CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What is the appropriate mix of capitalism and socialism?
In our society, both pure capitalism and pure socialism are doomed to fail. What is the apropriate mix? The U.S. is obviously more capitalist then most of it's european allies, and speaking from the point of view of a middle class American, I believe we need more of a social safety net, so that individuals may have less anxiety about the future and where fate takes them.
there is no such thing as "your work" there is only "our work". Without recognizing that, "your work" will always be stolen by a small group, which often does no work at all.
What about the workers that built your guitar, constructed the stage at the gig, and made it possible for you to even purchase books or take lessons, learn from online resources, and so on?
That gig you practiced for, it was made possible due to an aggregate of labor which wasn't only comprised of yours.
Actually, yes. Now besides the fact that I built my own guitar and that I built a shed so I would be most likely be able to make a stage (or at least just a slight incline for the show) I'll say it again: The guitar is the crafters' work. The stage is the workers' work. The music is my work.
One does not owe tribute to everyone who "helped" the show in a minimalist way, when a talented musician performs he/she does not owe homage to every stage builder, light bulb maker, carpenter, floor installer and every audience member, it was their work.
I'm not saying that you owe a tribute, only that you and your labor is only possible because of the labor of others.
The production of any particular thing, is very likely not done by any one individual.
Even if you built your own guitar, you likly didn't build what it was made out of, harvest the materials, it and so on. Labor is thus an aggregate thing.
Your ability to labor, is founded upon the labor of others.
Opportunity should be shared, but rewards for accomplishment should match that accomplishment.
Part of the problem is the mentality many have that they earned everything. They did it all themselves. This is both selfish and incorrect. Anyone who achieves anything can only do so thanks to that society which supported them, to turn around and then not support that society which let you become successful is near criminal in my mind.
The continuation of this mentality, accelerated through the 80s and what you see in the far right wing and libertarian wing, is a decrease in opportunity in favor of more influence for those with the most.
How can opportunity shared? When is my turn to swing at a 90 mph fast ball in the MLB? It is clearly earned from previous work.
Society can only function as individuals pursing selfish interests, ambition is not collective, it is clearly individualistic. Nobody lets you become successful, that is ridiculous. Selfish motives built society's luxuries, it isn't magic. No central planning involved. Other people's self motives builds opportunities for others. For example, Tiger Woods self interests in winning and popularity helped all other pro golfers financially and professionally by investment into clubs, balls, courses and equipment.
Only free market capitalism detracts from influence and political pull. Been over this before.
How can opportunity shared? When is my turn to swing at a 90 mph fast ball in the MLB? It is clearly earned from previous work.
And people should have equal opportunity to earn this from previous work if they so choose.
Society can only function as individuals pursing selfish interests, ambition is not collective, it is clearly individualistic.
That's not only very pessimistic, but also incorrect. People are perfectly capable of pursuing things collectively and feeling fulfilled within that pursuit.
Nobody lets you become successful, that is ridiculous.
No, it's factually correct. Every successful person has to use tools put in place by others. That's a fact.
Selfish motives built society's luxuries, it isn't magic. No central planning involved.
Again, pessimistic and completely false. Selflessness has been the cornerstone of many things which have advanced society, from infrastructure to medicine to setting up governments with a right to vote.
Other people's self motives builds opportunities for others.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. Either way it has no bearing on my general point.
For example, Tiger Woods self interests in winning and popularity helped all other pro golfers financially and professionally by investment into clubs, balls, courses and equipment.
Yes, that is an example. Are you applying an example to a whole? That is a fallacy, and clearly so in this case.
Only free market capitalism detracts from influence and political pull. Been over this before.
And you are still incorrect. Capitalism has nothing to do with political pull unless it is allowed to, and ideally it should be separate in order to balance power of means against power of population.
Why if you live in a democracy where people decide, for the most part, their lot in life would you be so willing to cede your independence back over to the few with the most wealth?
Make no mistake, that is what happens when capitalism has too much sway over governance. It is a way of wrestling the power away from the people and giving it back to the few with the most.
And people should have equal opportunity to earn this from previous work if they so choose.
Good, I played baseball and golf in high school, where is my shared opportunity in the MLB and PGA Tour? Do I earn a spot just because I played these in high school? It is only fair, right?
People are perfectly capable of pursuing things collectively and feeling fulfilled within that pursuit.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to pursue anything collectively because everyone has different value scales; value scales is what makes human unique because we all don't share the same brain; therefore, collectivism is impossible.
Every successful person has to use tools put in place by others. That's a fact.
Just because you say its factually correct, doesn't mean it is so.
