Debate on Capitalism and Socialism Showcases UMD's Commitment to Open Inquiry

The University of Maryland's commitment to intellectual diversity and rigorous civil discourse was on display Oct. 27, 2026, as the Robert H. Smith School of Business’ Ed Snider Center for Enterprise and Markets, in partnership with the Steamboat Institute's Campus Liberty Tour, hosted a wide-ranging debate exploring: “Is capitalism superior to socialism as an economic system that promotes individual freedom and prosperity?”

Held in Stamp Student Union's Colony Ballroom, the event brought together nationally recognized voices representing diverse perspectives on economic organization, innovation, inequality and human well-being.

UMD Senior Vice President and Provost Jennifer King Rice set the theme, welcoming attendees and emphasizing the importance of exposing students and the broader university community to diverse viewpoints. "One of the things I value most about universities like ours is the opportunity it creates for people to encounter and wrestle with new ideas, question their assumptions, and learn from people who might see the world a little differently than they do," King Rice said.

She encouraged audience members to listen beyond arguments that aligned with their beliefs and to consider what they found compelling on both sides of the discussion. She noted that the ability to question, disagree respectfully, and reconsider one's assumptions lies at the heart of higher education. "The willingness to listen, to question, and to reconsider is absolutely central to how we advance knowledge," she said.

Agarwal Makes the Case for Markets and Entrepreneurship

The debate featured Smith’s Rajshree Agarwal, director of the Snider Center and Rudolph P. Lamone Chair of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, and Manhattan Institute Fellow Daniel Di Martino, who argued that capitalism better promotes individual freedom and prosperity. Arguing the opposing position were Paul Adler, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, and author and political commentator Ben Burgis.

Agarwal, drawing on her expertise in entrepreneurship, innovation and institutional change, framed capitalism as a system that enables experimentation, opportunity and value creation. In her opening remarks, she used a simple classroom exercise to illustrate the power of decentralized decision-making.

She described a scenario in which students trade pieces of candy based on their preferences, arguing that value can increase through voluntary exchange even without introducing new resources. "I could be the smartest, most compassionate, best-intentioned candy planner in the world," she said. "I still wouldn't know each of your individual preferences."

The example laid the groundwork for a broader argument that economic freedom depends on allowing individuals to act on their own knowledge, preferences, and ambitions rather than concentrating decision-making authority in centralized institutions. Agarwal distinguished the system she defended from cronyism, favoritism, or monopoly power, describing capitalism as an "open-access economic order" grounded in property rights, voluntary exchange, and rules that apply equally to all participants.

She emphasized the importance of preserving pathways for innovation and individual agency. When ideas fail to gain acceptance in one setting, she argued, open markets provide alternative opportunities for experimentation and progress. "Suppose you see a better way and your boss says no," Agarwal said. "Your freedom to move gives a rejected idea another chance. That is why entry and competition matter."

She further contended that broad-based prosperity emerges when large numbers of people are free to contribute, innovate, and exchange ideas. Markets, she argued, enable individuals to identify opportunities, solve problems, and create value in ways no centralized authority can fully predict or direct. Agarwal also cited examples such as economic liberalization in China and India, technological innovation, and the growth of mobile money platforms in developing economies as evidence that expanding economic freedom can generate substantial gains in prosperity and opportunity.

Her arguments complemented those of Di Martino, who drew on his experiences growing up in Venezuela to caution against expanding government control of the economy. Di Martino argued that societies with greater economic freedom have historically produced higher levels of wealth, innovation and personal choice.

Adler and Burgis offered a contrasting vision centered on democratic socialism. Their arguments focused on economic inequality, workplace power and the risks of concentrating wealth and decision-making authority in private hands. They contended that democracy should extend beyond political institutions into the workplace and that public investment and collective decision-making have played essential roles in advancing innovation and social progress.

To watch the full debate, view “Capitalism vs Socialism: Which system is better?” on the Steamboat Institute's YouTube channel.