Before I get into this, let me give you the definition of each thing:

Socialism: The people should own or regulate the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Communism: Everything is owned by the community and it is distributed in terms of what each person can do and what their needs are.
Nazism: Hitler's form of government and economy. A dictatorship and a mix of Socialism and Capitalism(the wrong things mixed)
Capitalism: Trade and industry controlled by private industries designed for profit.

Before we get into this, let me clarify: Communism and Socialism are not the same thing. Despite Vladimir Lenin's assertion that "The end goal of Socialism is always Communism." Socialism has also lead to Fascism/Nazism. Socialism doesn't want to give things out based on their ability and needs, it wants to give things out based on fairness. 

Now, let me explain why each of those I claimed are failures are (in fact) inherent failures.

Socialism It's the form of government most desired by those "Social Justice Warriors." Socialism, believes that the top 1% must pay for the rest of the country. They are willing to hold a gun to the head of the 1% and force them to pay for everyone else, under the guise that it's fair and moral. Now, forcing the top 1% to pay for the rest of the country is bad, as you're taking their money away in the form of taxes. This alone is a system designed to fail, as you can't tax a country into prosperity. If you keep taxing people at higher and higher rates, you'll eventually form a debt like the US currently has. The US national debt is currently 19.964 trillion dollars($19,964,000,000,000.) This sharp spike in debt came under the Obama administration, "coincidentally" when socialist policies were implemented .ie. Obamacare. 10.626 trillion dollars at the end of Bush's administration 8 years ago.  Socialism promotes theft, in the form of higher taxes for the richer people and businesses, which actually hinders business growth and is worse off for the economy, as it means there is less production, due to less money being available for businesses. I have a few questions for American socialists:

Why is Walmart always targeted? In 2015, Walmart made 14.7billion dollars, if that was divided and given to every American, congratulations, every American is $46 richer and Walmart now has no money to stock itself, thus it will go bankrupt and America loses a business that brings money into the country.

What happens to doctors? Under Obamacare, the rate at which doctors are going towards private practice has increased, as Obamacare has significantly cut doctor's salary. Say all doctors go into private practice. What then? You now have no doctors performing any operation, unless they're paid a significantly higher amount than usual, how do you avoid that? Answer: You force them to perform the operation, which is slavery. The government pays them which brings the debt higher. The people group together to pay it, which puts the people in more debt. It leads to either debt or slavery.

Would you give Bill Gates a higher tax rate? Bill Gates has donated over $20billion dollars to charities, making him the world's biggest philanthropist alive today. Would you tax him too? If yes: How is it fair that you would tax someone who is the world's biggest philanthropist and has willingly done what you want. If no: Why not? Doesn't that reinforce the belief that some companies are too big to fail? It's either unfair or contradictory. Either way, it contradicts socialist's constant assertion that Socialism is fair. 

What stops businesses from relocating? If the tax becomes too high, why not just relocate? This then drops the income for America and steam rockets the country to bankruptcy even faster than it is now.

Socialism is an unfair, totalitarian system that has not and will not work, ever.

Communism: My favourite thing with Communism is everyone who claims to be Communist constantly state "True communism has never been achieved, thus it has never worked." When asked why it has never worked, they blame capitalism. When asked why Capitalism is the problem, they say greed. Ironically, greed is the leading factor as to why Communism is even a thing and also why Communism can never happen. Communism is inherently designed to be impossible. It is a dream utopia. Let me explain why greed is the cause and downfall of Communism. 
Communists will hold a gun to business owners' heads, quite literally in this case, and force them to give money to certain people based off of what they can do and what they need. So who decides the worth of what someone can do?
The government? Well, that just means the government can be paid more, because they say being a part of the government is the most expensive "skill"
The people? This will spark jealousy between people and cause higher crime rates, it will also cause mass arguments over what jobs are worth what. 
That is how greed causes the downfall. 
How greed causes the beginning: 
Why do you feel entitled to what other people earn/make? If you say "Because it's fair" okay, what stops people from relocating, you've lost people making things and have less to go around, this will make a debt or famine. Also, fair on who? The majority of the people? So what happens if the majority suddenly want more from businesses? Do you do what's fair for the majority, or is it a case by case basis? If you give them more, you've just said everything is worth more and thus have to give every job more, because it's worth more. What happens if this continues to happen until the loss is greater than the profit? You become bankrupt and fail as a country. If it's case by case, who chooses what case gets what? The government? Okay, you've said some people are greater people than others, that's against communist theory. It is also a key point for corruption and personal interest which is an innate and unavoidable thing. It will be exploited. If any of these happen, the communist system eventually fails, because more people do it. When it fails, it is deemed "Not real communism" by future communists and the whole cycle repeats itself. 

