Thorsson Questra

There exists a society with no poverty class. A society where everyone has healthcare,
homes, food, water, and education. Everyone can have a job, and will make money based on how
much and how well they work. The environment gives every person opportunities for innovation.
This is a capitalist/socialist hybrid society. The American capitalism system has grown far too
problematic for todays citizens. The richest 5% of the nation makes as much as the bottom 40%.
Jennifer Liberto, a writer for CNN wrote an article about the employee and CEO wage gap.
In 1980, CEOs at the largest companies received 42 times the pay of the average worker,
according to the union. In 2000 the gap hit a high, with CEOs making 525 times the
average worker. In 2010, the gap narrowed, with CEOs making 343 times the average
worker. (Liberto)
CEOs are not working 343 times harder than their average employee. It is doubtful they
are even able to work 42 times harder than their average employee.
Using statistics from the US census bureau, and examining the good and bad aspects of
socialist and capitalist countries, I will propose an economic system which can stand against
greedy exploitation, and still provide incentives to work hard and fuel creativity. I will also be
using the works of philosophers and sociologists who debate the good and bad ideas of
capitalism and socialism. I will do extensive research for all sides of the arguments, and will be
providing the support with text citations and logical relations in arguments.
It is the purpose of this paper to, first, define the parameters of inequality, and portray
how this is applied in Americas capitalist system. Second, to promote the idea of a market based

socialism, and to explain why it is a better alternative to capitalism. Lastly to assess the facts of
both systems and logically weigh the arguments of each.

To aid me in my research, I have chosen the book, Market Socialism: The Debate
Among Socialists. The book includes articles about market socialism written by four credible
individuals. These participants write their opinions, and proceed to debate the ideas presented.
The two in favor of market socialism are David Schweickart, and James Lawler, and the
opposition consists of Hillel Ticktin, and Bertell Ollman. Schweickart has two PhDs, is a
professor of philosophy at Loyola University, and has written books and articles on Capitalism
and Socialism. James Lawler received his PhD, is a professor of philosophy at the State
University of New York, and has written many books and articles on Socialism. Hillel Tickktin
received his PhD from the University of Moscow, and has written over a hundred books and
articles on Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism. Bertell Ollman is a Politics professor at New
York University, received his PhD from Oxford. He has written a number of books on Socialism
and Capitalism, and is the creator of the, Class Struggle, board game.
David Schweickarts first article in the book has been the most helpful in providing
support for Market Socialism. Though some of the material may be controversial, I see the
controversy as helping my side even more. He compares the Chinese and American economies,
and provides evidence that Chinas economy is growing better than Americas. I see this as a
great way to rile up patriotic Americans. Furthermore, he describes two economic models for
Market Socialism, which he claims to be, not only viable, but viable in America.
James Lawlers article is less relevant to the fundamental ideas of Market Socialism,
however, the article provides a detailed look at how society would change with the sudden
implementation of this system. Lawler makes a point of disproving many of the fears people
have of Socialism and Communism, and what it would mean to live in these economies. This

article helps make the transition seem like a plausible occurrence, furthering the idea that this can
work in our country.
Hillel Ticktins article displays the weaknesses of Market Socialism. However, his
arguments are from a socialist perspective, and much of it could help sell the idea to proCapitalists. On the other hand, he points out that some of the worst aspects of Capitalism may
transfer with the new system. Some of these arguments, rather than being argued against, should
be taken into account to help fix and better the Market Socialism economy.
The final article before rebuttals is Bertell Ollmans. He argues two ideas in his article.
The first being Capitalism, and its many flaws compared to other flawed systems. However, in
the second half he argues against both Capitalism and Market Socialism, claiming that the
Market itself is the problem. This is very helpful to my research, and gives me another angle with
which to approach my arguments.
(This part will be about the criticisms of the articles, and the responses to the criticisms,
which I will develop as I read further.)

In order to properly articulate my arguments, I will need to define a very controversial

idea. There is an ongoing debate on how to define equality and inequality. An often assumed
notion about equality is, it is an all or nothing idea, especially when viewed in terms of
Socialism. This would mean either everyone has the same amount of resources; wealth, food,
power, etc.; or no one has the same amount. This is, in my opinion, a very radical way to view
the idea of equality. For my own persuasive purposes, I will think of equality as finding ways to
reduce preventable inequality. This is not an adequately explanatory definition, therefore, I will
do my best to make clear my definition of inequality.
I stated equality is finding ways to reduce preventable inequalities. After researching a
few ideas on how people define inequality, I have found two major types, which I will refer to as
natural inequalities, and preventable inequalities. Natural inequalities are inequalities that will be
present no matter what anyone does to trying to prevent them. These inequalities can vary from
genetics to deviant behaviors. Preventable inequalities, on the other hand, are just as it says,
preventable. Income, education, and healthcare are all prime examples of this.
Capitalism itself is, similar to what is said about communism, a good idea on paper.
Capitalism has many good aspects. It provides innovation and opportunity, which helps a country
develop. As development increases, so does the need for jobs to help the industry flourish.
Industrializing countries are greatly benefitted by Capitalism. Jobs are in no short supply, and the
massive creation of products helps to feed the consumerism. This is still active today, in our post
industrialized country. It may then appear as though Capitalism is still the greatest of systems,
however, innovation has drastically decreased from the levels they were at during
industrialization, and the wealth and resources collected by those who were successful in the

past, limits the opportunities of those who live in the present. This leads to much wasted
potential, and the economy begins to suffer.
Capitalisms greatest flaws are equality of opportunity, and power distribution. Were it
not for our democratic government, it is likely the power would rest solely in the hands of those
who successfully lived their lives. This does not mean those who are successful hold no power,
rather it is somewhat limited by other powers in the nation.