What is your definition of socialism and give a current example.?

Question

I'm seeing a distinct confusion in people thinking that taxes and government spending equate to socialism.
Property and means of manufacture, folks. Not pensions (was the civil war pension socialism?), or support of the poor.

Answer 1

so·cial·ism

NOUN:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Example:
NeoCon regimes such as the Bush Administration are political entities that foster corporate welfare programs so that America can become an empire of Corporate Fascism.

Answer 2

Socialism is a system where everyone is in exactly the same situation as everyone else. There is no private property. Food is rationed and work is compulsory. The individual is of little importance and individuality is discouraged. The collective is all that matters. You must conform. There is no liberty, no freedom. Even movement within the country is strictly controlled.

There is no religion permitted, no God recognized and in fact made illegal. Only moral relativism is permitted, no moral absolutes. That means, basically, the central government can do whatever it decides is in the best interest of the collective as a whole.

Cuba is an example of a small socialist country, the former Soviet Union of a large socialist country. China is also a socialist country but has been forced to accept many reforms including many capitalist items such as private property rights and free enterprise.

To my knowledge, no truly socialist country has survived without abandoning many socialist tenets and adopting at least some capitalist reforms unless they receive some sort of external assistance.

.

Answer 3

Socialism -- a redistribution of wealth with the intent of evening the playing field for all recipients. In its extreme, the state would decide what the 'even' is and ensure everyone gets it. If a good living wage is $35,000 a year, then every doctor, lawyer, astronaut or hairdresser makes the same amount. In less extreme circumstances, it can take the form of government collecting taxes to redistribute that money to the poor (like welfare).

Socialism isn't strictly a bad thing, but if you factor in human nature, if everyone makes the same for all the work they do, there is no incentive to work harder. Since humans usually take the path of least resistance, especially when doing more gets no results, everyone becomes apathetic and lazy.

Answer 4

The means of production are owned by the entire population and political power is in the hands of the people. Peer pressure motivates workers to do well. As we have different aptitudes and enjoy different jobs, we should all try to find work under any system that is fun and enjoyable. Most doctors don't advise their children to be doctors. It pays well, but requires lots of effort and sacrifice.

Our system today has most workers as slaves to big business. Most families need to have both parents working and children are raised by schools and day care. Most of the wealth is in the hands of a few.

The strength of any country is not with its military, but with the people. To see this on a smaller scale, just think of the average police department and how they would do if most of the local people did not like them. To succeed military, and police must be doing the will of the people.

Answer 5

It's any system where the means of production or service are owned by the government. Examples in the United States are Social Security. In England, Socialised Health Care.

Of course, neither of those are countries where the fundamental economic structure is socialism(Those are just social services which fall under the definition of socialism, which can be managed properly[even if you're principally against them, as I am], where as an actual socialist economic structure, can't). There aren't really any good examples of that left. I'd say Cuba, but the problem is that it really isn't organised enough in Cuba for it to successfully fall under that category.

Answer 6

On one hand there are none, however China and Cuba are 2 examples of countries that decision them selves communists, yet they're extremely dictatorships. Sweden on the different hand, is a huge occasion of a social democracy, a "middle-left" political shape that embodied socialist ideals. the advantages to a central authority shape like that's, great colleges, preparation, well being care, roads, bridges, and different infrastructure that a fabulous society desires. The down side is that in case you're making multiple money, you will get to maintain much less of it because of the fact of taxes.

Answer 7

Socialism is when the government controls wealth and property and "evenly distributes it" in an attempt to be "fair" Current examples include New York City, San Francisco, and Scandinavian countries. Most people think that there's a difference between that and communism, butthe only difference is that socialists are usually democratically elected and keep there crap to them selves and commies are autocratic and take power through revolution and seek international socialism.

Churchill said it best, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Answer 8

Socialism:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

An example of an European country is Sweden.

The US has socialism too. It is via our education system, our military and our transportation system to some extent.

Answer 9

Socialism is the distribution of wealth among the population. The only ones that are exempt from their wealth being redistributed are the ones in power (government). Present example is Venezuela and China. Future example could be US if Hillary or Obama take charge

Answer 10

Socialism is a form of collectivism. Collectivism is a system in which the individual is considered only valuable as a cog in the system, as part of the whole, and the whole is considered the state, thus in collectivist systems the individual is subjugated to the state.