Nazism: Now, Nazism mixed Capitalism and Socialism. Some state industries became privatised, but there was large tariffs on import. This means large taxes were put on certain things imported, making them cost a lot more and making production and importing of those things go down, due to a less demand for the item. Foreign trade became largely reduced which forced rationing of many items ranging from fruits to poultry to clothes. Nazism also promotes for the execution of certain people - in Nazi Germany, it was anyone who wasn't a pure white - this makes it so unemployment becomes extinct. However, there is a less work force, thus making less things for people. In Nazi Germany, the Reich Minister introduced a special currency that businesses could trade with each other instead of Reichsmarks. This meant large trade went on without the impact of the failing Reichsmark. Nazi Germany is the explanation of Nazism's failure and the explanation why it will never work - if it's changed, it is no longer Nazism. 




My thoughts:
Obamacare wasn't a good idea that went wrong, it was a bad idea that went right. Obama wanted more government, so they had more control over every aspect of America, it is no secret Obama is a socialist. Ben Shapiro explained it best in his video of "Ben Shapiro on: Debating Obamacare"

Universal healthcare is completely possible in the US. The US pays many other countries which get Universal Healthcare with the aid of the United States of America. Cut spending to foreign countries - especially those you're currently at war with - if you cut the spending for other countries, you will have more money to invest in your own country. If you also cut the military spending, you will have much more money. Say you cut it from $598billion(As of February 2016) to $200 billion, you have $398 billion dollars a year. That gives $1,263 per citizen. Not every citizen would use the healthcare, but you can put it in there, in case citizens use it.

No company is too large to fail. This is my grievance with America's form of Capitalism. They have a system where if a company goes bankrupt and file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a plan is made where the debt is reduced and eventually repaid. It is reduced and repaid. What happens to the place that the company owes the money? They lose money. The thing is, it's usually a bank that the money is owed to, which is bad for the economy again, because the bank - the centre of money for the country - has just lost money. It is not an economically stable thing to do over and over again. If that was abolished and companies were allowed to fail, there would be a greater stimulus in the economy, as more thought would go into decision making and increase general productivity for the country.


The past 8 years of America has been an economic disaster. No, unemployment hasn't decreased, it's another statistical inaccuracy. If someone is listed as jobless for 6 months, they are not included after that. Therefore, the unemployment rate technically goes down, even if it is literally increasing. 

Image upload: 1200x509 totaling 342 KB's.

CPT Axis : Obviously Socialism and Capitalism are not failures because there are socialist and capitalist countries doing just fine. You cannot argue results.

Txgangsta : I didn't say Capitalism was a failure, I simply added it, because I was talking about it. 

What socialist countries are doing fine? Greece isn't, China is communist and oppressed as all hell... Where, exactly, is a great socialist country? 

Walmart CEO earns $16,000+ an hour = Paid like a capitalist
Walmart employees earn $11+ an hour = Paid like a communist and think like socialist
Walmart employs over 2 MILLION people worldwide = Run by yours truly, the nazism

I don't think one can be a capitalist without using socialism, communism or nazism in the process. Walmart would never survive if it were not for piggy backing off labor, products and pay of their commie counterparts in China.

