answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

A republican (small "r") can be either a socialist or a capitalist.

The word "republican" simply refers to the method of leadership, generally speaking. The United States is a republic. So was the USSR, and so is China. A republican can and historically has been of a wide array of economic mindsets.

A Republican (with a capital "R") is a member of the Republican Party in the United States, which in most (but not all) cases means they're a capitalist.

User Avatar

Wiki User

βˆ™ 12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Is the Republican a socialist or a capitalist?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about American Government

Is Colombia a socialist or communist country?

Neither: it is capitalist.


Is France a capitalist country?

France is Capitalist, but it has a strong leftist (mainly socialist) influence.


Does France have a democratic socialist economy?

France is capitalist: class system, wage labour, production for sale at a profit.


Is Greenland socialist?

It depends what definition of "socialist" you are using. If you are an American, then you may tend to use the word socialist to describe the prevailing system in many Western European countries, that of a fundamentally capitalist liberal democracy with varying elements of what can properly be termed "social democracy", which may include: a comprehensive welfare state, a single-payer free healthcare system, state pensions, state intervention in the economy (such as public ownership of basic utilities, or an enforced minimum wage). According to this definition, Greenland (being currently governed by the Inuit Ataqatigiit party) is "socialist". However, this definition of "socialist" is not often used outside the USA, and especially not in countries where there is generally less hostility to socialist ideas than in the USA. In many other countries, "socialist" would be used to denote a society which is inherently and fundamentally anti-capitalist, that is to say, the means of production are owned in common by the people, and there is no capitalist class of landowners or businessmen. By this definition, Greenland is definitely not socialist, as it retains many fundamental features of capitalism (private ownership of land, businesses and the means of production, etc).


What were the limitations of the populist movement?

The movement was neither a working class-based nor a socialist movement, so it had no real chance of changing the capitalist society fundamentally.