Capitalism is better than Socialism.

Stating the obvious Clearly you misinterpret socialism with communism. It is common practice in the US not to distinguish between the various forms of liberal markets and philosophies, but to flatting the forms of socialism like democratic socialism, scientific socialism or the classic Marxist socialism into plain old communism. Making things easy is not enough here. As I stated above, I am not debating old communism, but like the topic depicts, socialism. And to this day there have not been a single instance worthy to be called democratic socialism, scientific socialism or sole socialism. All there is are trends, and I also depicted various of those in the last posts. Misinterpreting capitalism and ignoring globalization It is a nice fairytale to think of the very simplest ideas from Adam smith as a sole solution to the modern age. In it's very core, the human agent, modern supply and demand theory et cetera have prooven to be ineffective. And those times when they flourished most, causation can not be ignored. The economic power of the western world after world war two was build upon the fact that those supreme technologies developed during those years plus the relative lively infrastructure of the US was in a way better shape than anywhere in the world. Also, capitalism in the united states in the 19th century is quite a different beast than neoliberalism. Flattening history makes one more time all things seem easy where things are utterly complex. Back to the point, there was no market able to compete with the western economy, leading to an easy world market domination by the western world. This domination was built upon the exploits of the time, as well as on the exploits of earlier colonialism. The slave trade in earlier times has been one of the most important factors and some scientist argue, the cornerstone of the initial cometetive advantage by the US. Later followed by the also not negletable bonus points of a won war. There are hundreds of books and thousand of papers available to study these topics, and I encourage you to do so. So I wont go further in this excurse. 1. In the history of the modern markets, it is clear that the idea of supply and demand and most importantly, the economic, selfish human agent, is to simplistic and does not solve any problems in modern society but serve as an accumulator. If you really think everyone can win at the same time, you are absurdly hypnotized. I have the impression that you haven't had any explicit experience regarding the monetary world outside of common political simplifications by the common people. One of the corner stones in capitalism is competition for wealth. The idea is that if everyone tries hard enough and put in enough willpower, everyone may win. But where are winners there also those lost in the process. There are people in this world not interested in capital growth but heavily inspired by other convictions. Those are the ones loosing.- And they are the common people. Have you an idea how many are working in three jobs at once to support their lesser property? In the US, the most aggressive capitalism in the world, a lot. Way more than in Europe. Because of it's predatory nature, security is of no importance whatsoever, and any attempt to establish policies catching people falling through the net are causing the uproar of socialism, but what is meant, is communism. This trend is exploiting the fears of the common people and stabilizing the economic advantage of those who are rich. () 5 Percent in the US have more money than 95 percent of the rest. This is not fair, this is a monopoly. And moreover, it is a monopoly you are born in, or left out. It may happen that simple people climb up the ladder to get rich. But first, for everyone climbing up, the people falling down are a magnitude higher. For the stake on the table to be high, there have to be a lot of bets. The perverted consequences of the economy ignoring real goods and services but exploiting financial products, which are in itself nothing more than a roulette table for the upper class, are visible with ease and criticized by enomic experts for quite a long time. So, of course it is the survival of the fittest, everything else is nothing but wishful thinking. Also, when there are more people highly qualified, it does Not reduce the losers bracket, since the competition just gets more fierce, and those trapped in unfortunate life conditions and their future are completely on stake. 2. "...the government will decide what is needed for the people..." Have you ever met that alien sitting in the giant office called government? Is he an alien? He has to be, since you are not counting him to "the people". Have you ever met the person you pay taxes for? Just turn around and look in the mirrow. Oversimplification. In the republic, the one you and I are living in, we vote our Representatives on the philosophical belief that a voted expert is more flexible and possible aqainted then oneself.- Fair enough. This is something that can go along any form of economy or philosophy. The government is not the enemy but the purpose of the officials voted is to serve the people.- Although in capitalism a lot of politicians rely on money for their campaign by anonymous money lenders, effectively corrupting the very core of this truly concise beautiful thought. Don't believe me? Again, read up on the millions spend on the candidates by the top 5 percent (and like my Prof liked to tell me, always check the source). There is no conflict in theory between the government in the people, quite the opposite, officials are voted to serve the people for their sole convenience. Regarding "in Marxism, no one has reason to work if the government works for them", I pointed you to a lot of real world examples and I am frankly tired defending an obvious existing and effective subculture that sits right in front of your eyes. There are many forms of control structures outside of the ones your limited knowledge of political theory apprehends. Look at democratic socialism as example. Like Switzerland, it is entirely possible (and only convienet through modern technology you so eagerly dismiss) to let the people vote for whatever there is and merely manage or account the decisions made direct by the people. Another idea is the deep integration of scientists in discussions of important decision to make the process not political but scientific and reasonable. Systems theory is complex and a wide field and, again, there is a lot more reading involved to acquire something of more quality than plain common knowledge. As a side note. Thinking technology is irrelevant is plain ignorant of modern history since social improvements are mostly developed in parallel or on improvements in technology, since it is easier and more feelable than the plain philosophic thought. As for money. Like above there are many many alternative technologies in discussion right know eliminating the limitations of modern fiat concurrency. On which you should also read up. Possible alternatives discussed are: Time as money, energy as money, digital signatures as money. All those technologies are descendants of modern socialistic thinking. Voting for modern capitalism? It is happening right know, in the form of transitioning away from it. This drift is not random, but relies on the people being fed up with the limitations of their time. Thinking minimum wage can fix this? Think the woman in India sewing your jeans 19 hours a day for 1.5 dollar will be employed with minimum wage? Wishful thinking as it's best. Why are we importing goods from those poor creatures, being exploited by our very cooperation's down there? Because we won't pay a fair price for these goods. Because the company makes a lot more money, and money is like I said the end to all means, and quite frankly doesn't care for those people. Like we do not since we are buying pro