- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Restriction of private property and gradual expropriation of large owners. Actually, this is the deprivation of each citizen of his property, which he earned for his work. Moreover, one person worked and worked harder, and the other worked less and inefficiently, but according to the rules of Socialism-to everyone in the same measure. In all fairness, this is wrong.�
Planned economy. This is an economic utopia, in my opinion. You can't predict how much each citizen will consume. In this connection, in the USSR there was a shortage ranging from cars to toilet paper.�
Poor verifiability of labor efficiency and the economy as a whole. Efficiency is checked against thousands of daily economic and non-economic facts. Life as a whole requires thousands of behavioral adjustments every day.�
Lack of any incentive to introduce innovations. If we consider Soviet socialism, it was noticeably much inferior to Western capitalism in terms of progress and innovation. Again, Soviet-style socialism means restrictions on individual freedoms, “society is dominated by the individual,” and restrictions on the development of scientific projects (if the Party doesn't mind).�
You can only put forward free education and healthcare among the advantages.�
Capitalism is freedom of entrepreneurship, private property (which is very important, in my opinion; everyone wants to have something of their own and personally belongs to them), it is economic freedom and a market economy (direct real competition; choice in favor of the best, not what is available; abundance of all necessary goods).�
The source of life's goods for the majority of members of society is not forced labor, as in socialism, but under conditions of free employment, i.e., the sale of labor for remuneration in the form of wages.
Of course, this is scientific and technological progress; rapid development of science, technology, and technology; increase in social labor productivity; a large number of independent enterprises are engaged in the production of goods; an increase in the concentration of centralization of production begins; large enterprises arise.�
At the moment, capitalism is the best economic arrangement. Capitalism can give a person the opportunity to have their own business, expand capital, there is competition, there is a huge choice of goods, private property and sustainable technological development-all this socialism will not be able to give.�
The only negative thing (maybe a plus for someone) is that it is necessary to constantly grow and modernize, i.e. everything will not work out in a stable way, society under capitalism is improving very quickly, new people and new ideas are entering the market.
Better for whom, that's the question!
To begin with, I would like to understand what this is all about. Capitalism is also different, but in Somalia it is also capitalism. Socialism is also different, some believe that most European countries are socialist (by the way, the Social international operates there). Yes, even take the USSR, there was also a different socialism. If we take the average indicators for capitalism and socialism, then socialism, of course, is a much better form of social organization. Under it, the standard of living of the population and the economy is growing much faster than under capitalism.
But if for a specific person, then there are problems. And who is this particular person? As it was said in the advertisement for the collapse of the USSR, that now everyone can become a millionaire (let's say dollar). But in reality, only a few can become millionaires and at the expense of most of the remaining ones. No matter how much your wishlist doesn't want you, but it is unlikely that you will become the very exception. But for those who want to, and stands capitalism. Hence, we conclude that if you dream of your own enrichment and are disconnected from reality, then capitalism is better for you. Otherwise, socialism. We simply skip the option that you will become the millionaire (there is a much higher probability that you will become a corpse on the way to becoming a millionaire, but we don't take this option into account either).
Here it is worth asking the question – who is better? If we are talking about a capitalist who makes a profit and gets rich by exploiting the labor of hired workers, then, of course, capitalism will be more profitable for him.
If we are talking about the development of the entire human society as a whole, then it will be better for him to live in such a system when everyone has the opportunity to work in the specialty that he chooses to taste and receive as much as he actually earns, and not as much as the owner of his labor decides to pay him. And most importantly, every worker participates in the real management of the state, from bottom to top, deciding what the whole society needs for the best development.
The main feature of capitalism is economic chaos. It is precisely this feature that gives rise to property and social inequality within society and aggressive international politics. Both world wars, the bloodiest in the history of mankind, were generated precisely by capitalist contradictions.�
Both are better.
But all in good time. When capitalism has over-ripened, having prepared everything that is necessary for communism-better communism, or socialism, as communism in the initial stage, if you like.
