"In essence, under Capitalism, man is remunerated (rewarded) according to his effort and contribution to the society, whereas under Socialism, he is remunerated (rewarded) according to his needs without regard to his contributions to that society."

I believe that Bill has captured the principal reason for the distaste that some people have for socialism. What I have always had trouble with is how selective this line of thought is. Capitalists don't seem to have trouble with the idea of "Insurance". Yet what is insurance if not a socialist approach to dealing with risk? Everybody pays so that the person or persons who suffer a loss can be indemnified. Insurance is a big industry in the heart of the capitalism, the USA. Is there a double standard here or am I missing the point?

For example what if the driver of that car involved in an accident did not take as great care in avoiding the accident as did the careful driver? How does insurance deal with him? It raises the cost of his premiums. Or what about the owner of that house that just burnt down, what if the fire was the result of some unfortunate accident that he could have avoided? How does insurance deal with him? It raises his premiums too.

Insurance companies charge some people more than others for the coverage they need but no one says insurance is a form of socialism and therefore we don't want it. They don't say that because spreading risk among the largest possible group is a good idea. I would suggest that a country could devise a form of socialist government that mimics insurance companies. Its citizens would be provided education, health and safety protection based on a given set of responsibilities that each citizen was responsible for. If you choose to smoke for example, then your health premium would be higher than if you did not etc. In other words, everyone in such a society would have an equal responsibility and pay more (increased premiums) when one was found not to have exercised that responsibility properly.

Pure socialism failed miserably. Pure capitalism is not sustainable. The advanced social democracies point towards the path that is sensible but need to address the issues that capitalists find distasteful as articulated by Bill. I think that the insurance industry has some of the answers to that problem.

My role is in an insurance company. Believe you me we do NOT want society run like an insurance firm

Insurance and politics share this in common; whether the results of your actions today are right or wrong will not be known until some time in the future! I can say 'your firm is very risky and should pay more' or I can say ' your firm is very risky, but I need new accounts so I will charge you what you want to pay'. Either way until you suffer a loss in th distant future we won't know which price is right. Thus the incentive is always to grow without regard for consequences, as you may no longer be in your position when those consequences come home to roost. Ditto with politicians of all stripes; i can implement any old policy today, for mañana I will hopefully hve moved up from city councilman, congressman, etc.

sanez*****

In one respect you are correct in your final sentence.
However, have you given thought to the fact that historically, both Marx and Smith were attempting to offer replacements for the existing form of economics, knowing that that alone wasn't the true answer to the social problems being experienced throughout Europe at the time.
If you will recall, Europe and the"colonial powers" were ruled by equally autocratic families who were all kin to each other andwere ruling through "God given" right.
They cared not for their subjects, in fact considered them to be their personal pawns with which they could gain more power for themselves.
During this time economic theory was in it's infancy and not much credence was given to theorizing about that phenomonen of society.
The two theorists were really trying to find a substitute for the Monarchies they both despised and these theories represented just that.
Anarchists joined with Marx because they saw his system as being devoid of any form of government, which they despised. Others saw the theory as a way to wrest power, through revolutionary efforts,from the Autocratic Rulers of the day. Lenin took Marx's theory and stole his thunder, taking advantage of the chaos of WWI and culminating in the Russian Revolution of 1917. The years following were a series of internal manipulations, murders and power struggles within the party for the top slot. The result was the eventuality of Stalin's muderous, egomaniacal rule until his death later in the century.
It is the last descriptive paragraph which has solidified free nations against anything even resembling Communism. That word alone bring out the dark shadows across the horizon and free men just don't want anything to do with it not matter what argument sput forth in support of the philosophy. Most view it as being a destructive force against humankind because of the accompanying repressive system of government it engenders

Capitalism needs poor people in order to be maintained...

Think about this!

If everyone would have a 100 Million dollars... How much would you pay me, whom also happen to have a 100 Million dollars, to say, clean your house? Please be aware that am not doing it for less than a million... What them for our millionairs... Do they really posses 100 Million dollars if a basic necessity is priced a 1,000,000.

Manhattanite: I never suggested for a moment that we run a country like an insurance company. All I said was that the whole philosophy behind the idea of insurance was based on the same kind of thinking that lies behind socialism. In that respect there are some things to be learned from "Insurance".

Yeah I understand Juan, but just saying look what else comes with the same philosophy of business you happened to mention. There is a lot of doubt in deciding what is best for the whole pool (of citizens, or insureds) and many incentives to do what is good today and not necessarily tomorrow. On this count, and for the experience we have of it via history that Bill points out, we can count out command economies like USSR...but the issue exists in USA as well of not thinking about the future.

Insurance enables people to obtain things for free; apart from receiving government services, there is no better mechanism for obtaining things that you are entitled to.

But let's step back and ask ourselves what insurance is, and how it works. There are two types of insurance: A) Paid insurance that requires premiums -- like auto insurance and home-owners insurance, and B) Compassionate insurance, which is provided by employers and governments -- which is free; e.g., health insurance.

Paid insurance requires the insured to make regular payments to insurance companies. The rates are set to maximize profits for the insurance companies -- with auto insurance being the most scandalous. However, these companies will also pay for your claims if you suffer a loss. Put another way, your insurance premia have two components: 1) Windfall profits for insurance companies and 2) Some of your payments possibly being returned to you in the form of settled claims. And that is why insurance is so essential: Because you get some of your money back.

Insurance protects against all sorts of things, from the catastrophic loss of real estate (assuming you've been paying your taxes) to catastrophic repairs of toasters, paid for by insurance known as "extended warranties". At one time, people had to pay for appliance repairs, or worse, buy replacement space heaters, alarm clocks, and can openers. But now, we can rest assured that our "extended warranty" insurance will pay for repairs, for free, provided you have your receipt and a only a few weeks to wait for service. Yes, a courageous government would require everyone to buy extended warranties for all our purchases.

Even better, a courageous and benevolent government would require that the citizenry buy insurance to cover all their purchases to start with. The only thing better than a toothbrush with an extended warranty is a toothbrush that can be purchased with insurance to begin with.

Which brings us to health insurance. There are still many Americans...too many Americans...who lack insurance to purchase the most basic health care like medical checkups, dermatology exams, and teeth cleanings. Therefore, they do without. And these are the same people who cannot afford (and are therefore unable to purchase) other uninsured items like food, housing, clothing, televisions, microwave ovens, automobiles, mattresses, cigarettes, satellite dishes, tattoos, and dental jewelry. Perhaps, we, as a nation, can tolerate the most vulnerable among us do without these things -- but how can we, as a nation, deprive them – indeed, deprive you and I -- the benefit of health insurance so that we can all have free acupuncture therapy?

In general, mandatory universal insurance for every product and service is one of the most efficient ways of making everything free for everyone. Only the most cold-blooded government would deny it to their people.

I define socialism as a progressive political system that takes the power away from wealth creators and gives it to wealth distributors. Wealth distributors are typically a class of highly trained government bureaucrats who are being watched by a class of political commissars, who, in turn, are being watched by a class of secret police, all of whom are banded together by shared progressive morals. Because progressive morals are relative by definition, a certain measure of absolute propaganda is necessary to encourage collectivism and discourage counter revolution. Since such propaganda is delivered through mass media, arts, and schools, a degree of ideological monopoly, uniformity, and censorship is also required in those fields. The resulting mass enthusiasm creates a vibrant state-subsidized culture, leading to great economic successes and technological breakthroughs, e.g., in North Korea.and Cuba