. They have been able to provide a high quality of life for their citizen by having a "zero" immigration policy. Take a lesson President Obama. Look at Nigeria, who is in group (4). There is no hope for them except war and starvation. Countries who try to solve their problems by immigration only pull down everybody else in the process. Look at Hatti!
Consider countries classified according to the follow factors (1) Population density (2) Natural resources. These two classification factors will yield "four" groups of countries when it comes to which economic system will work best. Here are the "four" groups.
(1) Lots of natural resources and a low population density.
This would be countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Canada. I like capitalism over socialism for most situations, but I think that socialism could work and do the job in this group of countries. Most of the wealth comes from the exploitation of natural resources and those can be easily controlled and managed by the state. Given the low population, all would be rich and thus less greedy.
(2) Lots of natural resources and a high population density.
This would be country like the USA or Brazil. They could go either way, but since much of the wealth would have to come from value added work, capitalism would do the best job. With socialism, the people would not have an adequate incentive to work as hard as needed for a good quality of life, that is why I come down on capitalism here.
(3) Few natural resources and low population density.
These are the most numerous type countries and they could go either way. Given that wealth, for these types of countries, has to be generated by value added work, capitalism would be the way to go. They would not be rich enough countries to be able to afford the cost and low efficiency of a socialized economic system.
(4) Few natural resources and high population density.
I am not sure there is any real hope for countries like this. We are talking about most of Africa, India and China. For these types of countries to provide any level of quality of life would require a very harsh government and I don't think that kind of government would be compatible with any form of capitalism.
The point is that socialism is not dead, it is really only a viable option in a very few places and in those places, capitalism would work as well if not better. It is your call.
PS---Notice that countries with a dense population seldom can offer a high quality of life for their people. A country in group (3) is Switzerland. They have been able to provide a high quality of life for their citizen by having a "zero" immigration policy. Take a lesson President Obama. Look at Nigeria, who is in group (4). There is no hope for them except war and starvation. Countries who try to solve their problems by immigration only pull down everybody else in the process. Look at Hatti!
