socialism by far.

My dictionary uses these definitions: Capitalism - an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people Socialism - the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs. Based on that I am a Socialist.

I do not see that the two are incompatible - unless by Socialism you mean Communism, which I consider to be a completely different thing. Capitalism says that the most efficient way to generate wealth is with a open market in which producers and consumers are free to make their own choices as to what they sell and buy. Other than ensuring a well run market (full information, contract enforcement), government should let people make their own decisions. Socialism says that, once the wealth has been created, it is reasonable for society to take away some of that wealth and use it on projects for the general good (roads, environment, law enforcement, defence) and also (more controversially) some of it for supporting the weakest who, for whatever reason, have lost out. I do not see these as incompatible. Capitalism works - though markets are not always as open as they should be, and they sometimes fail. Realistically, even the most capitalist expect some level of Socialistic redistribution, it is just a question of how much.

It depends on which definitions you use. The basic definition of Socialism as I learned it goes something like: "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" (from M-W.com) and Capitalism is an economic system wherein property and the means of production are privately owned and distribution of wealth is governed primarily by market forces (rather than by bureaucrats). I don't believe government officials are capable of managing markets effectively. National economies in a globally competitive world are just too complicated to be efficiently or effectively controlled by even educated and competent economists. Giving individuals ownership in their companies gives them a personal interest in and motivation for success and imposes a cost on bad decision making and poor performance. This is the formula for generation of national wealth that has proved most effective in the real world. I also find the adage "power corrupts" to be almost universally true and giving any government official power to control a national economy and redistribute its wealth may be too much power for even a noble person or group of persons to manage without succumbing to power corruption. Unrestricted Capitalism only works well with a noble and honest population so most capitalists accept some level of governmental consumer protection regulation, but as a general concept (using the definitions above and for the reasons given) I find Capitalism a fairer and more effective way to manage economic activty.

Capitalism

Extreme capitalism flat out does not work. It is failing the United states miserably, and we are not even 100% capitalist. An economic system closer to socialism would be MUCH better, as exemplified by Sweden and the other Scandinavian nations. The problem is so many Americans are stuck on images of Stalin and Lenin, so they have no clue what Socialism actually is, and they fear what they do not understand.

capitalism. socialism is theoretically good, but, much like communism, isn't practical in my opinion. I prefer more laissez faire, not total, but more. socialism doesn't get shit done.

its an area of gray, PURE capitalism is flawed, but i am not a fan of pure socialism, so a mix of both, aka a mixed market which is what we have

Anarchy

A healthy balance.

Just as moongrim said, a healthy balance of both. Or you have a country too divided

In a truly civilized world, Socialism would be the best between the two. Unfortunately, we don't live in a very civilized world.

Takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

Both bring something to the table. So, sometimes it's good to be able to switch between them to ensure that neither one goes overboard.

Well, I definitely hate Socialism. As for Capitalism, it depends on how you define it. If by it you mean a free-enterprise, laissez-faire system with complete respect for property rights, I'm all for it so long is there are bankruptcy protections; prohibitions of slavery, prostitution, and predatory lending; a hard currency; and steep penalties for fraud, slander, and criminal negligence/depraved indifference. If you mean by it a system where the upber-rich international financiers and industrialists control the media, the financial system, the money supply, and the government, then I answer: "And the difference between that and Socialism would be ... ?"

niether.

Socialism

Socialism 100%, Capitalism by its very nature, promotes nothing but greed, and greed promotes evil actions. Capitalism is oppressive and does not concern itself with the equality of individuals or even quality of life, like socialism does. So Socialism all the way, it works for europe and china, so why not the U.S.?