Another user just gave a best answer for that definition.
It seems to defy any existing definition.
2007-10-17 07:51:08 · 8 answers · asked by oohhbother 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not really, though that's a de-facto consequence of government ownership of the means of production. Whether or not formal taxes are 'high,' the government controls the economy, and thus claims for itself as much of the total production each year as it desires.
2007-10-17 08:01:14 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is an abstract concept and it means different things to different people. In the US, whenever you hear the word used it's usually a put-down, a negative thing. Conservatives in the US have misused the term so much they don't really know what it means!
All the developed nations are somewhere on a line between pure socialism and pure capitalism. Neither in its pure state is a good thing, but then neither exists in the pure state either. We in the US are probably the furthest towards pure capitalism. Countries like Norway and Sweden are further towards the socialist end. Yes, they pay higher taxes, but they get more for their money than we do. We do have some socialistic things here--socialized police and fire protection, for instance.
The problem in the US is not socialism -or- capitalism, it's corruption. Much of our tax money goes to enrich the rich and comfort the comfortable. Republicans can cut taxes but they haven't been able to cut spending to match, so debt piles up. 80-90% of our 'welfare' is corporate welfare, and much of our budget goes to pork and other unnecessary spending.
Consequently debt service is the biggest single item in our national budget. All the income taxes paid by people living west of the Mississippi go to pay interest on the national debt! Taxes will rise as debt rises, it's inevitable, or else we will have hyperinflation as Argentina did. It has nothing to do with socialism, it has to do with greed and corruption and pursuing short-term goals at the expense of long-term ones.
2007-10-17 08:06:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
High taxes are a necessary part of Socialism but do not constitute a definition of it.
2007-10-17 07:54:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
no that is a wealthy person's definition since wealthy people don't want to pay taxes to help the poor, socialism is where tax money is used to guarantee that all people have proper housing, health care, access to education etc. A lot of rich people think that poor people are just lazy and would rather see their tax dollars go down the toilet than see it used to reward people for doing nothing.
2007-10-17 07:58:56 · answer #4 · answered by Micheal M 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
No.
Not even close.
Most people don't even know what Socialism is. They just think it equates the Democratic Party and taxes.
2007-10-17 08:00:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
somewhat...it's moreso a thourough representation of taxation...the divergence between rich and poor becomes less...basically it means wealth and resources are more evenly distributed amongst the population...socialist nations have emphasis on: infrastructure, public transportation, healthcare, various municipal utilities rather than corporate entities supplying utilities.
2007-10-17 07:56:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
you will learn quickly that socialism is just a buzz word, hardly anyone knows what it truly means
2007-10-17 07:54:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Only if you're a far right weirdo desperate to smear democrats.
2007-10-17 07:59:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