The two types of governing and commerce are continually discussed and argued on this forum. Capitalism is usually associated with the right and socialism is associated with the left. What are the differences and can they be combined to form a new form of governing?
It is already a reality, welfare to Medicaid has been happening for a loooong time. Where does the government get its money? Thats right from capitalists!
Paying taxes to government by capitalists does not mean they are looking after social welfare. Only if they specially contribute for medicaid, it is real.
Capitalism isn't a form of government, it's an economic system exercised by free people. Socialism is system of social organization which subjugates people and provides for their needs. They can never be combined, and the last thing we need is a new form of government! What we need is less government, and more freedom!
Capitalism and socialism can never be combined. Capitalism allows individual amassing of wealth, whereas socialism is based on society's welfare. A rich person cannot maintain his status if he engages in social welfare activities. Only he can give some donations to individuals.
Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
It kind of sounds like a management and labor dispute doesn't it?
What would you consider the pro's of capitalism to be? Also what are the pro's of Socialism?
I think government and the different methods used are in place to maintain the distribution of power and wealth. Why do we need this maintenance? I believe the root of this question can be found in the philosophy of how we view people at their core.
Socialism thrives on dependence.
Capitalism thrives on independence.
Any system fails because of greed and incompetence.
socialism may turn into capitalism,but the opposite is not possible.
I like the way you think Sara.
The pros for capitalisim would be the reward to individuals who through their ingenuity and risk taking as well as competitive skills are rewarded for their efforts with the spoils of their efforts. They also face the possibility of crashing and burning if the inverse of that happens. This also a solo project that relies on the individual to get it right quickly and exploit and manage their advantage in the marketplace.
Unfortunately socialism gets a bad rap for it's understanding that the same type of principles can be applied but the government holds the purse strings which can lead to corrupt management and little immediate repercussions for their failure.
Can standards and regulations be in place that are not managed by government bureacrats but allow the entrepeneur to prosper and share more of the profits the workers or part owners make possible?
Just a question.
Capitalism and Socialism are both socio-economic systems; and yes they can mix, and it is preferable to do so. Capitalism helps a country thrive because it adds individualism and meritocracy, as well as room for initiative. This is how most of the developments in technology have been achieved, and yet pure capitalism can leave the poorest and most vulnerable without the necessary assistance, so can fragment society into two classes, the haves and have-nots.
Socialism, on the other hand, ensures that all of society is incorporated into the economic system, and that everyone has the same life choices. It also means, however, that restrictions are endemic and can prevent progress in the fields of research and technology.
Neither is particularly desireable in a complete form, and I think neither can last without the other. There is a mix of the two ideals in the majority of countries around the world, including the UK and US.
by Matthew Weese4 years ago
It is easy to blame an individual and his/her life decisions for getting into bind where they have to swallow their pride and ask for help. It is a sad day in American history when a country full of laborers can't...
by Peter Freeman4 years ago
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a...
by Texasbeta5 years ago
Today, neocons and liberals appear to have some basic historical points that we are still debating. The lines of the past appear to still be the lines of today.Separation of Church and State American Civil War - the...
by A Thousand Words2 years ago
There's no one to step on/take advantage of anymore?Capitalism is defined as:- free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by...
by Charles James5 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by My Esoteric17 minutes ago
In both the Federalist Papers AND the Constitutional Convention, it is extremely clear the distaste most of those involved in creating today's America had for democracy, which they saw as mob rule which allows...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.