Compare & contrast (Socialism/Capitalism/Communism)

An article on local support for rural schools by L. J. Hanifan in 1916 was one of the first words of social cohesion and social capital on individual investment in society. In defining this concept, Hanifan defines social capital compared to material products as follows. I mean biological assets that tend to make these tangible materials the most important, not meaning real estate, personal assets or cold cash. Goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and socializing in the daily lives of people between the individuals and family groups that make up the social unit ... he seems to be in contact with his neighbors and they are with other neighbors If you are in contact you can accumulate, meet your social needs soon and have enough social possibilities to improve the living conditions of the whole society.

The community can be regarded as the uterus of growth of social capital. Without a community, there is no social capital (but, without social capital, will the community collapse? Therefore, the role of social capital in the development of rural communities has always been involved with what social capital is and how it is formed. This in turn, directly causes problems for some rural (and city) communities (high social capital) and other community capital (low social capital). The social capital network has evolved in various ways, and sociologists quickly pointed out that these networks are very different from urban rural communities. Social capital networks, that is, connections that allow people to connect to each other to solve common problems can be roughly divided geographically or non-geographically. There are geographical and non-geographical social capital networks in both urban and rural communities, but their relative importance is different.