Socialism v Capitalism
socialism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
People, on both sides of the spectrum, throw this word around quite a bit. The left seems to think that pretty much every government program is a socialist one (including National Parks?!?!) and tout it as why socialism is great. The right seems to always see the inefficiencies in it and associate socialism with the Soviet Union.
In fact, they’re both wrong (to an extent). I think they best way to explain the term, besides using its actual definition, is to use a good example of how it actually works.
The purest example of socialism today is the NFL. The means of production (the games) are controlled by the community of owners. They share league revenue with each other, decide the league’s rules, and have a commissioner to run everything with an iron fist. And they’re wildly successful. They’re able to keep people’s attention because, at the beginning of each season, a good 50% of the league has a decent chance to win the Super Bowl based on the rules for allocating resources and personnel. In that sense, the NFL is a land of equal opportunity that gives the Green Bays of the world the chance to compete with the New Yorks in a way that other professional leagues, namely European soccer (aka the purest example of unconstrained capitalism), could never have.
There is a dark side, however. As seen by what is seemingly a cover-up about concussions, as well as the blasé attitude surrounding domestic abuse, there is a bit of authoritarian censorship that can plague the model when socialism is closest to its theoretical definition.
On the other side (literally and figuratively) is capitalism.
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
As previously mentioned, the best example is European Football. In general, teams succeed and fail based on their own merits. If they do poorly, they are relegated to a lower league (with lower revenue), and players are basically free agents; they can demand a transfer/pay raise almost with impunity as, if they’re good, another team will match their demands. They can also (at least the European ones) move across borders without problems and utilize the strengths of the free market.
Teams also are in charge of their own revenue. The larger teams have their own television stations and negotiate independently with their sponsors. This gives the giants of the sport significantly more revenue to purchase players with than their league counterparts, with league championships all-but decided before each season starts.
This should be tested in an interesting fashion next year. Leicester City, the definition of a minnow in an ocean, just won the Premier League (for what its worth, the Premier League is commonly referred to as the most competitive league in Europe as they split most TV revenue evenly). They did it in a most capitalistic fashion, utilizing overlooked — cheaper — players and only concentrated on the league (whereas the largest teams can play upwards of 70 games a season in multiple tournaments, there are only 38 league games. This enabled Leicester City to stay fresher than some of their competition without having to have as deep a roster). It will be interesting to see if they can maintain it past this season or if this was just an aberration and everything will return to the mean in due time.
