I'm a Conservative, but here you go:
so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Essentially, in practice, Socialism is a statist form of government that favors increased state control of the means of production as well as of capital. Pretty much all 'Democracies' are Socialist to some degree or another - The US much less than countries such as Sweden. I'm afraid the "community as a whole" portion, in practice, is the government - and usually not a terribly representative form of government at that.
NOT a very good or effective form of government and one that usually turns into totalitarianism to one degree or another. Especially poor at encouraging productivity or business success, if one examines relative success of governments on a scale.
Hope this helps you out some.
And any Conservative worthy of the name - especially liberterians - dislikes government control/distribution of our wealth to ANY degree, corporate welfare or individual welfare.
Orion
***Warning for the below - I'm sick, and cranky, so this is kinda snarky...***
EDIT: *laughing* "Obviously not written by an expert on Socialism" - Yah THINK? "Experts on Socialism" are usually re-writing the definition as fast as they can to try and come up with some definition that describes a working system rather than an expensive or lethal failure.
"Socialism's only killed 200 million people - Let's give it one more try!"
Perhaps a defninition by example...Let's pick up some Socialist systems:
UK Health System - On-Going health care disaster.
Canadian Health System - Ditto.
Soviet Union - Over 70 million dead.
Cuba - on-going disaster in all phases of government.
China - millions more dead.
North Korea - millions more dead.
Vietnam - More millions dead.
Cambodia - Hey - Wow! More millions dead!
France - in disaster mode. Unable to meet EU targets. Constant riots throughout country. Over 750 'no-go' areas where French government has lost control.
Hmmm....What have we got in common...Oh yes - Failing systems and millions dead. Sounds great. Let's be more like them here! Tell ya what, instead of changing our perfectly GOOD country to be more like these socialist cesspools, why don't YOU move there? You'll enjoy it.
The predictable answer coming up: "But those aren't TRUE Socialist governments!" *snort*
2007-02-16 17:18:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Orion 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Dear Betty's Dad,
Social programs are, indeed, forms of socialism. Check whatever definition you like. What business does the government of the United States operating under the Constitution have sitcking it's nose into people's lives whatever the intention? This is a union of fifty separate states each with it's own government. If a state wants to heavily tax it's citizens for some socialist program it may do so. It's citizens may also move to another state if they don't like it. The Federal Government is not supposed to involve itself in such matters. Read the Constitution. It is all about limiting what a Federal Government is allowed to do reserving all other powers to the individual states.
Corporate welfare is a canard. Corporations are simply businesses with groups of investors instead of a single owner. Our pensions plans and 401k's rely on the success of corportations that we own. Why would you hate corporations? Why call tax cuts to particular corporations to encourage their growth, welfare? Do you consider having your individual taxes reduced welfare?
2007-02-19 07:28:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
From Britannica.com
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I read the answers, though not very detailed most of them were close enough, unless you have redefined it and nobody guessed your definition.
2007-02-17 01:25:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by scarlettt_ohara 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You never asked me...here. It wasn't that hard, look it up!
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.
A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists.
Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including many 20th-century Communists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, make decisions about production and exchange. [2] Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.
2007-02-17 01:46:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chester's Liver 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
This is the definition of SOCIALISM...
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.
____________________________________________________
And if you want to argue about it...Call Wikapedia and complain to them.
An NO...I don't want a socialized U.S.
2007-02-17 01:23:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by chole_24 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
in a Conservatives mind, you have to be helping a poor non-American with tax $$, or it is socialism.
you see that they never complain about Bush's new State Department program that gives out tax $$ to foreign governments, for being "just governments" do you??
2007-02-17 01:12:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by qncyguy21 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
WHY haven't YOU rewritten the article, to make it right??
Do something constructive! It's EASY to sit back and throw stones. It's harder to actually make a contribution to the welfare of your fellow man. Our challenges either build character, or reveal it.
Get your act together.
2007-02-20 15:24:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dorothy and Toto 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Halliburton should give them a clue
2007-02-17 01:30:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