The differences among the various collectivist systems relate to an extent through the mechanisms used (e.g., in communism the state actually takes ownership while in socialism the state allows individuals to own the means of production but takes most of the profits and directs production to its own ends), but primarily to their ends - though in almost all cases the ends are what the state considers to be in everyone's best interest.

This is important - there are 305 million people in the US. What's in my best interest is not what's in yours in every respect - and among 305 million of us there is little that is a common interest, other than the freedom of each of us to pursue his own interests. Socialism, like all forms of collectivism, does not allow that. It can be "democratic" in that we could vote for those who will control the state but whoever gets in will impose HIS ideals which aren't necessarily completely in line with mine or yours, which is not the same thing as allowing each of us to pursue his own ideal. This is why the only thing we agree on is that we are choosing the "lesser of two evils."

In the free market each individual is allowed to pursue his own ends and to invest as much of himself in that effort as he wants. A lot of guys I grew up with did not want work to be challenging and did not care about being rich, they just wanted to make enough to buy a case of Bud for the weekend and to pay the cable bill so they could watch football. And they have that. That's a choice. And Bud versus Coors is also a choice. I chose to work a little more, take a little more risk, invest my own time and money in my skillset, and make more money and be able to enjoy slightly more refined tastes (e.g., the antiques), also to have kids. All choices.

The difference between socialism and the free market is the extent to which these choices are taken away from the individual - and that, ironically, for all you self-styled diversity-supporters out there, comes at the expense of diversity, because in all such cases, instead of millions of individuals making different choices and the results that brings about, the state makes the same choice for all of us or for large blocs of us.

All individuals have ideals, and each has two related political desires - the desire to pursue his own ideals and the desire to impose his ideal on everyone else. Libertarians realize that these desires are in conflict and choose the first, letting go of that second desire. Socialists either don't see the conflict until it is too late or are so focused on imposing their ideals on everyone else that they create a system that will impose ideals and knowingly or unknowingly take the risk that someone else will wrest control of that machinery from them and impose a whole different set of ideals, not even allowing the socialists to realize their ideals for themselves.

Oohbother you're failing to distinguish socialism from communism - - - and to see that they're just two slightly different ways of getting things done.

If a robber who wants money to support his drug habit takes my money at gunpoint and goes and buys himself drugs, that's not materially different from him forcing me at gunpoint to go to the crackhouse with him and buy him the same drugs.

Pfo below, what you're missing is it's not just incentive - it's capital. It's not just "if Bill Gates couldn't get rich off his software he wouldn't have developed it" or even "if Gates' investors couldn't get rich off his software they wouldn't invest in it and it could be developed" - it's "if the profits from those investors' LAST investments were taxed away, there'd be nothing left to invest in Gates' software and it could not be developed" and that is why the greater the central planning, the greater the central control over the economy, the faster it stagnates - - - - what was invented in the USSR besides military planes and radar defenses based on plans stolen by spies? While what oohbother proposes may not be going all the way to that frontier, she fails to realize that the relationship between freedom and innovation and between freedom and per capita wealth is consistent between the two frontiers - - it's not just "if you have 100% of one you have 0% of the other," it's true throughout the spectrum - the more of one the less of the other. Now for a while a society that has been free and becomes centralized can live off the gains made while free, and smart people can play with money to fuel growth for a while, the way you can drink a pot of coffee and pull and all nighter, but in the long run that cannot work - - and the evidence of that is abundant.

Also Pey has it backward - socialism is not a matter of increasing the masses' control. "Peer pressure motivates one to do well" but what is "well" - what does that mean? "Well" is subjective and in socialism the consumers are not empowered to make those decisions. The masses control production in the market - no matter how rich the richest man is compared to any of the rest of us, there are still hundreds of millions of us - Bill Gates makes the operating system that he thinks we want to buy. McDonalds' makes the burgers that they think we will want to buy. NOT the operating system or burgers that they think we SHOULD want to buy. When the government forces us to buy things they give us what they think we SHOULD want to buy - - - that's axiomatic - if we wanted to buy it we'd be doing it already, they wouldn't need to force us to buy it.

And again, the key factor isn't motivation, it's capital.