Show MoreLeadership and Group Theory Midterm Essay
Capitalism vs. Socialism
September 21, 2013
Although Capitalism has a different meaning in various groups, the term is commonly acknowledged as “the private ownership of the means of production, and the coordination of the economy by the market” (Bresser-Pereira, 2012, p. 22). On the surface, the meaning of capitalism seems straightforward; referring to an economic system in which private individuals, rather than governments, own property and businesses. But beneath the surface, strong currents of opinion and theory swirl about the term. Yet in contrast, Socialism is more collective, it allows for everyone to benefit from the economy, instead of only…show more content…
In order for Socialism to be successful, leaders will need to employ influence that will reach groups who will exert a restraining influence. The group of Stakeholders or Wall Street want to keep Capitalism alive, because as it allows them to remain profitable. In a socialist economy they would not be able to use the decision method they are most noted for using, which is the “majority rules.”They would be required to be effective leaders. Make sound decisions and actually care about the benefit of everyone. Socialism allows for equal rights, and for any leader to be successful there has to be a group with his same vision. Member commitment is the key to positive behavior and attitude. When members of a group are included and treated equal, they are more apt to remain loyal to their leader and committed to the group’s goals. With Capitalism, there is always one goal and that is profits. Private businesses that continue to allow abuse of labor laws and wage contradiction will always favor Capitalism, because it will always generate profits and they do not care about what the “rest of the group thinks”. It is my strong belief that Socialism supports leadership and group dynamics, because of the nature of the term. Everyone is included as well as their input. When I vote for an elected official, I want them to have everyone’s best interest. Using a consensus system that allows anyone qualified to run for office regardless of their social status, and everyone
Economic Systems: Socialism and Capitalism Essay
1018 Words5 Pages
I have observed that when Americans discuss the relative merits of socialism vs. capitalism, the chief debates that come up are
• What would happen if we remove the stimulus for innovation and productivity that a free market generates? This implies having a free market including individual ownership and control, and to varying degrees a laissez-faire government.
• Would it be possible to have a thriving society in which we would not have 20% of the population living in poverty and without adequate healthcare, housing or economic security?
Fundamentally, we characterize and differentiate capitalism from socialism by the way they handle production (industry), distribution, and exchange (trade) of wealth and goods. In capitalism, capital…show more content…
It was also at this time that monopolization became widespread. Eventually, incorporated entities became able to perform many of the actions of individuals such as being able buy and sell property, hold patents, sue and be sued, etc. (Peavler).
The philosophy, such as proposed by Adam Smith, came to be that an economy has a natural design. Left to its own devices -- and removed from politics, religion and all other pursuits -- it will regulate itself as long as no one throws a spoke in the wheel and everyone benefits. The government's only real role in capitalism became to maintain peace and order so the economy can work without interruption (Newman).
In its purest sense, a socialist economy communally controls the production, distribution and exchange of resources. This community control is implemented by the state through a central government acting on behalf of the citizens. The roots of socialism lie in Thomas Moore’s idea of a utopian society. During the 18th and 19th centuries the industrial revolution and concomitant urbanization, resulted in increasing concentration of wealth and power (Hoyt).
Many feared that the freedom to engage in capital mercantilism had the natural consequence of