Mediaboss Marketing

Capitalism vs. socialism. Two different political, economic and social systems in use by countries around the world. The United States, for instance, is usually considered a prime example of a capitalist country. Sweden is often considered a strong example of a socialist society. Sweden is not socialist, however, in the true sense of the word. In practice, most countries have mixed economies with economic elements of both capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are owned by private individuals. "Means of production" refers to resources including money and other forms of capital. Under a capitalist economy, the economy runs through individuals who own and operate private companies. Decisions over the use of resources are made by the individual or individuals who own the company.

In a capitalist society, companies that incorporate are typically treated by the same laws as individuals. Corporations can sue and be sued. They can buy and sell property. They can perform many of the same actions as individuals.

Under capitalism, companies live by the profit motive. They exist to make money. All companies have owners and managers. Sometimes, especially in small businesses, the owners and managers are the same people. As the business gets larger, the owners may hire managers who may or may not have any ownership stake in the firm. In this case, the managers are called the owner's agents.

The job of the management is more complex than just making a profit. In a capitalist society, the goal of the corporation is maximizing shareholder wealth.

Under capitalism, it is the government's job by enforcing laws and regulationsto make sure there is a level playing field for privately-run companies. The amount of governing laws and regulations in a particular industry generally depends on the potential for abuse in that industry.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production, such as money and other forms of capital, are owned by the state or public. Under a socialist system, everyone works for wealth that is in turn distributed to everyone. Under capitalism, you work for your own wealth. A socialist economic system operates on the premise that what is good for one is good for all. Everyone works for their own good and for the good of everyone else. The government decides how wealth is distributed among the people.

In a pure socialist economy, there is no free market like we see in a capitalist nation. The government provides for the people. The taxes are usually higher than in a capitalist system. There may be government-run health care and a complete system of government-operated education. It is a misconception that people do not pay for these services. They do pay for them through higher taxes. Socialist systems emphasize equal distribution of wealth among the people.

Many countries have mixed economic systems with elements of both capitalism and socialism. In the U.S., predominantly a capitalist system, there are many government-run programs, notably Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. In many socialist countries, as in Sweden, there are also still private businesses.

View post:
The Differences Between Capitalism and Socialism

Subscribe to the Real Time YouTube: http://itsh.bo/10r5A1B

In his editorial New Rule, Bill argues that socialism can work wonders when used as a supplement to capitalism.

Connect with Real Time Online:Find Real Time on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MaherFind Real Time on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RealTimersFind Real Time with Bill Maher Official Site: http://itsh.bo/HttKcM.Find Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO GO http://itsh.bo/iioY87.Find Real Time with Bill Maher on Connect: http://connect.hbo.com/real-time-bill...Find Real Time on Instagram: http://instagram.com/realtimersThe Real Time blog: http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-...

It's HBO.

Connect with HBO OnlineFind HBO on Facebook: http://Facebook.com/HBOFollow @HBO on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/HBOFind HBO on Youtube: http://Youtube.com/HBOFind HBO Official Site: http://HBO.comFind HBO Connect: http://Connect.hbo.comFind HBO GO: http://HBOGO.comFind HBO on Instagram: http://Instagram.com/hboFind HBO on Foursquare: http://Foursquare.com/hbo

Check out other HBO ChannelsHBO: http://www.youtube.com/hboGame of Thrones: http://www.youtube.com/GameofThrones True Blood: http://www.youtube.com/trueblood HBO Sports: http://www.youtube.com/HBOsports HBO Documentary Films: http://www.youtube.com/HBODocs Cinemax: http://www.youtube.com/Cinemax HBO Latino: http://www.youtube.com/HBOLatino

See original here:
YouTube

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

If I start screaming "Wolverines!" at strangers it's not because I am getting impatient waiting for the start of the college football season (only 84 more days!) but because I have just seen the latest issue of National Review the June 3 edition of the conservative magazine is given over to a symposium entitled "Against Socialism."

"Socialism," Rich Lowry tells us in his introduction to the special issue, "is back." My fondness for Red Dawn should, I hope, establish my own anti-communist bona fides. When the contras plant their flag on American soil I will be the first person heading for the hills with a rifle and a rosary. But this ain't it, chief.

