Socialism is a system where citizens are rewarded for the work they do; on the other hand, capitalism is based on the idea that the wealthy are capable of producing, or maintaining, capital. This difference has sparked many discussions, but most will agree that both sides hold positive ideals. The only difference is that capitalism directly hinders democracy, and the political process, through the need to produce capital. Socialism seems to take the lead.
In a society where capital is the only feasible economic option, what would one be driven to promote and maintaining? In modern capitalist nations, even the nation itself takes part in the economical system, investing in failing companies to "protect the economy's health", while also helping the companies that monetize every aspect of our daily lives. Government officials are bribed to maintain their status, and money defines the image of almost all modern politicians. Our debt is rising, and the worth of our dollar is falling. Without changing our beliefs on economics, we cannot move forward. We can't say for certain that these would not be a problem if our nation took a socialist approach, but we can agree that it would not have the same workings as our current route. Socialism would ensure that politics are less tampered by money, and that our country would be able to support itself, without borrowing large amounts of money from the eastern countries. Things would change, that is for sure. Karl Marx said, "Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining to together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer." This outlook mirrors the ideals of many anti-Capitalist thinkers. It is a system that prays on the working class in order to form capital and growth for the wealthy elite that hold possession of the companies involved in the inner circle.
From these works, we can assume that Capitalism and Socialism are two, very, different systems. To what do we owe the argument between them? At the very least, we owe our decision in the debate. Do we side with the capitalist machine, selling itself to make capital for the wealthy elite? Should we side with the socialist revolution, betting our ideals on the idea that a society could be selfless enough to distribute goods and wealth based on deed, rather than the ability to produce capital? The disposition of this paper is clear, but the world is not so clean.