English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories
40

What does socialism think about goverment, military, and bussinesses? How would they run them? Any websites that discusses these types of things. Also a simple definition of socialism...thanks

2007-02-04 09:43:13 · 12 answers · asked by Jenny0305 4 in Politics & Government Government

12 answers

FIRST, be aware that there are economic systems and there are government systems. the words are not interchangable. you can have a representative communist government or a dictator capitalist government. or any combination. the type of economic system is not set in stone by the type of government. although some seem to combine better than others.

You have asked about what are "economic" systems and then interjected the subject of governments and military along with business. this will require a long answer to a complicated question. it is not simple as you hope. But it is fairly easy to understand if you try.

Socialism is when the government controls the means of production with rules or regulations or taxes. It recognizes private property ownership but controls what you can do with property. It may have taxes so high that the incentives are removed and people do not work as hard or try as hard. The government is expected to provide for most unmet needs of the people with the money it gets from taxes. There may be so many regulations and controlling agencies, that it is hard to get anything done efficiently, because of all the red tape and beauracracy

Communism is when the government OWNS the means of production and everything else and decides who uses it and for what and how. It typically operates under a dictator who runs everything.( but you could have a democratic communist system) There is no private ownership of property or right to control it by regular people. All jobs are government jobs. All housing is government housing. All transportation is government transportation. few countires are communist and even fewer PURE communist but Red China comes closest at this time.
(not counting the recent experiments with capitalism) It seems to be changing to a combination of a dictatorship of communism with some capitalism allowed.

Capitalism is when the means of production and most of the property is owned privately and the owner can decide how to use it, but with some rules and regulations imposed for the public good by the government. The government may require a license or impose reasonable taxes. It may require you to operate safely.
The government also may own some property, such as parks or government buildings and land, but it does not operate for a profit in competition with private enterprize. It may lease the land or rights or property to private persons or companies and enjoy some fee income, but it does not engage in production directly as do communist governments like Red China.

The higher the taxes and the more control the government obtains, the closer the economic system gets to pure socialism.
Sweden may be a good example of a country that is very socialistic, but has a lot of freedoms.

Socialism is an economic system and not a type of government. you can have dictatorship socialism or representative type free governments with socialism. So there is no one way that socailism would "think" about government, military and businesses. But basically it would require businesses to pay taxes and submit to regulations. It would be subordinate to whatever form of government had created it and chose to use it.
A militaristic government run by generals may use the taxes and regulations of the socialist system to enlarge their powers and invade other countries for conquest. Or it may be used by a kindly government to take good care of the people and avoid military missions and perhaps even be a peace-loving nation with a small military.

First you form a government and take power.
Second you determine what economic system you will have.

USA began with a royal system of government that was basically feudal in nature, being neither socialist or communist or capitalist. It had developed in England from a pure monarchy into a system of partly royal monarchy with a parliament that gave some power to the Aristocracy and so it was not only the king who had power. This weakening of the king's power grew more popular in America as they were so far away they did not fear him so much.
Capitalism had started in England under the kings and queens and spread to America where it flourished in the new land and became predominant. Yet still under the royal government. It changed to a representative style government and became gradually party socialistic and partly capitalistic with some vestiges of the old royal system feudal rules by taxes being imposed on land by the state governments.( formerly it was the lords who paid taxes to the king on land)
So USA is capitalist, socialist and feudal, but not any part communist. There are no governments anywhere that can claim to have a pure form of any economic system.

2007-02-04 10:22:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

"SOCIALISM" IS NOT A POLITICAL SYSTEM!

It's economic system!. Communism is the political system that uses pure socialism (state ownership of business, no profits allowed, total economic control over people). The EU uses a lesser form of socialist economics through Democratic Socialism (a type of government). The rich are still rich in the EU and the poor are still poor. There are slums in the EU just like in America. But people pay a hell of a lot more in taxes in order to not pay college tuition/trade education and for other services.

2007-02-04 18:36:40 · answer #2 · answered by david m 5 · 3 1

A lot of European countries are socialist. Basically, the government is supposed to make sure that no one lives in poverty, and takes care of most infrastructures of the country. A lot of things are centralised. The richest people are taxed more to take care of the poorest ones. Usually good social security system. Equal opportunities to go to university. Etc.

By the way, socialism and communism are NOT the same things at all. There are still big differences as far as income is concerned. And the government doesn't own companies (except, sometimes, water or electricity, or things like that), it only regulates the market once in a while, but can't really do much against what's going on as far as companies are concerned (except to create laws for employment. Ex: make sure people get a good minimum wage, and can't be fired for no reason).

2007-02-04 17:52:59 · answer #3 · answered by Offkey 7 · 9 3

"In the socialist society the distinction between rich and poor would fall away; no one would any longer possess more than another, but every individual would be poorer than even the poorest today, since the communistic system would work to impede production and progress. It may indeed be true that the liberal economic order permits great differences in income, but that in no way involves exploitation of the poor by richer people. What the rich have they have not taken away from the poor; their surplus could not be more or less redistributed to the poor in the socialist society, since in that society it would not be produced at all." Von Mises, "Nation, State and Economy"

2007-02-04 17:50:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 2 4

I wouldn't call it communism, but it has a lot of similarities. Canada has a lot of Socialist programs, like their health care. It's free for everyone. People in the states don't like it, they claim it "hurts the market" because there's no reason for the pharmacutical companies to produce as they wouldn't make money. I thought they we're supposed to make medicine...

2007-02-04 17:53:43 · answer #5 · answered by Drew 2 · 8 1

socialism is an economic systems, it's good to compair it with capitalism, it is not a form of government.

a good way to explain socialism is to look at this saying:

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

basically the idea runs counter to human nature and suggests that people should out put their best efforts and work for the good of their fellow man while all men get the same pay.

without the additional incentive to try harder and do better, knowing that no matter what your life will not change or improve, people just kinda go through the motions.

2007-02-04 17:54:27 · answer #6 · answered by Malikail 4 · 2 5

Fidel Castro is a big proponent of socialism in Cuba(ACN web-site)-Canada is said to have "SOCIALIZED MEDICAL SYSTEM".In my opinion this planet has room to accommodate differences but this idea my not be the way of the WORLD.

2007-02-04 17:54:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 6

Socialist want MORE government. They want the government to control every aspect of their lives.

Socialism is shared means of production--meaning everyone owns everything collectively, and you can't have a private business--or land.

This is might work for a small, but rich resourced country, but for everyone else it is better to have a free market: Capitalism (ownership of the means of production)

2007-02-04 19:41:15 · answer #8 · answered by sandy 2 · 1 7

Socialism?Works on paper.

2007-02-04 17:45:19 · answer #9 · answered by sickmates 1 · 5 5

Socialism is great till you throw in people.

2007-02-04 17:47:01 · answer #10 · answered by Dorothy and Toto 5 · 7 4

fedest.com, questions and answers