Sure, every successful person uses tools created by others, but that doesn't mean that those people let you became successful, those tools were only created by selfish interests of individuals, and nothing was handed to them.
Again, pessimistic and completely false.
Not pessimistic, more like factual.
Yes, that is an example.
Yeah, it is just one example, but there are plenty. Same thing can be applied to every person in sports, business and innovations such as Michael Jordan in basketball, Dale Earnhardt in racing, Wayne Gretzky in hockey, Joe Namath in NFL, Bill Gates in Microsoft, Steve Jobs in Apple, Zuckerberg in Facebook, Henry Ford in Ford and so and so forth.
Why if you live in a democracy where people decide, for the most part, their lot in life would you be so willing to cede your independence back over to the few with the most wealth?
How would my independence secede from an completely voluntary society? The wealthy wouldn't be able to use force of any kind in a free market because their products or anyone products wouldn't be bought except for voluntary exchange, so wealth wouldn't concentrate because of the freedom.
Good, I played baseball and golf in high school, where is my shared opportunity in the MLB and PGA Tour? Do I earn a spot just because I played these in high school? It is only fair, right?
You had equal opportunity. You were not good enough. You had opportunity though.
How do you not even understand what the word opportunity means?
Unfortunately, it is impossible to pursue anything collectively because everyone has different value scales; value scales is what makes human unique because we all don't share the same brain; therefore, collectivism is impossible.
And you also don't know what it means to pursue something collectively apparently.
So you said you played sports. In those sports did you try to win? Did other people on your team try to win? Well then, you pursued something collectively despite any differences you may have had.
Simple. How do you not understand that?
How would my independence secede from an completely voluntary society? The wealthy wouldn't be able to use force of any kind in a free market because their products or anyone products wouldn't be bought except for voluntary exchange, so wealth wouldn't concentrate because of the freedom.
Only if you socialize necessities and provided everyone with a minimum living standard, otherwise, yes, the wealthy would have a monopoly on "coercion" as you like to say and there is not power to balance this out.
No, being not good enough for professional sports is not equal opportunity, it is just how markets work, the best rise to the top based on demand. Equal opportunity implies everyone gets to play in professional despite market demands.
Playing in a sport is not collective, it is individuals all with plans ultimately trying to win as a team, yet playing in sports myself proves that egos are never left at the door because it is individual pursing self interests.
There are such thing as necessities except air because all take human action to provide them on the market, so competition will always exist on a completely voluntary basis.
No, being not good enough for professional sports is not equal opportunity
That you were allowed to play was opportunity. You had opportunity. Again, why is this hard to understand?
it is just how markets work, the best rise to the top based on demand.
Sometimes. Sometimes when resources are concentrated individuals who do not have these resources do not have opportunity. Which is where government can be a good thing. It can give everyone an opportunity to play just like you had an opportunity to play sports.
Equal opportunity implies everyone gets to play in professional despite market demands.
It implies no such thing.
Playing in a sport is not collective, it is individuals all with plans ultimately trying to win as a team, yet playing in sports myself proves that egos are never left at the door because it is individual pursing self interests.
Well, this is likely one of the many reasons, despite your opportunity, you were not good enough to go pro.
There are such thing as necessities except air because all take human action to provide them on the market, so competition will always exist on a completely voluntary basis.
A necessity is anything needed. One can starve or die of thirst or exposure with all of the air in the world. This statement does not even make sense.
PS: I wasn't the downvote, keep your puppets in their pen. I don't feel like wading through two pages of random downvotes today.
Wrong, nobody is allowed to just play even in high school sports or youth programs, it is still earned from all participants looking to make the team because of the scarcity in supply. Equal opportunity is just some made up term. The point is there is so such thing as equal opportunity.
Actually, it did imply that because it implies equal results. Markets provide opportunity based on freedom and one to pursue self interests.
Wrong, they are many if not all professional athletes who are very selfish.
Nothing is needed because man only acts on purposeful interests. Sure, one can die from starvation or thirst, but man must act then to resolve this desire. Food or water just doesn't appear out of nowhere whereas air no human action is required.
Enough with the unfounded accusations of puppet accounts, I have no puppet accounts.
Wrong, nobody is allowed to just play even in high school sports or youth programs, it is still earned from all participants looking to make the team because of the scarcity in demand. Equal opportunity is just some made up term. The point is there is so such thing as equal opportunity.
Ugh, yes they are allowed to play. Some make it some do not, all are allowed to try though, that is the point of equal opportunity. You are trying to equate equal opportunity with success, they are not the same though. You are working with the wrong set of definitions here.