Lowry himself seems to be under the impression that Franklin Roosevelt was a kind of socialist. (The great man in fact loathed socialists, and the feeling was mutual.) One National Review contributor argues that Plato was a commie, indeed, the very first; his definition of "socialist" is capacious enough to make room for Barack Obama as well. One of the magazines senior editors is of the opinion that "the common good," a phrase used approvingly by every political philosopher of any importance during the last two millennia with the exception of Ayn Rand, is "Leninist."

All of this leaves me very confused. It doesn't help, of course, that two of the avowedly socialist bogeymen singled out in the National Review symposium don't seem to have a very coherent idea of what "socialism" is either. Whatever Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stand for, it certainly isn't community ownership of the means of production, which is, the last time I clicked on the Wikipedia page, literally what socialism means.

Believing that there should be a social safety net and that this should include government provision of health care for those who cannot afford it is not "socialism." This not exactly radical worldview could be called a lot of other things though, including "Reaganism" or "Thatcherism." Putting aside his views on so-called social issues, which are all but obligatory in today's Democratic Party, Sanders is about as radical as the average New Deal Democrat of the '30s. The fact that he has himself pointed this out on numerous occasions does not make the picture any clearer. Even the Democratic Socialists of America admit that "regulated markets can guarantee efficiency, consumer choice and labor mobility."

This leads me to two conclusions. The first is that nobody in America today with any kind of meaningful public platform is actually a "socialist." (Though I did meet an actual communist once at a rally in Washington, D.C., years ago. His name was Carl, and he told me that Trump was better on economic issues than Hillary Clinton.) This is in large part because the word itself does not mean anything in roughly 99 percent of the occasions in which it is used. It is one of those bizarre nouns I could be cheeky and argue that "capitalism" is another one that suggests something vaguely good to one group of people and something indescribably wicked to another.

Which brings me to my second conclusion, namely, that all the people who are moaning about socialism in America today need one another desperately. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are considered radical, edgy politicians because they argue for things like an increased minimum wage, following in the footsteps of noted commie thugs Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. This shores up their reputations with their own bases, who never have to ask themselves why American socialism is well to the right of the Conservative Party under Harold Macmillan 60 years ago. It also gives right-wingers their jollies. In other words, everyone wins, a desirable and, dare I say, socialist outcome. Maybe the real socialism was the political enemies we caricatured along the way.

The decline of "socialism" into verbal obsolescence is regrettable. Over the course of the last two centuries the word has meant a great many things to different people, not all of them inherently wrong. I myself have advocated for champagne socialism in the literal sense of handing the production of bubbly over to an international collective that would be responsible for distributing it equally to all the worlds families. But any term of art that could refer with equal accuracy to William Morris or Xi Jinping is, I think, useless.

Let's find another word to hammer all the meaning out of, shall we?

Original post:
Everyone is wrong about socialism - theweek.com

"Socialism" is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.

Socialism originally involved the replacement of private property with a market exchange, but history has proven this ineffective. Socialism cannot prevent people from competing for what is scarce. Socialism, as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism," which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning.

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism." While the two ideologies share much in common (in fact, communism encompasses socialism), the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

Bolshevism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, Marxism, collective ownership, collectivism, state ownership

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.French historian and political theorist, Alexis de Tocqueville

As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.Author, George Orwell

Read more:
A Definition of Socialism - ThoughtCo

Photo: Gabriela Medina PREM/Getty Images

Updated February 26, 2019

Socialism is an economic system where everyone in society equally ownsthefactors of production. The ownership is acquired through a democratically elected government. It could also be a cooperative ora public corporation where everyone owns shares. The four factors of production arelabor, entrepreneurship,capital goods,andnatural resources.

These factors are valued only for their usefulness to people.

Socialists take into account both individual needs and greater social needs. They allocate resources using central planning, as in acommandeconomy.

Examples of the greater social needs includetransportation, defense, education, health care, and preservation of natural resources.Some also define the common good as caring for those who can't directly contribute to production. Examples include the elderly, children, and their caretakers.

A mantra of socialism is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." Everyone in society receives a share of the production based on how much each has contributed. This system motivates them to work long hours if they want to receive more. Workers receive their share of production after a percentage has been deducted for the common good.

Socialists assumes that the basic nature of people is cooperative. They believe that this basic nature hasn't yet emerged in full becausecapitalismor feudalism has forced people to becompetitive.

Socialists argue that the economic system must support this basic human nature before these qualities can emerge.