Better for whom? Better in what way? Better under what conditions?
The social system is still only a tool that ensures the existence of the people. Which tool is better-a saw or an axe? It depends on what kind of work you are currently doing.
I'm not saying that capitalism and socialism have dozens of definitions that differ significantly in meaning, and it would be good to clarify what we compare with what.
The planned centralized economy performed well during industrialization. Above all praise in the conditions of war. Especially wars of attrition. And it turned out to be unsuitable for post-industrial development.
Some also consider the Swedish system to be socialist. Private entrepreneurship with ultra-high taxes and high social obligations of the state.
I am struck by the stupidity of the idiots who left the answers above. The myth that socialism speaks of full social equality is based on it. The difference between socialism and capitalism is that factories, factories, natural resources, etc.belong to the state, that is, to the proletariat, and its power is established. What others say is communism. We need to understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism itself PERMITS BOTH A MIXED ECONOMY and A planned ONE. Choose the state. This is part of his ideas, but communism is not, because this is full social equality. THE USSR FELL APART NOT BECAUSE OF SOCIALISM, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT. SOCIALISM UNDER STALIN, BREZHNEV, ETC. worked. And the stagnation that is described to us is overestimated. COMPARE THE USSR AND RUSSIA NOW. WHICH IS BETTER? SOCIALISM OR CAPITALISM? Of course, socialism, I can also add that socialism, or rather primitive communism, is the most ancient economy. the system, capitalism-you are for yourself, socialism-you succeed together with others.�
Answer: SOCIALISM IS BETTER.
Obviously, our post-Soviet Russian mentality leaves no choice in this matter: of course, capitalism. Have you ever seen socialism? Would you move into a ruined house? What are you, a security officer? etc. etc. So here we sit, trying our best to ignore answers that are critical of capitalism, and to ignore the Knights of justice under the aegis of capital. It is a pity that our collective Soviet trauma makes us foaming at the mouth to prove the unviability of socialism without any attempt at a critical look at history. Many people think that any opposition to capitalism is inevitably Stalinist camps, empty counters, unification, totalitarianism, and so on. Just look at the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and it will immediately become clear why it is better not to. Our liberal media suggest to us through indirect references to history that the choice between capitalism and something else does not exist and has never existed. But have you ever asked yourself how capitalism turned out to be the only choice?
For example, why are the United States, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan suddenly so fabulously rich and powerful? Why did Marx get so bombed out (and not just him)? Do you think it's because the capitalists were just right and everyone else was just wrong? You don't need to read “Capital”, which will answer these questions, just open Wikipedia. While the evil Soviet uncles restricted the freedom of homo economicus, the good American, French, English, etc. they carried democratic values to the ethnic masses of the “third world” with the help of machine guns, napalm, conspiracies and other not very democratic techniques. While our Soviet ancestors were waiting in line for sausage, free and moral CIA officers were plotting against Iraqi President Mohammed Mossadegh, who decided to nationalize oil for some reason and use the money to carry out social reforms. To a free capitalist person, this seemed somehow undemocratic, because Iran's natural resources would suddenly belong to the Iranians and leave the system of the world's “free” market, and thus stop supplying money to the powerful and free of this world. As a result of intrigues, Mosaddegh was placed under house arrest, under which he died a couple of years later, and natural resources were, of course, privatized. This is how, if anything, our favorite company British Petroleum or BP appeared. Isn't that freedom? The triumph of capitalism was not at all self-evident, but was worth a lot of work by friendly politicians, brave military men and nimble spies.
The so-called democratic values (which in my opinion has little or nothing in common with democracy) grew up on the soil of colonialism, famine and war. Small and cold Britain founded its dear Commonwealth largely through the oppression of the indigenous peoples of Australia, Africa and India, taking out free labor (read “slaves”), natural resources and white-skinned and free men who enriched themselves at their expense. The same Britain opened the opium market in China by slightly violent means, because the native proletarians did not really want to smoke it (see “Opium Wars”). The funds included some cannons, a navy, and the subsequent annexation of some territories that became trading posts of the great democratic Empire. The same great cultural French empire thrived on the resources and sacrifices of half the territory of Africa and Polynesia (and why do you think they know all French there?). All this predictably left a legacy of looted land, murdered or enslaved relatives, and a unique historical trauma to future African generations. The same Spanish Empire has built up its wealth for centuries through colonies in Latin America, making money on foreign land with foreign labor, and bringing profits to His Majesty the King of Spain. And then we say: well, have you seen what is happening in Latin America and how little money they have? And all because they dabbled with communism! But what about our freedom-loving and progressive Kingdom of the Netherlands, famous for its policy of apartheid (that is, racial oppression) in South Africa and the success of the East India Company, which created slave conditions for Indonesian workers and capital for which the cozy streets of Amsterdam were built? All that we have inherited from the history of these progressive countries is the fascinating stories of travelers, the image of” high ” European culture and the very democratic values that in reality cost millions of people their lives, a roof over their heads, family and freedom.
In order not to sound like an apologist for the great Russian land, I want to note that Rashka behaved no better in those days. Far from being the result of the democratic will of the peoples of Siberia, Mongolia, and Eastern Europe to unite under the Russian flag, our entire vast land is the result of the same imperialist policy, which in a particular case did not require going far or sailing far. It is precisely on this heritage, on the basis of a terribly stratified political life, on the basis of the still slightly serf peasant villages, on the basis of the distinctive Russian imperialism, that Comrade Lenin wanted to take and build a classless society, and there are many questions about his doctrine set out in The State and Revolution from a Marxist point of view. For example, how did Ilyich plan to build a classless society and get rid of the tyranny of the state through (drum roll) the state apparatus itself? Could the Bolsheviks ' repressive actions against other revolutionaries have led to anything other than the dictatorship of Comrade Stalin and the subsequent mass repression of hostile class elements? A question that will remain unanswered here. We will also leave out Vladimir Vladimirovich, a hybrid of capitalist logic and a degenerate Soviet state.
Apologists for capitalism are very fond of putting communists in their place with the following argument: do you even realize that everything you have was created thanks to capitalism? What will we tell them: what makes you think that? In fact, manufactured goods and excesses were born primarily due to the means of production (hello, Karl!), and they can exist both under capitalism and outside it. The only difference in this case will be that under capitalism Apple will be owned by a handful of very rich investors, and under a certain socialism it will belong to the social class of workers, that is, those who, strictly speaking, invest the main forces in production (that is, millions of Chinese). It is not clear, of course, what exactly this will look like in practice, but it is not clear not because it is impossible, but because there are not so many examples of socialist politics in the era of iPhones (let's say thanks for this to the peacekeeping forces of imperialist countries, which did their best to create peace with the help of machine guns and tanks).
In general, in fact, the unviability of socialism cannot be justified by the fall of the Soviet Union or the triumph of capitalism. First, because this decline was greatly facilitated by the free and moral people of the countries mentioned, who, however, did it not out of innate malice, but because of their capitalist interests. Secondly, because the Soviet political leadership also did not disdain dirty tricks, did not always make good decisions, and was terribly fond of the authorities, which is why its loyalty to the ideas of communism can be questioned. Third and this is the most important thing, the idea of socialism is very, very young, it is much younger than the logic of capital, the era of kings, exploitation and colonialism. All of this has existed in one form or another since Ancient Greece, which apologists for capitalism are very fond of citing as proof. However, the fact that this bestial logic has been present in history for a very long time does not mean that it cannot be disposed of in the same way that we have already disposed of some bestial ideas. So, excuse me, Comrade Locke, but the idea of “freedom” of capitalism is the most archaic and reactionary idea that will sooner or later go into oblivion (unless, of course, Kim Jong-un launches a nuclear missile across the ocean). There is just as much progress in capitalism as there is injustice, whereas real history, I'm sorry, is made by people, not by capital. Socialism cannot be represented at all in the experience of the USSR or any other country; it can only be opposed to capitalist logic. And it is precisely this juxtaposition that has now become quite common in all the capitalist countries mentioned above, whose citizens eventually begin to understand what their privileged position and prosperity are historically based on. And I am sure that the Russian liberal, a latent supporter of pre-revolutionary tsarism, should also think about this.
Finally, which is better, capitalism or socialism? Depends on who you are. If you are the head of a multinational oil company, the president of a “democratic” state, the son or daughter of rich parents, a slave owner, if you would like to live in Manhattan or are just ready to work hard and go over your heads to buy yourself an expensive shirt and an apartment in the Garden Ring, then capitalism will give you all the opportunities to make your dreams come true. However, if you are unlucky enough to be born into a poor family or with an “ignoble” skin color, if for some reason you don't really like the fact that one person is exploited by another, if you consider the problem of poverty more important than the problems of the Karadashian family, then you may need to think about socialism and maybe even read something.
Which is better – capitalism or socialism?
Which is better – feudalism or capitalism?
Which is better – the slave system or feudalism?
Well, what are these questions?
One is a consequence and part of the other!
Socialism, in general, is an intermediate stage from capitalism to communism!
Socialism is the development of capitalism.
Consequently, capitalism is a degradation of socialism.
In the USSR degradation – rolling socialism to capitalism began under Khrushchev, Kosygin with the economic reform of 1965 (I have just somewhere and was born), so I lived a life under the constant destruction of what has been developed under Stalin: closed COOPERATIVES, creating the army underground “guilders” – the coming of Gorbachev a third of the economy – the “grey”! Further ruins TRUSTS, the creation of which was conceived by Lenin, and implemented by Stalin, through the trusts and managed the planned economy! New management mechanisms – ministries and departments-were created, but the old control levers were lost. Enterprises left without trust supply and management began to collapse, and everyone rushed to the party bodies for support! As a result of these reforms, there are almost no enterprises left that are not controlled by regional committees, city committees and the Central Committee of the CPSU, so the great Brezhnev stagnation began!
This” inertia-driven socialism ” is now being discussed by everyone,but in fact it was already the degradation of socialism-a rollback to capitalism! The duration of rolling downhill is determined by the height set by the peak of the development of socialism in the USSR in 1953.
We still have socialism sticking out of inertia in some places!
So we'll have a look…..
State capitalism. It is better to combine socialism and capitalism into one whole. You have to understand that capitalism is dead, now the era of post-capitalism. And here in Russia, socialism is dying, it is being replaced by state capitalism. Ideally, when all citizens are owners, owners of the state. Would you like to receive dividends from the income of state corporations? Even now, buy shares of state-owned companies and become recipients of dividends. The state is interested in developing the economy and creating new businesses and jobs.
Over time, the state will buy up the entire weak economy. Bankrupt enterprises, real estate. And it will turn them into state farms. They will become consumers of new technologies. I will become clients of R & D and technology parks, also state-owned. Thus, the economy will become stable. Protected from crises. Society will receive a ladder of development and progress.
According to Marx, the transition from capitalism to socialism should have taken place smoothly, without revolutions in the group of the most developed capitalist countries. This process is really happening in the world right now. A number of countries with a high standard of living can already be called socialist. For example: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada, and so on. In this interpretation, socialism is certainly better. But if by socialism we mean the Soviet system ( and in the USSR there was not a single day of socialism), then of course capitalism is better.
If you like what's around us (homeless people, unemployment, alcoholics, mom's political scientists, drugs, contraband, porn, prostitutes, protection of the servants of the people from the people and many other charms). building), then you are most likely a capitalist and as a social worker. if you approve of it (or maybe you want even more severe moral and economic degradation and declare neo-feudalism or something else more advanced in this matter…).