Actually, it did imply that because it implies equal results. Markets provide opportunity.
This misconception stems from your incorrect definition of opportunity.
Wrong, they are many if not all professional athletes who are very selfish.
But not all. And this is irrelevant to the point along with being fallacious when you make the claim collective goals are impossible.
Nothing is needed because man only acts on purposeful interests. Sure, one can die from starvation or thirst, but man must act then to resolve this desire. Food or water just doesn't appear out of nowhere whereas air no human action is required.
This in no way changes the fact that air is not the only necessity. It has nothing to do with that point. There are many necessities.
The only person working with the wrong set of definitions is you. You are equating tryouts to actually making the team or event, not everyone who tryouts for the team is not allowed to play.
Actually, there is no misconception of opportunity, that would be you, you think that everyone who wants to play can, but reality, only some do.
Not fallacious since the act of being selfish in team sports exists means collective goals are still impossible because not everyone on the team has the same exact goals. Other motives go into winning as a team such as scoring the most points or touchdowns.
Actually, air is still the only necessity considering man has to do nothing to get it. Everything else involves an human act.
You are equating tryouts to actually making the team
No, I'm equating tryouts with an opportunity to make the team. You meanwhile are equating failure after tryouts to never having tried out.
Not fallacious since the act of being selfish in team sports exists means collective goals are still impossible because not everyone on the team has the same exact goals. Other motives go into winning as a team such as scoring the most points or touchdowns.
Your statement was that since you had selfish motive all motives then must be selfish. This is not the case, an obvious fallacy. Some may, some may not, but it is very possible not too. You claim that it is impossible to not have purely selfish motives in team sports. It's a ridiculous statement.
Actually, air is still the only necessity considering man has to do nothing to get it. Everything else involves an human act.
Then stop eating and drinking water and see what happens.
You meanwhile are equating failure after tryouts to never having tried out.
Right, tryouts are only attempting to make the team, not actually making the team, you said equal opportunity is playing on the team, and that everyone gets that opportunity and now, you are equating equal opportunity to tryouts. Equal opportunity can't even equate to tryouts because there are a limited number of spots as well. Not everyone can tryout either.
It's a ridiculous statement.
Whatever!!
Then stop eating and drinking water and see what happens.
This is just an idiotic response with no meaning, even stop eating and drinking water takes human action, which is no different than it takes human action to eat and drink.
Right, tryouts are only attempting to make the team, not actually making the team,
That is an opportunity to make the team. Whether you make it is inconsequential. Not having opportunity would be not being allowed to try out.
This is just an idiotic response with no meaning, even stop eating and drinking water takes human action, which is no different than it takes human action to eat and drink.
The point is that eating and drinking are necessities. If you were to stop eating and drinking you would die. This is the definition of a necessity.
When you need to change the meaning of simple terms like "opportunity" and "necessity" it means that your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Not having the opportunity is an reality because only so many can tryout because of the limited open positions just to tryout, otherwise, if it was equal opportunity for even tryouts, millions of people would be trying out for every single NFL team or whatever sport.
Not eating will result in death, but still not a necessity, food doesn't appear of nowhere, human action is required, so it is a desire. Unless man doesn't need to do anything to achieve a desire, it is a necessity.
The only one changing the definition of opportunity and necessity is you.
Millions of people are trying out, starting in grade school. They are slowly eliminated as they cannot compete as they progress through the levels.
And it does not matter how one gets food, you still need food. It doesn't matter if it appears from the blue or if you have to go find it, it is still, by definition, a necessity.
Right, opportunity is then a progression of previously earned through labor and hard work regardless whether it is sports or not. Even grade school has some limits to the number of students who can compete because of the limited positions on the team.
Actually, it does matter how one gets food, it takes labor and work not only from the recipient but from others producing it. One has the choice to eat or not eat based on the decisions of humans even if it means death.
One has the choice to eat or not eat based on the decisions of humans even if it means death.
You use the term "decisions of humans" which separates the nature of the human being from the nature of the decision.
To fully respect the decisions of others is to act as an automaton of duty: to deny ones own nature merely to "buy" a right to exist. As you say, the decision to die of starvation isn't a "human decision", it is a "decision of a human". Going against ones desires is unnatural.
The theory is written by Karl Marx, who disbelieved in Capatalism in the first place, so it is natural he would write about how it will be destroyed. It is like how a republican would write how the democrats are a party doomed to fail, because he dislikes the democrats. It is an opinionated theory. And so far, Capatalism has greatly benefited the human race, so why get rid of it?
