socialism v. capitalism: Rating Options

[NoSex]

i view capitalism as a mode of economic & social infancy. i think that it is regressive to society, poisonous, & under-developing.

i point to these basic "flaws" in capitalism*:
1. the emphasis on profit as opposed to utility.
2. the creation of oligarchy & plutocracy.
3. the unfair/uneven distribution of wealth.
4. the creation of a significant class divide.
5. the inability of capitalism, alone, to provide the people with necessities.
6. the exploitation of the working class.
7. the existence of crime in excess, caused by class struggle, poverty, & proletariat anxiety.
8. the creation of an oppressive institution (i.e. the police state, the church, the education system) in order to secure profits to a specific & elite population.

i point to these basic "benefits" in socialism*:
1. the emphasis on utility.
2. the destruction of plutocracy & (in many forms) oligarchy.
3. the fair distribution of wealth.
4. the destruction of a significant class divide.
5. the ability of socialism to provide for its people, necessities.
6. the affirmation of the working class.
7. the absence of crime invoked by squalor & proletariat anxiety.
8. the destruction of specific oppressive institutions & the opportunity to reform the state (i.e. despite the pull of capital & profits).

DISCUSS.

*quotation marks provided for argument's sake. whatever.

[NoSex]

I feel that the government is not there to provide, but to protect.

i would argue that the provision of certain necessities (i.e. food, shelter, etc.) is a form of protection. without these provisions, human beings cannot survive (or at least, not easily survive). insofar as we have the right to "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness," don't you think that the governments that are designed to secure these rights should make efforts to see that they are actualized? and, don't you feel that only by fulfilling the lower tiers of maslow's hierarchy can we secure these rights?

[Kontroll]

i would argue that the provision of certain necessities (i.e. food, shelter, etc.) is a form of protection. without these provisions, human beings cannot survive (or at least, not easily survive). insofar as we have the right to "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness," don't you think that the governments that are designed to secure these rights should make efforts to see that they are actualized? and, don't you feel that only by fulfilling the lower tiers of maslow's hierarchy can we secure these rights?

Considering the fact that he proposed this idea almost fifty years ago, it wouldn't be the best representation of today's society.
Times were different then and self actualization is a different thing these days. In today's world a closed triangle is not a valid representation of society and individuals. An open, wide faced structure is needed in order to reflect that self actualization is never ending. And with this never ending self actualization, individuals can engender lifelong learning, change management, and boundlessness, all important factors for the 1990's educational and managerial environments.

But, to argue your point, I would have to say that self responsibility and not government funding would be the best way to survive in this country. I understand that certain things must be run by the government, especially now considering the vast population. In the past century or so we've gone from a farming nation, to an industrial nation and most of whom were farmers have began working for others instead of providing directly for themselves. Not to say this was a bad shift in culture and society, but its given more room for government to put its foot in the door of privately owned business with regulations, insurance and so forth.

That's all I got for now. Discuss.