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

a nice definition please!

2007-11-19 14:24:10 · 12 answers · asked by lalalala 1 in Social Science Economics

12 answers

One must be careful to make one's intended meaning
known when using the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"
(as well as related terms) because they have undergone
polemic re-definition over the decades that can cause a
great deal of confusion.

In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by a class of
"capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital,
or means of production used by workers other than the
capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political
system that favors this.

In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by the workers
themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives,
communal groups, or through the state, and an economic
and political system that favors this. One should note that
this does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole,
nor does it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it
necessarily imply a non-market form of organization;
historically, anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-
market form advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been
an important form of socialism.

In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by the people as a
whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the
ownership and control of the means of production by the
state, or more broadly any form of central planning by
the state.

In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private
(non-government) ownership of the means of production,
and more generally the absence of central planning by the
state.

Matters have become especially confused because these
terms have been used in ways that include both the
traditional sense and the later re-definition of the terms.
Thus, Marxist-Leninists will define "socialism" in the
traditional sense, but at the same time refer to examples
of "socialism" in the later re-definition, in order to gain
support for totalitarian Bolshevik regimes that actually
destroy any examples of "socialism" in the traditional
sense; likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will do the
same, in order to support the belief that There Is No
Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic
despotism. (In this connection, one should note that
according to Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" is a transitional stage between capitalism
and socialism/communism, which will not exist until
the state has withered away to nothing.)

In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the
term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete
examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing as
positive examples dictatorships such as Pinochet's in Chile.
And just as with "socialism", some opponents of
"capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the
sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-corporate
globalization, in which there is rule by states, corporations,
international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is
the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by
most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market.
This effectively means that there are (at the least) three
common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism",
and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is
using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples
one refers.

One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used
by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state
ownership and control of the means of production in
varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictatorships
such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist
dictatorships such as the Bolshevik regimes. This
extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the
state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private"
capitalist class to varying degrees.

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

2007-11-23 11:18:36 · answer #1 · answered by clore333 5 · 0 0

Historically communism and socialist were used interchangeably, the USSR was the union of soviet socialist republics. In modern usage socialist is applied to people who favor governments like the social welfare states of northern Europe, which has high taxes that pay for a wide range of government services for everyone, for example socialized health care. However, unlike communism, most of the economy is is in the private sector and controlled by free markets.

2007-11-19 23:18:34 · answer #2 · answered by meg 7 · 1 0

A Socialist is anyone who believes in the economic policy of Socialism.

Socialism, is the opposite of Capitalism, as in instead of the people controlling the economy. The government instead controls the economy. Socialist governments control the market production, quantity, and prices. Examples of Socialist Nations are the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba.

2007-11-19 22:40:31 · answer #3 · answered by austenbosten 3 · 0 2

Benjamin Tucker, "Socialism: What it is."

http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/socialism-what-it-is

In the next essay in the collection, Tucker offers the following definition:

"Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change in man’s environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute."

2007-11-21 14:03:29 · answer #4 · answered by MarjaU 6 · 2 0

A person who believes that the economy should be completely run by the governemnt. It takes money away from the rich and gives it to the poor. It sounds like a great idea to me but it can be corrupted really easily.

It is different than communism, in that the economy is completely run by the people in this system, there is no public anything.

It is different than fascism in that facism takes away the rights of people when socialism tries to protect their rights.

It is a great idea for a system, but doesn't always get implimented correctly. A lot of european countries lean toward being socialistic.

2007-11-19 22:30:11 · answer #5 · answered by ShortStuff 5 · 0 4

A person who likes to invite friends over and socialize. On special occasions they get together and have a socialist party.

2007-11-19 22:27:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

A person who believes in socialism.
Socialism is an economic system with elements of both market choice and community or government controls to ensure "fairness" and "equality" in economic outcomes.

This is opposed to communism where no market exists; production and consumption decisions are made by government, community or socially-conscious individuals themselves.

2007-11-19 22:27:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

A person that believes in state absolutism.That the government should provide from the cradle to the grave.A communist. http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/ http://www.newworldorderinfo.com/ http://www.nwowatcher.com/ebooks/Chronological%20History%20of%20The%20New%20World%20Order%20-%20By%20Dennis%20Cuddy.pdf

2007-11-19 22:34:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Hillary Clinton.


If you want a more detailed explanation, check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

2007-11-19 22:28:32 · answer #9 · answered by counter774 3 · 1 5

socialist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialist

2007-11-19 22:27:26 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers