Socialism VS. Capitalism in Philosophy

Source

In Philosophy, the concept of politics are very vague, the mere talk of this can cause chaos in a room of individuals, hence the various political parties that comprise parts of every civilization. If you add religion in this mix, then the algorithmic problem gets even more complex, but for today we will stick to the debate of Captitalism vs. Socialism.


To start this philosophical debate, we must first ask the question, What is Capitalism? In Wikipedia, Capitalism, "is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. So now that we know what capitalism is, what exactly does that mean for the individual. If you were to take the average worker for example, he/she wakes up, goes to work, clocks in and works a specific amount of hours and then goes home. This is considered a wage that may or may not be much, as in private enterprise, the owner of the establishment is the aristocrat, or the wage weigh. The concept of this works to a degree, but as you can see during the industrial age, the common worker was treated poorly so that the overall production and maximized profits were made, leading to revolt and grim medical situations among families, both mentally and physically.


Socialism, as stated in Wikipedia, "is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. This form of government is in part a system completely controlled by the people for the people, without aristocratic ordeals. The leaders of towns and cities are picked by form of lottery for a specific time period, ultimately defined by the people. This society is also based on cooperative distribution of equal parts of agricultural and technological advancements, thus allowing equality on all levels.



Source

I feel as though both work well in certain circumstances, but what about a society that has rid themselves of all greed and self-progress, thus a form of socialism in it's purest form would work, but only when those two major factors had been met. If society gained control of their primitive senses to allow for a collective of sorts, then the general well-being of the masses rather than individualistic gains would be accomplished. The ideal society that I feel would qualify for such a government would be one of world status, a one world government that was linked through a sense of equality and freedoms without detrimental feelings towards any such issue.

The form of capitalism in today's form would be detrimental if democracy was allowed on a world level, a one world status never standing strong under the whole of the planets individuals. This is only because there will be a part of the world that would always be left out, maybe because of their inability to maintain cash crops, or simply the limitations of mass production facilities in third world countries. The united nations is already currently showing their inabilities to keep starvation from occurring in countries all within Africa, mainly because the private sector of the world is unwilling to release money from their pockets for a larger cause, but this is not to say they can afford it, everyone has loans to take care of.

Overall, the meaning of politics and it's mix with a general philosophy of change is unpredictable, and no one really knows how they end results will be played out hundreds of years from now. One thing is certain however, that individuals will continue to display humanistic character traits of greed and inconsideration for one another, but also compassion and kindhearted people will pursue their goal to help everyone they can in need, therefore the balances of the natural way of lifewill be met with graceful stride.

What do you think the best form of government would be in today's society?

  • Democracy
  • Communism
  • Monarchy
  • Despotism
  • Limited Monarchy
  • Republic
  • Technocracy
  • Other
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 15 comments

Jonathan Janco profile image

Jonathan Janco 5 years ago from Southport, CT

I like the simplicity you used with which to approach that. The idea of a collectivist business world where the shareholders are the productive workers themselves is definitely something I have always found appealing especially as an alternative to the feudalistic, top-down system that currently dominates the corporate and franchise worlds. I definitely think that if more anarcho-syndicalist type firms and credit unions were to appear and contribute to the economy we would see much less gov't intervention and political corruption.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

I noticed you didn't list Rupublic as one of the forms of government.Why?

In a Republic a minority has a voice as well as the majority.The majority isn't always right though due human Imperfections.

Democracy has not worked because of our Inability to get along with each other long term.

One man one vote is Idealistic and only works when all involved are equal in knowledge and philosophy.

A Monarchy only works when the monarch is benevelent as well as wise.What happens when he or she dies?

In a Common Wealth there is a social aspect that seems to have gotten lost in the history of government.


junko profile image

junko 5 years ago

A Republic is a sub-contractor. A supporting Actor to a form of government.


BakerRambles profile image

BakerRambles 5 years ago from Baltimore, MD Author

I know thank you both for saying a republic, I was having a brainfart. I'm adding it in a few minutes.


BakerRambles profile image

BakerRambles 5 years ago from Baltimore, MD Author

I completely agree with that, great comment and thank you.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

JUNKO -

If, by sub contractor you mean Individuals I agree with you.Jurors are a sub contractors of a sort.We pay them to judge the law as well as each other.


derpaliscious 5 years ago

Technocracy...if through technology, we can find "the perfect" solution for governing, there is only one infallible way to implement that without the human failings of our own conditioning through both nature and nurture, and that is letting the cold mechanics of perfection found in a non-feeling machine, perform and control the governing in a scientific way that is in the best interest of we the people, who are only human.


BakerRambles profile image

BakerRambles 5 years ago from Baltimore, MD Author

That is a very interesting reply, I am actually going to place that in my poll as a type of government in my poll if your ok with it


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

You've got to be kidding a Technocracy would have to created by a human in the first place.I for one would never trust a person who has no emotions whatsoever.

Can You Spell "PSYCHOPATH" ?


junko profile image

junko 5 years ago

Technocracy is being created now. I for one would would never trust a person who has pledged his emotion away. A government of pledge people is not a democracy, socialism. or a republic. It's a Republican thing.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

A Marxist thing maybe.You'll have to tell me what you mean by a Republican thing.If,by that you mean wealthy I think I know what you mean.


junko profile image

junko 5 years ago

I mean a Tea Party- Republican Thing used to make Obama A one term president. It is simular and like a Marxist thing,but it was made in America. The Thing I'm referencing is not a form of government, it's anti-government. It's a pledge to disrupt and or defeat the nation's government. That's my take.


Sueswan 5 years ago

A very interesting and thought provoking hub,

There are those who are truly in need and there will always be kind hearted and generous souls that will help them.

Then there are the lazy selfish, the world owes me a living type. I would not share a dime with them.

Everyone wants their rights. Well by trying to please everybody, nobody wins.


scomiscolla 3 years ago

I employed to acquire at the top of lifetime nevertheless these days I have built up any level of resistance.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 3 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Technocracy or in simulated fashion - "Tech-no-crazy" is my take on those who would eliminate good emotions as well as bad ones.

Polyannas aside!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working