In most western countries, capitalism is typically lauded as the most effective way of regulating market relationships, whereas socialism is traditionally frowned upon as a threat to free trade. However, not only does socialism suffer from a prejudiced attitude reinforced by the infamous witch-hunts, but also has a range of advantages compared to capitalism. Specifically, socialism allows addressing social inequality and introduces powerful tools for regulating both the economic and political environment of a state, thus creating an overall more positive setting for the development of society.
The focus on promoting equality at every level of social interactions is what makes Socialism particularly valuable for the present-day community. Unlike the capitalism relationships, which inherently imply uneven distribution of wealth, the socialist structure leads to the hierarchy in which the amount of wealth possessed by each individual does not lead to the development of inequality. Quite the contrary, in its nature, socialism can be seen as the ultimate representation of equality, primarily, its economic variation (Jossa 7). Therefore, as a system of managing economic interactions between citizen, socialism evidently represents a fairer system of wealth distribution in which every single person receives an approximately the same amount of resources and opportunities to succeed.
Another important advantage that makes Socialism the superior compared to Capitalism is the fact that it comprises the elements of an economic and a political system. In fact, whereas capitalism is a purely economic framework, socialism tends to be connected to politics to a greater degree than it does to economy. However, it is doubtless that, unlike capitalism, socialism offers a perspective that incorporates the two stances at once (Boettke et al. 416). As a result, opportunities for a better assessment of the problems and opportunities that the state encounters becomes possible.
One could argue that the reinforcement of socialist ideas will lead to the rapid development of a dystopian world, as seen in the scenario observed in the USSR in 1917-1991. However, it should be noted that the described case of implementing socialist principles represents the socialist ideology being taken to its extreme. In addition, the specified example represents the case of choice postulates of the Socialist movement being used as the vehicle for building the state without the consideration of nuances or alternative opinions. In turn, the Socialist ideology as an entire collection of academic thought and a combination of multiple ideas can be seen as a viable tool for building relationships within a society, especially regarding the economic development of a state.
One of the main statements opposing the idea of socialism posits that the specified ideology does not allow creating the environment for the growth and evolution of private entrepreneurship. On the one hand, there is a grain of truth in the specified statement since the socialist standpoint suggests using the maximum resources to build state-owned firms, whereas private entrepreneurship is seen as irrelevant to the economic system (Durbin 12). As a result, private companies suffer, being unable to compete with government-owned companies and being forced to retreat or cease to exist.
The specified counterargument leads to the final advantage of socialism over capitalism. Namely, the socialist perspective, when implemented without the restriction of personal freedoms and with the careful analysis of the market signals, becomes a much more powerful tool in managing the state and its economic potential than capitalism. Despite the latter offering greater freedom and flexibility in establishing private entrepreneurship, it implies that organizations in its environment are left on their own, with very little guidance or assistance from the government. In turn, socialism does not allow thee lite to manipulate the market and, instead, strives that the very concept of oligopoly should become nonexistent (Opp 161). Thus, the threat of large corporations becoming the source of social distress and economic devastation, especially in smaller cities and rural areas, is avoided generally when implementing the principles of socialism in their bare form.
Overall, socialism provides opportunities for centralized planning, which leads to the introduction of homogenous standards into the state economy. The specified measure eliminates the threat of fraud and the possibility of larger organizations stifling the development of smaller ones. Moreover, with the state ownership of core resources, wealth is distributed more fairly, which leads to the reduction in the levels of inequality and the drop in the rates of social tension (Bevilacqua and Ou 1078). Thus, in theory, socialism leads to a happier and more content society than capitalism does. Moreover, in the capitalist environment, which leaves large corporations to dominate the economic discourse, the planning process becomes disrupted and starts lacking homogeneity. Being unable to see the entire picture due to the problems in information management, namely, the process of sharing data related to companies’ operations, the government is incapable of affecting the situation in the market in a tangible way. As a result, with the capitalist framework of managing society, disruptions in handling key economic and social issues become inevitable.
Since, unlike capitalism, socialism represents a combination of economic and political systems, it introduces mechanisms for regulating the target environment by affecting different aspects of a society’s functioning. As a result, when implemented correctly, socialism is expected to lead to much more positive outcomes than the principles based on the capitalist philosophy. With the focus on ethics, the management of the needs of the disadvantaged and the promotion of social equality, socialism is likely to turn out to be an ultimately superior system of structuring social relationships. Therefore, socialism can be seen as superior to capitalism since the latter has a rather chaotic nature compared to the predictability of the socialist environment.
Works Cited
Bevilacqua, Carmelina, and Y. Ou. “Place, Relationships, and Community-Controlled Capital: On Ecosystem-Based Innovation towards an Equitable Competitive Advantages Distribution, the Boston Ujima Project Case.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, vol. 13, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1072-1089.
Boettke, Peter J., et al. “Schumpeter, Socialism, and Irony.” Critical Review, vol. 29, no. 4, 2017, pp. 415-446.
Durbin, Evan Frank Mottram. The politics of democratic socialism: An essay on social policy. Routledge, 2019.
Jossa, Bruno. A New Model of Socialism: Democratising Economic Production. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
Opp, Karl-Dieter. “Why Do People Believe in Socialism? Testing Propositions for West and East Germany with the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS).” Einstellungen und Verhalten der deutschen Bevölkerung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2019. 155-190.