Many societies in the world have embraced the corporate social responsibility doctrine. Supporters of the dogma argue that corporations perceived to be socially responsible have higher chances of making enormous sales. Researchers have conducted studies to establish whether corporate social responsibility principle is a socialist or capitalist phenomenon. Unfortunately, studies indicate that social responsibility is neither capitalistic nor socialistic in nature. By analyzing the practices emerging from the ideology and considering the presence of the axiom ‘social’, one could conclude that CSR is a socialist dogma. However, entities practicing it are all capitalistic in nature. This raises a number of questions as regards to the principle CSR. It is observed through analysis that socialist ideas are completely inconsistent with capitalistic ideologies. In his film ‘Capitalism: A love story’, Michael Moore underscores the fact that CSR has dominated the lives of many people in America (Kalt, & Zupan, 1984). The artiste observes that Americans pay dearly for capitalism. Many people lose their jobs on daily basis because of capitalism. People are forced to spent everything they own in order to sustain their lives in a capitalistic society. This would imply that the lives of many are always in danger. Moore analyzes the lives of ordinary citizens in Washington, DC and concludes that lives have been affected negatively by capitalistic ideologies. Moore tries to understand the lives of Americans, especially their love for capitalism. This article will try to bring out the existing differences between capitalism and socialism. Analytically, socialism and capitalism are incompatible. In a capitalistic society, resources are owned privately. These resources could be in form of money or other valuables such as property. This implies that an individual has full control of over resources. The society recognizes an individual as a private entity. In socialism, goods and other valuables in society are owned by the state. In other words, the public collectively owns goods. From this analysis, it is observed that the two ideologies are dissimilar. Capitalists believe that competition is healthy in society. It sharpens the wits of individuals. In this case, an individual is allowed to accumulate as much resources as he or she can. For an individual, only the sky is the limit. An individual is to determine his or her own destiny in terms of property ownership. The state on its part acts as a utility to individual fulfillment. The state is supposed to provide mechanisms through which an individual would accomplish his or her mission. In this regard, the state is supposed to provide security. The state should ensure that tranquility and calmness is in the society. It is only through this that the society could produce the best individuals (Earl, & Hickson, 2000). On the other hand, socialism holds that members of society should cooperate in fulfilling their dreams and wishes. Through cooperation, people live in harmony. The ideology does not recognize the efforts of individuals because resources are managed centrally. Whatever an individual produces is distributed to other members of society. The state is given the responsibility of overseeing distribution of resources. In relevanc