JigSaw: True capitalism is like a Utopia... wishful thinking. The main reason Walmart makes the profit margin they do, is because the low-ball their prices until all other competition dies out. (While making cheap products... from China and other cheap manufacturing countries.) This has nothing to do with Socialism. (National Socialism also known as Nazi, is just a form of socialism. Communism uses complete control of everything, and the state has complete control of their citizens lives. Nazis had MUCH control, but nowhere near what Communist Russia controlled.) 

Txgangsta : Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ideology. Specifically economic principals. None have been completely in effect, even Communist Russia, or China, can't do true Communism, as everyone should have the same account balance after it is in it's original form. Capitalism, just means that there is virtually no Government control over the business. Giving the business owner full control over their respective business.  

CPT Axis : Germany economically was doing AMAZING during the Second World War. The reason it didn't work out for them was the war. Russia, and the USA pretty much killed that for them. (Not a bad thing though, since many TERRIBLE things were funded by the government.) 

But really, when it comes to the economy, you have to have balance, as JigSaw stated... Balance is key, I would say that Communism would be left out of my equation though, since I believe income should be earned, not given. (Handouts kill the economy.)

darthyoda : German economy was a failure throughout the war. The reason it seemed to be doing better is because people were forced into production, AKA: war factories, whilst the undesirables were executed in the millions, so unemployment dropped dramatically, almost non-existent. 

Nazi germany had an income of around 62billion but a spending of 101 billion causing massive deficit and huge national debt. That's why companies had to receive a new currency, because the reichsmark was inherently worthless at this point. You can research the German economy and it all comes back to being a failure, due to the Nationalism and lack of trade with many countries. After the US got involved, German economy declined even more, because they now had their chief trader cut off.

CPT Axis : China is not communist, it just says it is communist. It's fascist-socialist. And "oppressed as hell" works for them. Their country is an economic powerhouse, their technology rivals the rest of the world. China does well for itself, even with the oppression. They think the oppression is good.

Socialist countries that are doing fine: Denmark, Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Belarus, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Netherlands..... Would you like more?

Finally, you're wrong about the German economy during WWII. It was really good. Inflation was ended and unemployment was gone. The debt they took on was being worked off and their people were generally proud of how well they were doing.

darthyoda : Yes.

Txgangsta: China is run by the Communist party, therefore it's a communist state, by leadership. It is therefore called Communist China. This is another one of those "It's not real communism" arguments always seen from the people who want Socialism to work so badly.

Germany is currently in the midst of one the biggest unchecked wave of immigration, migration and higher crime rates. Angela Merkel even admitted her open doors policy was a failure, and it will lead to Germany's destruction in the near future.

Sweden has also had a massive increase of crime by the immigrants/migrants allowed to cross into their border unchecked, thanks to the EU.

Netherlands faces growing inequality, as of 2014, it was listed as a major threat to the Netherlands. The Dutch Computer infrastructure (ICT Infrastructure) is also considered a major problem. The Netherlands is also considered a paradox of Socialism and Capitalism, so it can't be called upon to defend Socialist ideals, when it uses Capitalist ideals as well.

"China thinks the oppression is good" yes, communists always think oppression is good, because they can only have their system by oppression. Communism and Socialism are inherently evil immoral theories that can only work by oppressing the country and forcing things upon them. Ben Shapiro said it best: "Socialism is rape, Capitalism is consensual sex"

In 2016, an article was written by Isabella Petroni, she states Bulgaria is one of the worst countries affected by communism in long term affects. She also makes the observation after the cold war, Bulgaria has since suffered from civil turmoil from those who want Socialism back in power and those who wan a democracy. She concludes, at the end of the article, Bulgaria is currently in a worse state than it was back when it was purely communist. You've claimed it to be a great socialist example, yet it is considered too be worse off than it was when it was fully communist. It just further backs up that Socialism is a failure.

Denmark is a free-market capitalist society that exists with conjunction of a large welfare state. That was literally a simple google search away. Denmark is not socialist.

In fact, I found an article that explains why the Scandinavian countries you listed are not socialist, but are capitalist. 

In case one of the countries you wanted to list that you didn't was Venezuela - I suggest not doing that, as Venezuela, a socialist country, is facing hyperinflation and massive national debt.

I could continue, on all the socialist countries you list, but there are always major problems with socialist countries that are either a lot less in Capitalist countries or are non-existent in capitalist countries. 

Finally, the German economy during World War 2 was not good. You can literally look up German's WW2 economy and find pretty much any article and it will explain why it was a failure, not a massive paradise like people seem to believe.

Let me list a few things to discredit the Nazi economy:

Women were not included in the statistics which dropped unemployment dramatically.
People were forced into work. Another piece of proof that Socialism relies on oppression to work in anyway.
In 1935, Jews were no longer considered a part of the work force and thus not included in the statistics, because they lost their citizenship.
In 1935, men who were conscripted (Conscription began in this year) were taken off the unemployment list, because they were forced into the army.
Factories were created to focus on the war effort and people were forced to work in these factories.
The Nazis made a group (Basically a work union) but this group forced companies/businesses to not fire people on the spot, and people could only leave their jobs if the government permitted it.

The Nazi government always spent more than it earned so when the Nazis were removed from power, the national debt stood at around 30-40 billion reichsmarks
The real earnings of the people in Nazi Germany were wages adjusted for the mass inflation.

Germany, your apparent socialist ideal, has gone through multiple hyper-inflations in the past 100 years.
The UK - a capitalist nation - has no hyperinflation since 1551, just before the pound sterling was introduced.
The US - a capitalist nation - has no hyperinflation history. Then again, the USA is only 241 years old. The great depression is not counted, because the great depression affected the world.

Notice how capitalist nations have survived longer and been generally better off in history? Do you also notice how Socialist countries that declared war lost the wars (Germany) whereas Capitalist countries that declared war usually won (England, USA)

Why? Because Capitalism is the greatest economic premise we have every known. Hell, America today is literally the most privileged country today. Everyone is more or less equal, there are no great battles to win in the name of equality anymore. All the countries that need equality are... Socialist countries. Like the arabic countries in the middle east. Saudi Arabia being the biggest one and the closest to an economic powerhouse. Except... Saudi Arabia is just situated well, and is riddled with crime, so if you want to call that your socialist Utopiathat succeeded economically, congratulations, you just claimed Socialism only works because of crime. Which is true. Socialism needs to steal and oppress to work. Saudi Arabia is a great example of that, I just gave it to you, feel free to use it. 

But, of course, Saudi Arabia has an estimate 140 billion barrels of petroleum and owns 18% of the world's "proven" petroleum reserves. They would need to make an effort to mess it up for them to mess it up. But, of course, barely anyone works in Saudi Arabia, they'll eventually run out of money, no matter how far down the line it is, and they will then need capitalism whether state or private capitalism, to fix it.

CPT Axis : Top economy is subjective though... It depends on if we are  counting, unemployment, GDP, or growth... By growth, China is #1 with 171%, India is second with 91%, while the US only has 41%. That puts the US WAY behind in economic growth. Counting population with it makes US second. China is first, again. 

The US is however first in GDP. Which is good, but economically speaking, we are starting to fall behind other countries world-wide. 
https://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2016-data-and-charts-forecast
http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/world_economies_gdp/

Also, back to Germany, are you accounting for the state of the economy pre-war? People literately brought wheelbarrows of money to buy bread. They had accumulated so much debt due to the Paris "Treaty" after the First World War. They failed to help by just pumping money into the economy. This, of coarse, made things worse. 

Now, I'm not going to argue against the numbers getting fudged, but they improved the overall economy from the Great Depression, and that was due to Hitler, since the previous rulers did almost nothing to jump-start the economy. Now, he did many things that hindered long-term growth, but I believe a lot of that was due to his overall warmongering... If he'd have stuck with economic growth (before he went out for war) he'd have made Germany at least 2 place in the world economy. (My speculation)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Bruttosozialprodukt_im_dt._Reich_1925-1939.svg

Actually the only reason is still an economic relevant country is due to the US going into the war. Great Britain was almost nothing when the US entered. The US had to have gotten growth, because they had no local effect on their economy. Having bombs dropped in country kills many people, therefore creating gaps in the jobs, meaning you have to downsize your out-put, since you have less workers, making it harder to keep the efficiency. 

