Referring to the content of the title, this idea is something that has recently come to my mind, and I would appreciate further insight into the topic that others may give.
I will clarify the claim, but please first note the qualifier "significant"; I am not saying that there is not difference between the two system; rather, I am saying and will try to show that the economic success of a country and the life of a common citizen of a country do not depend on which of the two systems a country practices.
To the point: First, Socialism is the practice of having the government in control of how money is spent, and Capitalism is the practice of having private entities in control of how money is spent, but neither system differs on where the money comes from. How money is produced is far more important than how it is spent, for production of money is what impacts the value and accessibility of money. If there is no money produced, then there is no money to spend. The spending of money gets it power from the creation of money, so since the spending of money is reliant on the creation of money, the creation of money is the superior force. Thus, making Capitalism and Socialism irrelevant, since they only decide on the spending of money.
Second, history has shown that the trend of wealth is for it to accumulate; when one attains wealth, their next goal is to attain more wealth. Whether it is a government or a private entity, wealth will accumulate in one place. So, regardless of whether a country practices Capitalism or Socialism, in both cases, wealth will go to the few and will not go to the many. If both systems end in the same conclusion, then they are not significantly different.
Lastly, a citizen's influence on the entities that control the spending of money is not reliant on whether that citizen lives in a country that practices Socialism or Capitalism. A citizen can live in a society where they have a strong or weak impact on the decision of the spending of money in both Socialist and Capitalistic countries. So, in the eyes of the citizen, it matters not who controls the spending of money, for this does not directly affect the citizen's influence on how the money is spent.
Thank you for taking the time to read this post. Any productive feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am young, so I do not know everything; feel free to explain to me how I am wrong, if I am wrong.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Dibgick 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
You are correct in one aspect. The elites control the flow of money and in both cases politics and who you associate with are key to get rich. Actively playing along with (whatever) system is key for financial success.
The problem with socialism is the "uniform" distribution of poverty. In capitalism is the excessive concentration of wealth.
The main difference is that capitalism incentivates initiative and socialism punishes it.
In the end living on the fringe of whichever system will grant you a lot of unhappiness.