Wrong, it has benefited the ENTIRE human race. Almost every corner of the globe has electircity, running a lightbulb, invented and promoted by Edison. The telephone invented and promoted (though it is disputed that he got it first) by Alexander Graham Bell. The airplane, invented, patented, and produced but the Wright Brothers. Heck, even Coca Cola, enjoyed in all seven continents of the world. Saying it hasn't benefited the entire human race shows your ignorance. I'm NOT talking about just inventions. Companies came to produce these inventions that have made the lives of billions more enjoyable.
Also notice that Africa is marred in war and poverty. Africa has only recently come to the modern age and they are still struggling. So yes, go ask an African how they like their water pump system to irrigate their farms. Ask an African how they like their cell phones to contact their business providers and call for help. Ask an African how they like their car they can get around in. Go ask an African how they like their television set in the market where they can cheer their team into the FIFA World Cup.
Also, Africa has many socialist-proclaimed countries. Ah, but it is the capitalists that have marred their countries into war, right?
Ask an African how they like the debt load forced on their nation by the IMF. Ask and African how they like their resources being shipped to the west. Ask an African how it feels to be subjected to copper wars and resource wars.
Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military force."
Please look at the Soviet Union. The entire Soviet Bloc was taken over by the Soviets, plus Afghanistan. They oppressed millions, by military force. Saying Capitalism always leads to Imperialism is a historical fallacy. Now I agree Imperialism is not the right way, but I HATE it when someone does not get history right. It's a pet peeve of mine. Capitalism also does not always lead to Imperialism. Look at Ancient Greece, they stayed more within themselves.
Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military force."
I am not the one with incorrect history. The USSR invaded Afghanistan to fend off the Mujahadeen. Life under Soviet Afghanistan was far better than under the Mujahadeen/Taliban.
Capitalism always leads to imperialism, there has never been a capitalistic power which has never engaged in some form of Imperialism.
And on Ancient Greece, have you ever heard of Alexander the Great?
"Look at Ancient Greece, they stayed more within themselves. "
wait, what?
Ancient Greece staying mostly with themselves? Alexander the great conquored Persia, Egypt, and pretty much everything in between the two. The greeks destroyed Troy, too. The spartans themselves took over a lot of stuff(Not sure as to the numbers with that one.)
So, before you go around saying how 'wrong history' is a petpeeve of your's, please double check your facts.
You just committed a logical fallacy, care to actually address the argument?
Further more, capitalism isn't stable, it'll get rid of itself.
Also, if we have something that works, and something that works better but is mutually exclusive of the thing that works, why get rid of the thing that works?
A logical fallacy? Care to actually address the argument? Can you explain how I did not do that?
Capitalism can't get rid of itself. It's too engrained in society. It is stable right now. Now we have had depressions. That is a natural cycle. It comes right back up and even stronger than before.
I like the term "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
This is a good phrase. Capitalism ain't broke. Socialism is broke.
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual cretin could ignore or evade it.
Well, it depends on what type of socialism you want to discuss, according to my opponents. But, I will talk about it in General.
1.Socialism eventually leads to Communism during violent and turbulent times. Russia's revolution showed this. Lenin wanted a perfect socialist state, but instead got communism and it killed over 30 million soviet citizens in the next few decades. Go team Lenin!
2.Even milder forms of socialism are a problem. For example, the recent Socialized Healthcare enacted by President Obama:
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
And now for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES
Britain and Canada have good healthcare. It is just inefficient and slow.
Almost all socialist states are either 2nd or 3rd world countries. 1st world countries have a strong and growing capitalist system. It has benefited mankind greatly by bringing about inventions and technology people 20 years ago would never have dreamed of. 2nd and 3rd world countries creating capitalist systems are becoming stronger, like South Africa and Chile.
3.History proves that socialist systems don't work. Take Ancient Rome for example. They were the appitomy of a great society. A Republic ruled by law. The strongest military. A happy society. Even conquered people's enjoyed living under Rome by gaining their citizenship and living good lives. The internal structure and safety of Rome was strong. Then many decades later, the people started saying to the government that they needed a welfare system to help the poor. They got that. Not so bad. Next they wanted unemployment pensions. Okay, they got that too. Now the economic burden became bigger and bigger. So they raised the taxes. But the people did nothing about it. They got to the point where the country was in debt. Riots started. Bread was scarce. The government couldn't handle the demand. Then leaders came to the people saying they needed to take over the government because they and the rich were hoarding everything for themselves. Now you got the Emporers. And a few hundred years of civil war, foreign conflict, and debt shattered Rome.
Now Capitalism has its ups and downs. Depressions happen. But they recover and come back even stronger. Many economists even think that if FDR hadn't introduced the programs to the country, the Great Depression may have been shortened by 5 years.