I'm in no way wanting a War in the US, but to be honest, we have no idea how war looks. No one alive in the US has seen a war on US soil. The last one was 1812. We have had no real negative effect due to war. (Apart from government control increases after each war.)

CPT Axis : Calling Nazi Germany a socialist state is a misnomer, as the party moved away from socialism after it took power. Hitler loathed all forms of communism and socialism and had the left-leaning members of the party killed off in the Night of Long Knives. In a similar sense, America is not even remotely the most "privileged" country in the world, unless you're using privileged in a unique manner. None of it is as simple or straightforward as you're making it out to be, but you're one of those people who thinks North Korea is a democracy, so subtlety may be off the table.

Mold and Crumbs: Nazi German was run by the National Socialist party. It was socialist. But, as all forms of socialism do, it failed and became "Not real socialism."

America is easily the most privileged country in the world. There's no oppression as seen in Asian and middle eastern countries, it's extremely diverse, it has freedoms guaranteed to them, unlike almost every other country. In America, the lower class is better off than the middle class in many other countries. Almost every person in America has some form of technology on them. 315 million people the country and it was great up until a socialist came into power - yes, Obama was a socialist, arguing against that is just blatantly ignoring facts. He hasn't come out and said it, but his actions have shown him to be one.

I never claimed North Korea was democratic, you've just made a baseless assumption. I'll make one about you: You have no clue as to what you're talking about and resort to character attacks based on no evidence, because you're a leftist.

"The US is first in GDP" so there you go, GDP is what matters in the economy. Economic growth just means the economy is growing.
You are also using something called "forecast" meaning speculation. That's called a presumption and holds very little standing in a debate, you realise that right? You have just said "well, look here, it looks like it could happen, guess that's my argument" 

Congratulations, he stopped people needing wheelbarrows, if that's your argument for "He made the economy perfect" you have no argument. The economy is more than "how many notes do I need to take" There's trillion note currencies in the world today, so people don't need wheelbarrows. There economy isn't exactly the best is it (They're also socialist countries)

Once again, improving the economy doesn't mean the economy was great. The economy was still terrible, thanks to the National Socialist party. He did many things that hindered long-term growth, which made the economy even worse, because short term solutions always lead to long term problems. Something the socialist part of the world has not realised after 100 years.

Actually, the Russians joining the war is more why the Nazis lost. Having to divide your army to fight "two fronts" is never a good idea. With Italy needing help in the deserts and Japan being virtually useless anyway, Nazi Germany was destined to lose the war. The UK was and had been for the longest time an economic and militaristic powerhouse. Obviously, now, the military side of that is false, but we're still a massive economic powerhouse and international superpower.

The US's production rates went up around 200% after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The exports to Japan, Germany, Italy, the Axis powers ceased almost entirely - some America companies still did business, because that's what the free market in capitalism allows. Trade with England, France, China, the allies went up exponentially. The local affect on the economy came from free-market capitalism, some companies converted to war effort. But, as said, some companies didn't, because they didn't want to lose "consumer market shares" to competitors.

Yes, bombs dropped means you lose life. But the amount of unemployed due to the great depression means there was enough work force unemployed for that to have very little affect. 20% of the entire population was unemployed. 1940's population was, according to the United States consensus: 132,164,569 people. Since the depression ended around '39, the population of unemployed was: 20% of the '30s population being: 123,202,624. 24,640,525 people unemployed. 200% increased production, 25m unemployed.

If the efficiency was a problem, why would production have increased?

There's 916, veterans of WW2 still alive, as of 2016. People have seen war on US soil, or, at least, parts of the war. If you mean any war, Congress has only declared war 11 times. the last in 1942 with Romania. 

