>>9547900>After seeing communism and socialism tried time and time again without being able to produce the wealth which the Americans have.The Soviets turned an agrarian society into industrialized in speed that has not been matched since. Not even by capitalism.
There are ALOT more factors than general economic system to consider when it comes to rating countries and their economies.
For example: the Soviets didn't have inter-continental "investing" the way American capitalists do. It's easy to gain riches quickly when you throw a little money at the Chinese who work for basically no pay with no workplace standards and get massive returns. The soviets didn't have that opportunity. But on the otherhand, the soviets had the opportunity to do away with the inefficient system where your job was whatever your parents had - so laborers were going wherever the work was best which made them more efficient. Instead of shoemakers' kids becoming shoemakers, they could focus on whatever the booming industry was.
At there's a million more examples. So the "communism" vs "capitalism" debate is pretty useless unless you get into specifics.
What I will say about capitalism is this. Capitalism has an inefficient layer built into it that communism only has when it becomes corrupted (like the Soviets did). The wealthy owners who sit at the top of the chain provide no labor, no value to society. They are takers and their profit is held above everything else. They collect wealth and pass it down to offspring. Society could be much more efficient if that inheritance was used to fund industry instead of sit in bank accounts, for instance.
>Capitalism is the strongest systemBe more specific. You mean it efficiently exploits an underclass? Sure. But could be more efficient.
But that is irrelevant to me anyway as I seek to eliinate underclasses/privileged classes. Fair economics is the only logical future.