You have listed complete perposterios reasons. Socialized health care is not Socialism. Socialism is control over the means of production. Furthermore, why are you against Canadian democracy? In a recent poll, over 95% of Canadians agree with socialized health care? Is it wrong for people to have something that you do not? Apparently so according to you.
Socialism eventually leads to Communism during violent and turbulent times. Russia's revolution showed this. Lenin wanted a perfect socialist state, but instead got communism and it killed over 30 million soviet citizens in the next few decades. Go team Lenin
Lenin wanted Communism, but instilled Socialism for a while through the NEP. Furthermore, the majority of those killed in the 30 million were de to famine under a totalitarian regeme. This has nothing to do with Socialism and is a complete digression.
History proves that socialist systems don't work
Explain Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Sweden and many more.
I am not attacking the source of Wikipedia. The topic it discussed was the thing I disputed. It was talking about Marx's theories on Capitalism, which I believe are biased since he was an adamant anti-capitalist.
Why are you bringing up Feudalism? Are we not talking about capitalism and socialism?
You attacked Marx as a source, if he is biased or not is irrelevant,what matters is his argument. His intention, personal beliefs and so on have no bearing on the validity of his arguments.
Your arguments work just as well for feudalism as capitalism.
I just said the phrase applied to my view. Jeez. Attacking a cultural phrase? Get down to business here. What makes you dispute my argument? We're going around in circles.
"Facepalm" I have been providing arguments. But if you want something you can understand, fine:
Well, it depends on what type of socialism you want to discuss, according to my opponents. But, I will talk about it in General.
1.Socialism eventually leads to Communism during violent and turbulent times. Russia's revolution showed this. Lenin wanted a perfect socialist state, but instead got communism and it killed over 30 million soviet citizens in the next few decades. Go team Lenin!
2.Even milder forms of socialism are a problem. For example, the recent Socialized Healthcare enacted by President Obama:
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
And now for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES
Britain and Canada have good healthcare. It is just inefficient and slow.
Almost all socialist states are either 2nd or 3rd world countries. 1st world countries have a strong and growing capitalist system. It has benefited mankind greatly by bringing about inventions and technology people 20 years ago would never have dreamed of. 2nd and 3rd world countries creating capitalist systems are becoming stronger, like South Africa and Chile.
3.History proves that socialist systems don't work. Take Ancient Rome for example. They were the appitomy of a great society. A Republic ruled by law. The strongest military. A happy society. Even conquered people's enjoyed living under Rome by gaining their citizenship and living good lives. The internal structure and safety of Rome was strong. Then many decades later, the people started saying to the government that they needed a welfare system to help the poor. They got that. Not so bad. Next they wanted unemployment pensions. Okay, they got that too. Now the economic burden became bigger and bigger. So they raised the taxes. But the people did nothing about it. They got to the point where the country was in debt. Riots started. Bread was scarce. The government couldn't handle the demand. Then leaders came to the people saying they needed to take over the government because they and the rich were hoarding everything for themselves. Now you got the Emporers. And a few hundred years of civil war, foreign conflict, and debt shattered Rome.
Now Capitalism has its ups and downs. Depressions happen. But they recover and come back even stronger. Many economists even think that if FDR hadn't introduced the programs to the country, the Great Depression may have been shortened by 5 years.
Okay, okay, what? Rome falling because of the taxes? Really? How? Rome fell because of the fact that the way they expanded was solely by taking the resources of conquered territory then using those same resources to invade again. Not taxes. Not pensions. Imperialism. I should know, ever notice my profile picture?
Countries like Sweden have found out that increasing the tax percentage over 50% reduced the amount of revenue gained in taxes. Therefore a progressive tax rate capping at that level is the highest reasonable one.
Socialistic policies work relatively well with regard to healthcare, protection of the commons, infrastructure, planning land use, education, elections, protection of the commons, protecting consumers, welfare, maintaining non-profitable institutions such as universities and the prevention of social and environmental problems.
Capitalistic policies work well in the fields of maintaining discipline, marginalizing the public, instilling cultural hegemony, advertising, public spending, protecting institutions of power, instilling authority and misleading voters to vote against their own self-interest.
Kiddies who know nothing of how the world works would like to decrease the "capitalism" part in favor of more "socialism", but when it comes to those necessary functions, they are better taken care of by the capitalist. Socialism can't properly instill authority without extensive violence. The capitalist on the other hand gives you something nice to do for 8 hours a day and provides you with burgers and entertainment. Sure he ran off with the money, but it does sting less than being sent to a gulag.
