English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

Sure as long as Americans don't get involved.

What brand of socialism do you have in mind?

Democratic socialism is a broad political movement propagating the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system. In many cases, its adherents promote the ideal of socialism as an evolutionary process resulting from legislation enacted by a constitutional parliamentary democracy. Other democratic socialists favor a revolutionary approach that seeks to establish socialism by creating a non-parliamentary, more direct democratic system, usually based on democracy rooted at the local level as well as at the national level, including broadbased popular associations such as workers' councils, consumer councils, community groups, and other similar organizations.

Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing any form of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the State. Some of the best known libertarian socialist ideologies are anarchism - particularly anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism - as well as mutualism, council communism, autonomist Marxism, and social ecology. However, the terms anarcho-communism and libertarian communism should not be considered synonyms for libertarian socialism. Anarcho-communism is a particular branch of libertarian socialism.

Market Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned either by the state or by the workers in each company (meaning in general that "profits" in each company are distributed between them: profit sharing) and the production is not centrally planned but mediated through the market. Its central idea is that the market is not a mechanism exclusive to capitalism and that it is fully compatible with collective worker ownership over the means of production — which is one of the fundamental principles of socialism.

Syndicalism refers to a set of ideas, movements, and tendencies which share the avowed aim of transforming capitalist society through action by the working class on the industrial front. This idea was founded by Georges Sorel. This emphasis on industrial organisation was a distinguishing feature of syndicalism when it began to be identified as a distinct current at the beginning of the twentieth century. Most socialist organisations of that period emphasised the importance of political action through party organisations as a means of bringing about socialism. Although all syndicalists emphasize industrial organisation, not all reject political action altogether. For example, De Leonists and other Industrial Unionists advocate parallel organisation both politically and industrially. For syndicalists, labor unions are the potential means both of overcoming capitalism and of running society in the interests of the majority. Industry and government in a syndicalist society would be run by labor union federations.

2006-06-14 12:35:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Jamie obviously doesn't know the history very well: in Russia they had Capitalism before the Socialism. It doesn't really matter: as I personally see it, most of the things depend on the mentality of the people in given country. But nothing is impossible. Don't say it won't just because you don't like it - wouldn't become an absolute truth anyway.
by the way, vanamont7 and wolf are quite close to that: there is a lot of similarity in how the USA is run to that of Socialism. The more privileges people get, social benefits from the governmental programs, etc. the closer it comes to the above mentioned Socialism.

2006-06-14 12:40:41 · answer #2 · answered by pentotal5 1 · 0 0

No because by the time you would get to see a qualified doctor you'd be dead. Do you think the teeth of the Brits suck because their socialized dental care program is so great.

If you think their medical program is so great please explain why you think it would be?

Why has Canada had to ban citizens from buying private insurance if their program is so great.

When socialists start to talk about a redistribution of effort, risk, and commitment, instead of their incessant pissing and moaning about just the redistribution of wealth which those things provide, I'll be open to a redistribution of wealth discussion.

Until then go get off your lazy asses and get exactly what you deserve. If that's six dollars an hour or 6 million dollars a year, so be it.

2006-06-14 13:10:26 · answer #3 · answered by freetyme813 4 · 0 0

Absolutely, Canadian and United Kingdom have amazing social systems that ensure ALL families have food, shelter, great health care and an education that rivals all others in whatever field an individual chooses! US citizens would be very lucky to be given the opportunity to live with such a brilliant system.

2006-06-14 12:45:26 · answer #4 · answered by Nicole R 1 · 0 0

It'd work superficially, but what would socialism accomplish, in the long run? Would it permanently solve socio-economic problems? Doubtful. Would it encourage more people to come to america seeking a free ride? Absolutely. Will Bush and company ultimately try to whip up some half-baked analog of socialism, in hopes of pandering to more potential voters? You betcha! LOL

2006-06-14 12:47:01 · answer #5 · answered by gokart121 6 · 0 0

Sure. Socialism has worked so well in countries like Cuba and Russia. Let's go for it!

2006-06-15 06:44:08 · answer #6 · answered by irishharpist 4 · 0 0

I'd say it's been around since the twenties, then, officially since the Roosevelt administration.

2006-06-14 12:35:48 · answer #7 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0 0

our representatives are sure trying to give it a go it seems...we need to get back to the gov't of the 40's and 50's...

the gov't that rules least rules best...

2006-06-14 12:48:11 · answer #8 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 0 0

... in theory... yes... but, in reality greed runs the country now and they won't give it up easily... and so many people are still scared of the "evil communists" that you could't convince them on the merits of the argument...

2006-06-14 12:37:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

we're not going to have a choice, we're headed there now.. just a matter of time

2006-06-14 12:36:26 · answer #10 · answered by wolf6546 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers