Are you agree or Disagree with the following sentence , and why ?
capitalism system more successful than socialist system in process of achieving economic progress within developing country "
I disagree, because the capitalist system is an authoritarian regime that seeks its own interests.
تعد كل من الرأسمالية والاشتراكية مدرستين اقتصاديتين متعارضتين إلى حد ما. ويتركز الجدال بين الاشتراكية والرأسمالية حول المساواة الاقتصادية ودور الحكومة: يعتقد الاشتراكيون أن انعدام المساواة الاقتصادية أمر سيء بالنسبة للمجتمع وأن الحكومة مسؤولة عن الحد من ذلك عن طريق البرامج التي تعود بالنفع على الفقراء. على سبيل المثال مجانية التعليم العام، والرعاية الصحية المجانية أو المدعومة، والضمان الاجتماعي للمسنين، وفرض ضرائب أعلى على الأغنياء. من ناحية أخرى، يعتقد الرأسماليون أن الحكومة لا تستخدم الموارد الاقتصادية بكفاءة مثلما تفعل المؤسسات الخاصة، وبالتالي فإن حال المجتمع يكون أفضل مع السوق الحرة.
تعتبر الولايات المتحدة معقل الرأسمالية، بينما تعد أجزاء كبيرة من الدول الإسكندنافية وأوروبا الغربية ديمقراطيات اشتراكية. ومع ذلك، فالحقيقة هي أن كل البلدان المتقدمة لديها بعض البرامج الاشتراكية.
كما تعتبر الشيوعية شكلاً متطرفًا من أشكال الاشتراكية.
Alaa Fadhil
Thank you my brother I highly appreciate your contribution
Development models in developing countries are framed to integrate individuals/territories/collective intelligence(this doesn't that it is appropriate for socialism). Capitalism is selfish and doesn't fit the cultural attributes of most developing countries.
I do not agree. The solution is in a socially responsible society. Capitalism certainly did not, as this pandemic has shown.
I agree with Dr. Bertin Ondja'a. Culture and tradition play a significant role in the choice of development model.
I am more inclined to entertain a "golden" (i.e. middle) path, when an issue is not to be resolved in a straightforward manner, so...
Around the world we can observe a multitude of variations in both categories, as well as a variety of combinations of both - e.g. democratic socialism in Sweden vs. social democracy in France.
Even if both systems were taken as a broader category (i.e. through theoretical characteristics only), they both have their positives and negatives (despite capitalism being the more often vilified of the two).
Capitalism however is efficient and goal-driven. It stimulates personal initiative. There is creativity born of competition, opportunities for advancement (often irrespective of class). There is little allowance for laziness and lack of ambition. Social justice is seen as reflective of one's contribution to the economy and the state. Freedom of speech and movement are the norm. People with special needs are still recognized and looked after.
Socialism is more concerned with equal opportunity for social participation and more equalized distribution of wealth amongst all citizens, regardless of individual contribution to society. Unemployment is low, but so are most wages and choices in goods and services. There is little opportunity for breaking with the stats quo, the official herd and togetherness mentality. Creativity is often missing. Ironically, some human rights (e.g. personal space and privacy) may not be as rigorously observed.
My opinion, in broad strokes...
:)
As a professor of R&D management, I could accept the views expressed by Dr. Valeria. But reading about consciousness, the works of David Bohm, the works of quantum medicine, I find that creativity is something different in the modern world. Creativity is not about efficiency, but about fertility. Many serious scientists are not sure how effective the inventions, translated into innovations, really are to humans. Efficiency leads to material enrichment. Wealth changes the consciousness of man. Personally, as someone who has intensively studied and gained experience in business, institute and college for over half a century, I do not believe in extremely rich people and their good intentions. Lastly, just to mention that the proposal for a development model needs to be well studied and understood sustainable development.
Yes, I agree but it has its own ill effect on the social sector. The gap between rich and poor is increasing.
Prabuddh Kumar Mishra
Thank you too much I highly appreciate your answer of contribution
I wont agree. Whilst the capitalist system can aggressively drive the economy, but at the huge cost of a country's people. Hence, the social-related casualties would be too high/large as the system will favour the wealthy and wealth will be too concentrated rather than distributed. As mentioned, rich will get richer and poor will get poorer. This wont be good for any economy. There has to be an economic balance or equality ... in my view!
Gordana Komazec , I see your point.
Let us not forget however that capitalist societies are not represented by rich people only, and that socialist countries have rich people too (e.g. the ruling elite and their circle).
All societies (irrespective of political regime) are made of the same strata; the difference is the percentage of representation in each stratum.
People of considerable means have other stakes and priorities in life. Perhaps they find our worries mundane and inconsequential. When money is not an issue, people operate at a different level.
Such people though are just like us - subject to the same laws of nature (simply, they can afford better, more personalized healthcare :) ).
Yet, I do not think that it is correct to expect them to be apologetic to have succeeded financially in life. Many of them work long hours, are generous, and routinely engage in giving to those who are underprivileged.
Let me disagree also on the point of efficiency and creativity. When designing a product, one has in mind its future useability, as well as the cheapest possible way to produce it, sometimes without compromise as to quality.
This is a normal process in production management. It gets abnormal when expectations as to workers' physical capabilities are unrealistically high. It sometimes happens, in all political regimes.
:)
Todos los países están en su propia vía de desarrollo, las viejas etiquetas de países desarrollados y en desarrollo ya no bastan! Sobre la pregunta podría decir que el modelo capitalista consigue eficiencia y un desarrollo más rápido pero no necesariamente mejor. Dos alternativa que permite la integración de los modelos: 1. La economía social y solidaria como modelos de gobernabilidad más democráticos y sostenibles o 2. la innovación social con la reinversión en ciencia y tecnología para la misma organización. Saludos,
Yes, I totally agree with your statement Prof. Ali Al-obaidi
"capitalism system (is much) more successful than socialist system in process of achieving economic progress within developing country "
I am living in a socialism (called chavismo) that has destroyed our: lives, relatives, future, country & everything else we had.
As Dr. Valeria Tananska clearly stated, in socialist countries there are rich socialists too, in venezuela we call them Boligarchs (oligarchs + billioners + thanks to the Bolivarian revolution ) .
Sustained economic development is possible with capitalism than socialism.
The major differences between capitalism and socialism which will revolve around the role of the government and equality of economics. Capitalism affords economic freedom, consumer choice, and economic growth. Socialism, which is an economy controlled by the state and planned by a central planning authority, provides for a greater social welfare and decreases business fluctuations. Moreover, Capitalism is more competitive than Socialism.
I do not agree, because the capitalism system is a tyrannical regime that works for its personal interests only.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India