If you want something lighter and even if you do not see (the growth of economic potential of the STATE, which is vested in the people; a six-hour shifts, because according to the society and the country you need to not only develop, but also to carry out self-development; a system, which is the closest to the ideal of democracy, and not the dictates of capital and oligarchy; the lack of any destroying phenomena (deserts, floods, etcP.), as well as other such terrible garbage, which is utopia and generally bullshit (although I don't know how utopia can be negative, because then in fact it is already a dystopia), then you will most likely like socialism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism and other left-wing trends.
Personally, I am a socialist and I approve of the rhetoric invented by the highly respected Comrade Dzhugashvili, Iosif Vissarionovich.
Let's make an exaggerated comparison, using a very abstract example in a vacuum:
-there is an organization that produces samovars,
– the organization produces 100 samovars per month (one samovar costs 10 tenge),
– the demand is such that during each month, on average, 130 people want to buy samovars
Now let's imagine the behavior of these companies in a market economy (capitalism) and a planned economy (pure socialism):
Socialism, the plan for the number of samovars produced comes according to the order, the purpose of production is to fulfill the plan, the price is fixed.
The result is 130 -100 = 30 people in the span, with the purchase, and I want a samovar! People start looking for ways around, underground schemes appear, someone remembers that his aunt works as a seller of samovoraks, and she will set aside the polished ones for him. Another turns out to be the main pioneer leader in this village, and he also gets a samovar, etc.
Capitalism, this thing is more flexible, and most importantly, it is not burdened with the torment of fulfilling other people's plans, the main goal here is to cut the dough!
The same picture 130 -100 = 30 people in the span, but what does the capitalist do, he begins to think! The capitalist understands that if 130 people agree to buy 10 tenge samovars, then a much smaller number of people will want to buy 15 tenge samovars.
After playing around with the prices a bit, the capitalist sells all 100 samovars for 13 tenge apiece!
What do we get in the end:
The socialist sold 100 samovars, earned 1000 tenge, as a free bonus, he received a shortage, nepotism, corruption, a sense of deprivation among some people.
The capitalist sold 100 samovars, earned 1300 tenge, received a bonus three-letter inscription on the fence of his samovar factory, and most importantly, the understanding that demand allows him to expand production. This means that the extra 300 tenge received will be used to improve production, which will allow us to improve production and reduce the cost of products. The main thing is not to overdo it with cheapening, otherwise you can burn out.
The conclusion is simple: if you are young, energetic, and your intelligence indicators are not lower than average, then capitalism is your choice. If you are a demented grandfather, or slightly stupid, then you are unlikely to want/be able to analyze the market and manage prices, which means you will prefer to live in socialism.
I have always found it difficult to formulate “better/worse”. If people knew the purchase price, they would have chosen the right road long ago and would have lived happily, richly and happily. Unfortunately, the choice is always difficult, the advantages of one socio-political construct are balanced by its disadvantages, different social groups have different ideas about justice, and the changing context constantly puts pressure on political systems.
Which is better, elephant or whale, carrot or cabbage, water or sun? A lot of sun – the body dries up, dies. Too much water – gets sick, loses immunity, and dies. Better – when there is a measure, and this measure corresponds to the current political moment. But since no one can be both left, right, and liberal at the same time, “better” is when there are three (or about three) active parties that are led by adequate people, and that change each other at the helm of power depending on the needs of the country and its people.
Let's start with a simple one. Socialism and capitalism are not antagonists, since they are located in different terminology niches. Socialism is a form of government, and capitalism is a form of economic management. Socialism is based on the idea of strengthening the role of the state as a distribution apparatus, that is, it is based on a paternalistic model. Ideally, the socialist distribution has a fair character (this is its advantage), in reality-as it turns out. Historical experience shows that no matter what moral heights the builders of the original socialist model are at, their successors are bound to get bogged down in corruption and nepotism, and the country quickly moves from a progressive model of development to stagnation.
