So why not take the best of Capitalism & Socialism to create a society that is more inclusive?

Question

Drop the evil aspects of Socialism & Capitalism that exclude the majority! The wealthy heirs fear this no-doubt! For me the more legal citizens that are included "access to Money/Power/Wealth" the greater our society can be.I do think all immigration should be stop immediately for an infinite amount of time.

Answer 1

It's been done. It's called Scandinavia.

People that think Socialism ends freedom have, as usual, no idea what they're takling about. Communism is the problem, not Socialism.

If you had the choice of living in a society in which even the poorest can live decently, or being able to listen to Hannity, which would you choose? I'm afraid that the self-centered right would choose the latter.

Answer 2

It is not a bad idea, however socialism can't survive well on a capitalistic system and I doubt the rich will allow society to build a capitalist system on top of a socialistic system.

It would be nice to move to a different system that would feed the 1 in 11 families that skip meals to pay the rent. People who love things the way they are don't seem to mind starvation.

To anyone who thinks that capitalism can't mix with other systems:
Have you ever had a land line phone or community utility such as water or natural gas? The prices for those are regulated in the fashion of communism and it has worked well for the last several decades.

Answer 3

Taking the final positioned up under consideration that no society is black or white yet actually gray, it actually relies upon i assume. A capitalist guy or woman in a capitalist society is a around peg in a around hollow, (comparable for socialist in social society). i think of the genuine question is which black sheep is larger off: a capitalist in a socialist society, or a socialist in a capitalist society? i will argue that a socialist in a capitalist society is probably better off because of the fact there remains a place for a socialist in a capitalist society. countless socialists have flourished in capitalist societies because of the fact they have been loose sufficient to sell thier innovations and there exchange right into a marketplace obtainable for his or her innovations. countless of my professors are raging socialists and get a handsome tenure to achieve this. in case you % to check capitalism at its maximum appropriate, study Hong Kong in the process the Nineteen Eighteen Eighties. actually, the HK government had a flat company income tax of 15% and advised business enterprise to enhance exponentially. As business enterprise grew, this 15% decrease grew better and larger. With purely 15% taxes on business enterprise, they have been waiting to construct all of the infrastructure and social classes they necessary (and the wide-unfold public housing association in Hong Kong is stunning...each country must be doing it). David Harvey's e book "Neoliberalism: a short history" chastises loose marketplace thinking and praises Sweden of all places as a worker/shareholder socialist ecosystem. There, approximately 50% of GDP is the government, and the advantages they get carry of are intense (yet that must be argued). mothers get 2 years paid off whilst they had little ones (which i'm specific is intense-high quality), college ranges are loose and that's prevalent to have 3 or 4 ranges, and wellbeing care and welfare are significant. yet on the comparable time, there is 10% unemployment. My professor argued that the US is at 4%, so 10% isn't that significant (and the government would not count huge sort those with "unemployment reward" as being unemployed). yet a 4% unemployment value is (economically speaking) a classic value of unemployment. interior the US, having double digit unemployment could be unthinkable, yet, nonetheless, in Europe they think of it is undesirable that x hundreds of human beings have not got scientific assurance. i wish that provides some perception.

Answer 4

Combining the best of capitalism and socialism has already been done, many times, and to varying level of degrees, in the USA, Canada, much of Western Europe, Japan, etc.

All are essentially capitalist nations, but with layers of gov't socialism applied. The USA has Social Security, Medicare, and thousands of other gov't programs to assist it's citizens. Canada has that too, plus gov't run and provided healthcare. Many Western European countries have that, plus generous social benefits like 1 year paid maternity leave, lengthy paid disability leaves, generous retirement programs, etc.

Capitalism is the engine that provides the bulk of the goods and services, and wealth. The hard part is deciding just how much socialism to apply, before you start killing the golden goose of capitalism. The more socialism, the less your economic growth and the less your citizens overall wealth will increase.

Countries that have applied more socialism like Germany and France have their own problems, such as high unemployment, and low economic growth, because socialism restricts business and economic growth. Sweden has a problem with too many people in it's disability system. The USA and others of these nations will have problems producing the promised retirement benefits, as large portions of the population reach retirement age.

Countries that have pruned back socialism and lowered taxes, like Ireland, have had explosive economic growth, increasing wealth of its citizens, and dramatically lowered unemployment.

Personally, I believe the proper balance is to keep government out of the picture, unless there is some problem that capitalism just seems to be unable to fix. In those cases, it is appropriate for gov't to step in.

Answer 5

Socialism punishes success, with higher taxes and fees that are used to subsidize those who do not work as hard, or do not do as well. When you take away the rewards for hard work, people do not work as hard!

In a capitalistic society, everyone has the chance to be successful. Not everyone will be, some will fail. Some are not willing to work hard enough to succeed, some will not have the skills! In a socialistic society, there is no incentive to work hard and get ahead. If you are given the fruits of others labor, then there is not reason to work hard for yourself. Even if you do work hard, most of what you produce is take away and given to others.

Capitalism and Socialism are not compatible. You can not mix the two without ruining the basis for Capitalism!

Answer 6

Yes, the best of capitalism allows people from any class to move to another. That is extremely difficult these days and you'll see less and less of those great American stories we love. For instance, the dream goes awry by not supporting public education which in fact will pay off later in tax dollars. But people so much want to believe in the American Dream, they don't believe it's happening.
And some kind of National Health Plan-there are cries of Socialism when in fact, the lack of health care is killing the middle class and keeps them from moving into an upperclass income.

Answer 7

Capitalism and Socialism are mutally exclusive. Capitalism is based on the idea of private property. Socialism is based on the idea of community property.

Socialism denies people freedom, therefore it is slavery and is evil. Capitalism has it's flaws, but I'd rather be free and poor, than a slave.

Answer 8

Just what is the best of Socialism and Capitalism??

Answer 9

Because humans are driven by status. They are perpetually seeking a bigger house, car, kids in private school etc.
By marrying both political philosophies, and by making everything more even, you will be taking away a natural human instinct: which is to better themselves.

Answer 10

Move to china and don't bring this BS up again. I like my government as it is. You leave.