You know how to get rid of government control? Privatise more things. Obamacare stopped privatisation of healthcare, which, ironically, increased the number of doctors going into private practice. This resulted in more government, as there was now government needed to track healthcare. Ben Shapiro (Yes, Ben Shapiro is the best person, I love him) has discredited Obamacare and Obama as a president a few times. It was a socialist policy, implemented by a socialist, that was evil and messed up the economy. That's the basis of it. "Ben Shapiro on Obamacare" and "Ben Shapiro on Obama" are the videos in which I reference. 

CPT Axis: I hope you don't mind if I share a few thoughts and words here. 

You are very correct that America is one of, if not the most priveleged country in the world. We still have a long way to go, but for the most part, we are still better off than most of the rest of the world. 

"I never claimed North Korea was democratic, you've just made a baseless assumption. I'll make one about you: You have no clue as to what you're talking about and resort to character attacks based on no evidence, because you're a leftist." 

While I agree that it was an assumption that you claimed NK was democratic, insinuating that all people who share different beliefs from you have no idea what they're talking about and resort to character attacks is very hypocritical and it makes you seem ever lower, to be honest. 

"There's 916, veterans of WW2 still alive, as of 2016. People have seen war on US soil, or, at least, parts of the war. If you mean any war, Congress has only declared war 11 times. the last in 1942 with Romania." 

Pretty sure WW2 didn't happen on US soil, unless you count the attack on Pearl Harbor, but in that case, we have seen war on US soil in 2001 on 9/11. They were both acts of terror by other countries that led us into war. 

I don't understand your hatred for Obama. I know you probably not agree, but I think he did a lot of things for our country. He helped to pull our nation from the horrible reccession that George Bush left us in. He decreased unemployment rates. Although the tensions within our nation are still way too high, I feel that his presidency was relatively peaceful with other nations. 

Also, I just wanted to make a point about you citing Ben Shapiro so much. A lot of people were telling people who did not like Trump to not believe the major news networks or whatever because they are not objective. Judging by your beliefs, I'm pretty sure you would have sided with Trump (sorry if this was a wrong assumption), so how come you are listening to and citing such biased reporters as well?

"Benjamin Aaron "Ben" Shapiro is an American conservative political commentator, nationally syndicated columnist, author, radio talk show host, and attorney.

Anyways, back to the original topic. I think each form of economy goes well with different countries. There is no ONE correct form of economy. There are so many factors that lead into what type of economy/government is best for a country. While I do not believe in fascism at all, I think that socialism and communism are good in theory, but communism almost always ends up with a dictatorship that ruins everything. While I believe capitalism has been pretty successful, I think it has some major problems. Greed and power are huge motivators in capitalism. If you leave everything to private businesses, there is no question there will be a lot of corruption. On top of that, it's really hard to get out of the bottom in a capitalist society. Yeah, it's great for people who work hard and achieve their dreams and stuff, but it's way harder than you may think. A huge amount of luck and good fortune is needed as well. If someone is born into a very poor family, they will be thinking about feeding them, not schooling the kids. Lack of education usually leads into lower paying jobs, if that even, and the kids maybe a little better off, but they are still not out of the "bottom". It takes a long time to get out of such a hole, and kids shouldn't be subject to the bad position that their parents started them in. 

CPT Axis : It's an interesting leap of logic to claim that I must be a leftist because you don't understand the world. Here's another liberal use of logic. You keep insisting that China is a communist country, that Nazi Germany was a socialist country, because of names and titles. Well, North Korea's proper name is the DPRK. That's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The style of government is in the name: North Korea is a democracy. That's your logic, not my political affiliation.

Now as for privilege, what would you say makes a country privileged? No oppression as opposed to Asian countries? That's not much of a standard, is it? Do you congratulate the US for having more freedoms than Iran or Myanmar? You understand that Asia is not the entire world, right? I have to make sure you know something about geography, since you don't seem to realise that the Middle East is a part of Asia. Oh, and trying to say Obama is a socialist? Come on, you can do better than that: I didn't see anything referring to socialism in his title.

