Many countries consider a mix of socialism and capitalism beneficial. In fact, many countries have this form of economy, which is known as a "mixed" economy. The definition of a mixed economy is actually rather broad, as it entails any combination of a capitalist market economy with some level of involvement from the government.

In practice, the range of the latter can be anything from the government owning a utility company to a highly regulated economy where the state plays a large role in directing and regulating the economy. For that reason, Western nations like the United States and Norway are considered mixed economies. But even a country like Cuba, long a communist outpost in a sea of undemocratic states, is considered a mixed economy after the government began to allow limited private enterprise with the accession of Raul Castro [source: The Economist]. For decades, Cuba had had a centrally planned economy, almost completely directed by the government. China, Russia and Vietnam are three other examples of countries that, in the late-20th century, shifted from centrally planned to mixed economies.

Among the benefits of a mix of socialism and capitalism are that government can regulate industries in order to ensure that they do not pollute, abuse their workers, violate the law or perform other objectionable acts. A mixed economy also allows the government to own companies that may be deemed public property or a public good, such as a prison. Similarly, the government can collect taxes and use this money to provide essential public services like libraries, police and fire departments, health care services or schools.

Under a mixed economy, the state can also provide services that would be impossible for some people to receive or prohibitively expensive in a purely capitalist economy. This is often the case because governments generally aren't compelled by law to pursue profits first, and because governments often have resources unavailable to private corporations. For example, if the U.S. government chose to privatize the Postal Service, a private corporation would be likely to charge higher postage fees for people in rural or remote areas. They might even cut service to such customers entirely, in order to save money. A democratic government doesn't have to deal with these concerns and is obliged to serve all citizens equally.

(Thinkstock)