[cies]

nope, they cannot. in the real meaning of the words: capitalism protects unlimited capital accumulation and socialism forbids it.

they are at odds.

currently most nations have capitalism, often with some social policies in place (mainly to prevent uprisings).

[nimbleal]

I see this “mainly to prevent uprisings” idea asserted in lots of places but it strikes me as highly cynical. What’s the evidence this is the case? Even if a social policy was first introduced in response to uprisings, that doesn’t demonstrate that simply quelling the uprising was its sole purpose then, and it certainly doesn’t mean that’s the reason for its continued existence now

[cies]

Most social policies where the results of strikes and demonstrations. See the Haymarket massacre, for instance.

[rjtavares]

That's a rather simplistic view of the matter.

They do coexist is most countries, just in different sectors. When a country collectively owns most of the healthcare means of production and protects it by law (e.g. by requiring emergency ambulances to go to public hospitals), how is that capitalism?

[cies]

They are merely social policies, not socialism. Capitalism is the unlimited protection of personal wealth, thereby for instance allowing billionaires to exist.

[emteycz]

That would make China not capitalistic, which is obviously wrong.