GDP is a measure of economic activity. It's a part of economic success, but not all of it, and it doesn't define privilege, unless again you're using a unique definition of privilege, as I'm starting to suspect you might. I haven't forecasted anything yet, but I would be interested in hearing you explain what you mean by 'privilege'.

Anyway, the rest of your jumbled rant seem directed at someone unspecified so I'm going to ignore it. I doubt I'm missing anything.

RDay13: The reason I used a character attack is because it was the same thing he was doing. A baseless assumption. No evidence, just a generalised assumption. The hypocrisy was intended.

I did say "They saw at least part of the war" An act of terror leading to a war. Does that not make it part of the war? The beginning, to be exact. However, as said, the US didn't declare war after 9/11. Congress did not write a declaration of war, so there was no war post- 9/11, it was a conflict.

He didn't decrease unemployment rates that is a myth which has been debunked. Obama bringing the US out of recession, Harvard debunked. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-15/harvard-debunks-obama-recovery-farce
Obama's presidency increased race tensions and made other superpowers look at America and literally say Obama is a coward. *Putin Intensifies*

I did support Trump, because he was the best candidate running that would win.
I quote Shapiro, because everything he has said has not been proven to be wrong as of yet. The person and their position does not matter, if their statements can't be disproven. 


I agree, there is no perfect form of economy. But Capitalism is by far the best we've seen to date. Not believing in Fascism means nothing. Fascism is a thing that does and has existed, the belief in it is unnecessary. Bill Gates is the richest man alive and also the biggest philanthropist. He is also a capitalist. Is he greedy, or is he just smart? What is corruption coming from private businesses? Someone making money? What, exactly, is the corruption you're talking about? Corruption like Hillary Clinton that was exposed? But her's wasn't private, it was a charity, and public. False, capitalist societies, especially America, has the greatest fluctuation of classes. If you go to college, don't get a useless degree, and get a job related to a useful degree, you will have no outstanding debt in the US. But, students have higher debts, because people get worse degrees. No one is going to give a 6 figure salary to people who majored gender studies. 
Luck doesn't exist, it has not been a proven phenomenon and saying you need it to succeed is why people don't succeed.

Education is paid for up to a high school education. They just have to do well in those subjects. But, the poorer parts of the country, like Baltimore is also where the most crime is. No one wants to open businesses when the most property damage happens. It is also is usually where the most black people are, where the heightened rate of single parenthood is. Studies have found single parenthoods are worse than 2 parents, so there's going to be more crime, more gangs, generally worse people, due to bad upbringings. It generally is black people that have these things. Obama claimed he'd sort race inequalities, yet it has actually become worse in the past 8 years. Yes, it is harder for a lower class to get out of the lower class, but it's entirely possible and 100% easier than almost all other countries.

I actually loved Obama when he first came. But then I started realising how bad he actually was. Why do I hate Obama? Because he betrayed the people's trust in him. Everyone who says he was "the greatest president ever" are usually the people that care he's the first black president over being a good president.

This is more of a nitpick, but I thought I would just throw it in. The title of the controlling party doesn't even come close to representing the political system in place. I can call myself an egalitarian, but it doesn't really matter if I also claim to support sterilizing people with disorders or defects. The Republicans we have now don't have anything in common with the Republicans of the old days and the Democrats couldn't care less about democracy. Soviet and Chinese Communism isn't Communism, either.

Any system in it's purest, non-corrupted state will never succeed for the same reason: people. People ruin ideas. For the same reason that Anarchy can never work, the rest of the political systems will fail because it only takes one self-centered, greedy tyrant to take over a company and start a monopoly or gain control of a political party and regulate everything into oblivion. No political or economic system will ever be able to combat the greed in human nature.

RDay13 : I don't really think you can call 9/11 a war, though.

So this has already been pointed out but the US is not "easily" the most privileged country in the world, not even close.

Also, communism never worked because the human isn't compatible to it.