Under socialism, workers are no longer exploited becausethey own the means of production. Profits are spread equitably among all workers according to their individual contribution.

But the cooperative system also provides for those who can't work. It meets theirbasic needs for the good of the whole society.

The system eliminates poverty. It providesequal access to health care and education. No one is discriminated against.

Everyone works at what one is best at and what one enjoys. If society needs jobs to bedone that no one wants, it offers higher compensation to make it worthwhile.

Natural resources are preserved for the good of the whole.

The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the cooperative nature of humans to work. It ignoresthose within society who are competitive, not cooperative. Competitive people tend to seek ways to overthrow and disrupt society for their own gain. Capitalism harnesses this "Greed is good" drive. Socialism pretends it doesn't exist.

As a result, socialismdoesn't reward people for being entrepreneurial. It struggles to be as innovative as a capitalistic society.

A third disadvantage is that thegovernment has a lot of power. This works as long as it represents the wishes of the people. But government leaders can abuse this position and claim power for themselves.

Socialists believe their system is the next obvious step for any capitalistic society. They see income inequality as a sign of late stage capitalism. They argue that capitalism's flaws mean it has evolved past its usefulness to society. But capitalism's flaws are endemic to the system, regardless of the phase it is in.

America's Founding Fathersincluded promotion of the generalwelfare in the Constitution to balance capitalism'sflaws. It instructed thegovernment to protect the rights of all to pursue their idea of happiness as outlined in theAmerican Dream. It's the government's role to create a level playing field to allow that to happen. That can happen without throwing out capitalism in favor of another system.

There are no countries that are 100 percent socialist, according to the Socialist Party of the United Kingdom.

Most havemixed economiesthat incorporate socialism with capitalism,communism,or both.

The following countries have strong socialist systems:

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark: The state provides health care, education, and pensions. But these countries also have successful capitalists. Thetop 10 percentof each nation's peoplehold more than 65 percentof the wealth. That's because most people don't feel the need to accumulate wealth since the government provides a great quality of life.

Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea: These countries incorporate characteristics of both socialism and communism.

Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Guyana,India,Mozambique,Portugal,Sri Lanka, andTanzania: These countries all expressly state they are socialist in their constitutions. Their governments run their economies. All have democratically-elected governments.

Belarus, Laos,Syria, Turkmenistan, Venezuela,and Zambia: These countries all have very strong aspects of governance, ranging from health care, the media, or social programs run by the government.

Many other countries, such as Ireland, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Belgiumhave strong socialist parties. Their governments provide ahigh level of social support. Butmost businesses are privately owned. This makes them essentially capitalist.

Manytraditionaleconomies use socialism, although many still use private ownership.

There are eight types of socialism. They differ on how capitalism can best be turned into socialism. They also emphasize different aspects of socialism. Here are the major branches, according to"Socialism by Branch."

Democratic Socialism:The means of production are managed by the working people, and there is a democratically elected government. Central planning distributes common goods, such as mass transit, housing, and energy, while the free market is allowed to distribute consumer goods.

Revolutionary Socialism:Socialism will emerge only after capitalism has been destroyed. "There is no peaceful road to socialism." The factors of production are owned by the workersand managed by them through central planning.

Libertarian Socialism:Libertarianism assumes that the basic nature of people is rational, autonomous, and self-determining. Once the strictures of capitalism have been removed, people will naturally seek a socialist society that takes care of all, free of economic, political, or social hierarchies.That's because they see it is the best for their own self-interest.

Market Socialism:Production is owned by the workers. They decide how to distribute among themselves. They would sell excess production on the free market. Alternatively, it could be turned over to society, which would distribute it according to the free market.

Green Socialism:This type of socialistic economy highly values the maintenance of natural resources. Public ownership of large corporations achieves this. It also emphasizes public transitand locally sourced food. Production focuses on making sure everyone has enough of the basics instead of consumer products one doesn't really need. This kind of economy guarantees a livable wage for everyone.

Christian Socialism:Christian teachings of brotherhood are the same values expressed by socialism.

Utopian Socialism:This was more a vision of equality than a concrete plan. It arose in the early 19th century, before industrialization. It would be achieved peacefully through a series of experimental societies.

Fabian Socialism:This type of socialism was extolled by a British organization in the late 1900s. It advocated a gradual change to socialism through laws, elections, and other peaceful means.

Continued here:
Socialism: Definition, Pros, Cons, Examples, Types