Basically, our idea of socialism is based on our own experience – the Soviet one. But we must also be aware that the Soviet system is not quite socialism. The Bolsheviks built communism-a specific political system based on the ideas of late Marx about the necessity of a proletarian dictatorship and the total destruction of private property, which is the root of world evil. Brezhnev's socialism was like an intermediate stage on the road to communism. (In fact, it was formed because of the awareness of the utopian nature of Marxist ideas; it was formed as if against the will of the party elite). Other strains of socialism, such as the Scandinavian one, are not so radical.
Capitalism quite exists in states where socialists are in power, that is, the political superstructure does not prevent people from doing business and creating independent business structures (corporations). The political aspect of capitalism is liberalism. Consequently, the interests of entrepreneurs in parliaments are defended by liberal parties. At the same time, as we can see from the debate between Milov and Movchan, there is a division between conservatives and progressives among liberals. Conservatives (Movchans), that is, right-liberals, advocate minimizing the role of the state, the invisible hand of the market and, let's say, the natural path of economic development. This position contributes to the formation of large corporations and the formation of an oligarchy. Progressives (Milov), that is, left-liberals, advocate the union of the state and business, the key role of government in regulation, and the redistribution of funds from large corporations to small and medium-sized businesses. This model is potentially dangerous for a return to authoritarianism.
Capitalism can be called an organic state of any society. As soon as the authoritarian and totalitarian models of control and management, which prescribe strict standards of behavior, break down, people go out and start trading. But as soon as some people become too rich and concentrate too much money and power in their hands, mass anti-elite actions begin. And the main anti-elitists are socialists, who call against the vertical clustering of society, for equal rights for all citizens. (By the way, this agenda was intercepted by the left from the nationalists).
Liberalism and socialism cannot exist without each other as yin without yang. These are not two isolated antagonistic systems, but a single mechanism, two scales that need to be constantly balanced.
Capitalism (free market economy) is a mode of social production. Compatible with representative democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, Martian rule. With anything, if two conditions are met. First of all, it is a free market. Available to all comers (no restrictions on the type: only members of the blacksmith guild can forge iron products) and highly competitive (monopolies and cartel agreements intersect with non-market measures). Secondly, the additional profit from the achieved competitive advantage goes, first of all, to the market entity that has achieved such an advantage. Reduced production costs, or set up production of something new that found demand. The impossibility of a long-term monopoly forces us to implement alternative forms of competitive advantage (temporary) as quickly as possible, including technological progress, or to try our best to catch up with those who have (temporarily) taken the lead. It was this mechanism that provided an unprecedented increase in productivity and the flourishing of technology. And it is this factor that determines the dominance of today's most advanced countries and the success of countries that are “catching up” with the advanced ones. Well, where the market is not free, highly monopolized, and dominated by the state , we expect to see stagnation or degradation of the economy. Where profit is determined not by free competition, but by proximity to the state apparatus (friendship with superiors, bribes, kickbacks), where the state can “squeeze” business “for itself” or, say, for the son of the prosecutor General, money and businessmen and potential inventors of new things run from there.
Ideal (“spherical in vacuum”) the market economy doesn't really exist. The company also has other interests than the production of goods, and some of the funds are alienated from market participants, and some of the alienated funds are spent by non-market methods. For example, to help the poor or to provide universal education. The larger this part (as a percentage) and the more overregulated (read – unfree) the market is in other respects, the less efficient the economy is – especially in inventing and implementing new ones. This does not mean that such a society is necessarily poor and backward, but science and technology are developing and are the first to be introduced mainly somewhere else. For example, in the United States, where market freedom is incomparably higher than anywhere else in Europe today. Or in some Asian countries.
There are several answers to the question of who should get the profit (and material benefits in general). For example, very often the answer was given in the spirit that the main consumer of goods should be brave people who are well able to shed someone else's blood and are not afraid to lose their own. Despicable peasants, insignificant artisans and greedy merchants should consider it an honor to give the lion's share of benefits to brave soldiers. (And it's not a sin to take everything away from neighboring peoples at all – if you can.) The dominance of this idea led to centuries of decline and stagnation. But the warriors were doing well, even though their living conditions were extremely poor.
