With the collapse of Soviet Union, socialism is defined as a failed social experiment in the human history. With the self-correctiveness, capitalism is declared the right model of social development. But yet, each time one allows the capitalist market to grow freely, disasterous event always follow, from Great Depression in 1930s to Asia financial storm, to today's subprime meltdown. And each time, government will be forced to clear up the mess, with public money. As a result, the government is pretty much the biggest asset holder and major GDP contributor and regulator. So what is the big difference between today's capitalism and the old socialism? If the answer is government's role in economy, then it is not a unsafe assumption that the government's role will only grow bigger from now on. Technology and communication can provide the engine for economy growth, but they simply do not have the damping power for market oscillation if simply left alone.

Marx never ever saw the first socialist country. Ever since there was a socialist system, the world is super hostile toward it. Then there was WWII, cold war, military compitition between the two camps. Socialism was never given a peaceful environment to develop and evolve, unlike capitalism, which enjoyed 100+ years of experiment and evolution. Probably today's China is the only exception, and it is a fact China has been making great progress since 1978, it is far from ideal and mature, but it has been only 30 years. Further more, Lenin and Mao were not economists, were not sociologists, they were considered great revolutionists. Is the model they set up as socialist system the right one? At very least it is debateable.

Maybe the great economists, Smith, Marx and Keynes, are all right. Maybe socialism did not lose, maybe capitalism did not win after all.