And, yes the netherlands is a mixture between Socialism and Capitalism and its not working very well. So using it to defend socialism isn't correct, even though a lot of people seem to do this. Don't take this as me attacking socialism, i'm a socialist.

As a suggestion, wouldn't it be more effective to discuss specific policy rather than overall labels? What exactly caused Communist countries in to fail? What specific things about Socialism caused the failures that you speak about? For example, one big problem with Socialism is that it lends itself to corruption. Giving the state such overwhelming power and assuming that the government officials have the people's best interests at heart is a bad combination.

imamonster : I did not call 9/11 a war. I compared it to Pearl Harbor in the fact that it was an attack on US soil that led the US into a war (War on Afghanistan). Looking back on it, I phrased a little weird. 

"Pretty sure WW2 didn't happen on US soil, unless you count the attack on Pearl Harbor, but in that case, we have seen war on US soil in 2001 on 9/11. They were both acts of terror by other countries that led us into war. "

By saying "we have seen war on US soil in 2001 on 9/11" I was trying to compare what he said about war on American soil because if Pearl Harbor was considered a "war", then 9/11 can be too. However, I did say "They were both acts of terror by other countries that led us into war." in my first post to clarify. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

CPT Axis : I don't really care what you say or what China says, they're not true communist. Communism is what they call themselves, but they do an entirely different thing. I don't want to force an agenda that socialism works, I want to be honest to reality.

You then criticize all sorts of countries for all sorts of reasons, but none of those criticisms mean "failures". They have issues, sure. So what? America has issues. Taiwan has issues. Everyone has issues. Issues does not mean "failure".

Your bias is obvious. I suspect you are simply young. One day, you will hopefully learn to do more unbiased research.

For the record, I am a conservative capitalist. I'm also a nerd and committed to the truth.

txgangsta made some good points but as someone who lives in a country that employs social democracy and consider himself a socialist (in the modern sense of the word) I want to clarify some things.

CPT Axis : Modern socialism doesn't necessarily mean that corporations are nationalized though this is the more historical definition. When referring to socialism in the form that is seen in the western world we're actually referring to social democracy. In this form socialism and capitalism can and do in fact coexist.

With that in mind redistribution of wealth doesn't advocate the top 1% paying for everything. It typically means higher taxes for everyone however most socialist countries do have higher taxes for the rich. As someone who identifies as a socialist I think of it as contributing based on one's ability to do so. Those that are more well off will naturally be able to contribute more. It doesn't reduce someone to the same ground since those that are rich are still going to be rich. It is also not necessarily a totalitarian system in fact Sweden among other Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands and Germany are all some of the countries that are generally said to have the most political freedom.

No matter what definition you go by Obamacare is not socialism in any shape or form. A socialist healthcare system would be more similar to what Bernie Sanders proposed a single payer health care system where healthcare is guaranteed to everyone. Obamacare does not guarantee healthcare but in stead forces people to buy it through what is still private health providers. Just because something involves increased state control that does not make it socialism.

Redistribution of wealth does not hurt businesses when implemented properly. Many of the countries mentioned already show this but I'll get to the root of the argument. Firstly your statement assumes that the money big corporations makes is used to reinvest in the company which isn't really the case in particular among big corporations which is what we're focusing on here. Additionally the whole idea is that raising the taxes of businesses and regular people allows them to save money on things like healthcare and education meaning this increases their spending power. Resulting in businesses being able to make more. On the contrary this is why income inequality hurts the economy as a whole and not just those that are worse off, since it reduces the money being spent. The issue with the idea of redistribution of wealth on the other hand, is not in the concept itself but rather the execution. It is highly dependent on effective implementation meaning problems often arise when tax money is being spent inefficiently.

Secondly you mentioned how a lot of these socialist countries are facing problems, aside from the fact that having problems doesn't necessarily equal failure, you haven't really explained how any of these problems are related to socialism or a socialist government. Pretty much all European countries (regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum) are facing problems due to the syrian crisis, and no country outside or inside the Europe aren't dealing with problems in some form. So by your logic that would naturally mean every form of governing is a failure.