There were all sorts of class societies, where everyone had to do “their” business and share with the nobility and priests. This is better than uncontrolled violence, but also stagnation or extremely slow development.
Capitalism e (free market economy) has already been mentioned above. It emerged (in a suppressed and oppressed form) in the bowels of a gradually collapsing class society and flourished on its ruins.
Today, various forms of “socialism”have become the main threat to the free market. Their main idea is to fight the “unfairness” of the free market in favor of one or another” justice ” (the number of variants of which cannot be counted). Methods of struggle vary from trying to completely get rid of the market (as in the USSR, for example) before parasitizing it, by withdrawing a significant part of the benefits from market participants and redistributing them “fairly” in favor of someone else. The more successful the struggle for “justice” is, the lower the wealth of society as a whole – especially after some time from the beginning of the struggle.
Which is better: to have a couple of your own cows, provided that the neighbor has an entire farm? Or suppose you have nothing, and the neighbor has half the cows already dead, but he is forced to give the whole village free milk, although he does not have enough money to feed the remaining herd? Answer this question and I will tell you what is preferable for you personally.
According to Churchill, ” Capitalism is an unequal distribution of bliss, socialism is an equal distribution of misery.” Later, Aksenov made an important amendment to this formula: “Socialism is an unequal distribution of squalor” (and at least some owls who were confronted with the way of life). and desks.it's hard to disagree with the nomenclature). So the choice, I think, is obvious.
Socialism has existed for decades in Europe, in countries where the ruling parties are socialist, Labor (labor, people's) parties. These are, for example, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France (for example, Macron's party is a social liberal party), and so on… As the experience of the PRC has shown, capitalism can exist under the rule of the Communist Party and achieve outstanding results. As the experience of Singapore under the ruling party – People's Action – of a pro-socialist type has shown, there is a rigid authoritarianism in the country and the opposition occupies no more than 6 % in parliament. There is not a single opposition media outlet in Singapore, but the result is absolutely outstanding. Do not believe those categorical and unambiguous answers that capitalism is good and socialism is bad. In the modern world, there is no longer a place for unambiguous assessments and deterministic opinions. This is more of a reaction and an outpouring of discontent towards Russia and Putin personally (such a resource..), but it has nothing to do with reality. Socialism emerged as an attempt to solve the contradictions of capitalism, which stem mainly from unfair exploitation. This resource has already had a lot of questions on this topic and answers and heated battles… Make your own opinion by collecting and analyzing the opposite poles of the socio-economic structure of modern countries from the United States through Europe to China. Socialism also has its drawbacks, such as a planned system of government. But! Currently, there are more socialist countries with capitalist economies in Europe, a certain mixture and there is no bright opposition to one another (even the Communist Party in China and private property and the market economy there, which in its pure form contradicts the theory of both capitalism and socialism). Of course, socialism is a higher stage of social development than capitalism. On the experience of the USSR, the positive and negative aspects of socialism were revealed, and in the modern world there is a certain modification of socialism-capitalism. The Contradictions of capitalism: ownership of the means of production, the distribution of labor and capital, the principle of distribution, etc., etc. are solved in the so-called capitalist countries using socialist methods: the penetration of state regulation, differentiated taxes, social institutions, increasing the social responsibility of business, etc., etc… this does not interfere with the market economy, but rather harmonizes and balances the capitalist system. After the 20th century, it became obvious that capitalism is capitalism, but if you do not solve the issues of material and social justice, it will end in an uprising, revolution, so conclusions were drawn all over the world. Moreover, with the development of the means of production, labor efficiency, technology, etc., we are witnessing a forced reduction in working hours with an increase in material compensation for labor and a gradual transition to the communist principle of distribution: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. So at the rate of development of technologies and means of production that we are seeing now, and the growth of labor efficiency, society and the economy will soon come to communist principles, which will most likely also be a kind of symbiotic mixture of a market economy, capitalist and communist relations.