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 →
[–] sanegoatIAmNot 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
USA is FASCISM ( Corporate Socialism )
Name a "CAPITALISTIC" country on earth? Maybe China comes closest, in terms of RAW entrepreneurial activity and ease to start a biz.
The problem is there are no pure "Ayn Rand" capitalist nations on earth;
I prefer ANARCHISM, Emma Goldman defined best "Communalism in its purest form", meaning people living communal ( like communes ) with no form of GOV or ADMIN or PIGS or MIL.
Problem now is MSM defines all the -ism, and the JOO has had 100+ years in USA to dumb down the public, and mind fuck them.
One must travel the entire world, and see it all, and you will find the shoe(-ism) that fits you, and for me the USA used to be a place to make money, but NOT TO LIVE. Today you can't even make money anymore in the USA.
The problem is NOT the "-ISM" the problem is GOV
Von Mises said it best "The essence of ALL GOVERNMENTS on earth is beating, killing, and imprisonment", The people who love GOV the most are hangmen, cops, and gendarmes.
All -ISM is good when there is NO organized GOV looking down and spying on you and robbing you.