0
secondary socialization is socialization by the school.schools obviously teach us academic skills but as sociologists have shown,they are teaching us alot more.it is from the school that we learn ,for example,punctuality,co-operation,team work,discipline and good work will be rewarded or penalized
Wilfredo Romaguera
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoSocialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic freedom, equality and cooperation.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do some American politicians tout socialist policy?
The politicians get to offer whats seems to be free stuff...For example ...many people believe they get free health care... but its not,,,they collect the money from the people...they would say we get the money from mean rich people and business...but they too just charge more money....its a great scam to get control and power...Some tout socialist policy because they believe in it?AnswerPoliticians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.AnswerAs an earlier respondent to this question stated, socialism involves the government providing things for people regardless of their ability to pay. Promoting these policies pays a double benefit to politicians. The first benefit is that they get to sound like they "really care" about the "little guy". The second benefit, and the most important one to many politicians, is that they perpetuate dependence on government. Thus, they guarantee for themselves the continued loyalty of those dependent people by being the ones who promise to keep paying.In other words, people who would prefer to spend their days watching Jerry Springer rather than getting a job and becoming productive members of society will repeatedly vote for the politicians that will enable them to keep watching Springer by providing for them whether they produce or not.It's taking money from the producers, and using that money to buy the votes of the lazy.AnswerThe government provides everything under socialism. There's no incentive to work harder to get a better life if the government will give you whatever you need by taking it away from those who are contributing to society. So those people quit working, too, and soon everyone is lined up waiting for a handout but there's nothing to hand out because there are no producers. AnswerI like Americans but one of the things I don't understand about America is the fact that many Americans seem to be incapable of telling the difference between Socialism,social democracy,liberal democracy,communism and almost every other ism.Socialsim is a political idea which has been around for a long time,certainly since the French Revolution. Like all other idea it has changed over the years and there are different strands. In the 19 century people putting forward the idea of social welfare laws might have been called socialist but by the mid 20 century most politicians would be for some welfare laws.There is a book about American history called "THE LAND OF PLENTY" and it puts forward the idea that because Americans can move around if the local ecomomy goes bad or they fall out with their neighbours or employer then they fail to make the class and community connections that European people often do so they are more individual in out look than europeans. Wheter they are actually better off is another story. So mant Americans have had problems understanding the idea of socialism and of course the problem of communism meant that socialist ideas never became popular in America. western democratic socialist such as the British Labour Party believe in democracy,indeed Britain would not be a democracy without them. They are not communists and they do not want the state to onw or do everything,but they think in the rral world the state is always going to be there and it may as well help the people and not just lock them up.The American view of the state seems odd to us europeans. The average American does not approve of the state having a role in the economy unless it is giving tax payers money to farmers and to what Eisenhower (not a socialist) called the military industrial complex. FDR created a sort of American welfare state to stop socialsm or communism or facism not to help it. The world has changed and so has political ideas. Most of the democrats in the US are not socialists or social democrats bur what if they were,it is not illegal. Most republicans are not closet Nazis,so try and look at things a bit deeper and not just call people names. Can anyone explain to me why old people in America get free health care no matter how much money they have but poor working people do not always get this.I would like to point out that the NAZIS were socialists.Answer"That's what socialism is, Fred. The government provides everything."no. as it has been pointed out there are different strands of socialist theory as there are with any other. i believe marxism to be the most historically comprehensive.marx proposed socialism as a path to communism. communism is the idea of a society without a central state power, where producers own the means of production instead of a wealthy class that simply pays a wage, seeking minimum benefit to the worker. from this we should understand that the terminology "Communist Government," regime, dictator or whatever is oxymoronic. if there is a ruling class, it is not communism or socialism.socialism as a path to communism is essentially a step of reform in which the state is maintained but with greater control by producers than the typical hierarchal forms. so it is not that the government provides everything, the government becomes a tool for producers- that is, those who create the things we use, also called workers- to use to create the social programs they find desirable or necessary.it's also not that everyone is just a laborer with no one allowed to organize or invent things. the concepts are largely a response to industrialization which requires a fairly robotic workforce and has minimized independent trades.i would argue that it is our current structure that encourages laziness as people seem to expect big business and politicians to solve all of our problems. the soviet union made claims to being socialist or communist to take advantage of the popular movement as a facade for totalitarian rule. as such, our politicians will say whatever they think the public wants to hear, but it has little effect on the core policies of maintaining a power elite.the freedoms we have are the result of ongoing struggle. the ruling class must give in just enough to keep the people from revolting, yet the gap between rich and poor has consistently expanded. technically we have the freedom to choose our path but being born into wealth, receiving the best education, obviously provides greater opportunity. socialist and communist theory is principled on changing this disparity of privilege. whether you think that's a good idea or you're more of a social darwinist is not for me to say.AnswerThis question requires an opinionated answer. So any of these answer can be correct if that is how you feel. Politicians could honestly feel that socialism or social policies is what America needs? Or perhaps they know something about history that drives them towards it? But why? This is a very good topic/answer set. To directly answer the question. This is how I see it, and believe why politicians tout socialist policy.Politicians who try and sell social policies to the masses in my books, are anti-American. Firstly, their are two parties and a few independents in the great USA. (Land of the free, Home of the brave, our capitalist, free enterprise, republic!) There is no socialist party, and if there was I'd pray to all things, they never get elected, and doubt they would. If you want to have a social, or even progressive outlook on governance, perhaps you should be in a socialist or progressive party?Secondly, taking a social stance on topics typically aims to inspire a state of dependance. A variety of examples; (1)Shared tips, now you are dependent on your fellow workers to make that extra cash you worked extra hard to get. Sorry there Billy, 'most' people don't put in that extra work. Though because you did, you get to share it with your fellow lazy workers. Thanks there Billy. Should not the effort be rewarded, not vice-versa? (2)Heath care, OK. So again my opinion. I break my leg, I get cancer, anything. Why should I expect everyone else to pay for my misfortune. I'm sorry I just don't feel that way, maybe some people do though. I would rather not burden the entire masses, keep in mind it will not only be you, and force everyone to pay for my mistakes, misfortunes, or mistreatments. I will sort that all out myself thank you very much. A hot topic, and will state nothing more on that here. (3) Welfare, who is going to pay me the most to do absolutely nothing? Hummm. Let me go cast my vote. This third example is an importantly noted one. I feel that if you are on welfare, your voters registration should be temporary restricted from use until you are off welfare. Voting while on welfare as far as I can see, is bribery. Social policy leads to dependance, but then again, perhaps you like dependance and want someone to tell you what to do, I do not. I like to make all my own choices, suffering or benefiting accordingly.Or perhaps it is jealousy that drives the socialist movement. The fact that others families worked to get where they are over time, or perhaps lucked out, and the fact that other families did not, I believe doesn't come into question with these people. A need to force a level of equal wealth amongst the people is strange to me (in thinking). I see it happen across the world, It saddens me. Anyone can see that if everyone was equally worth the same, had the same house and the same care, not only would life be very bland, but the economy simply could not work. Some people have more expensive tastes than others, and there is nothing wrong with that. Typically these people make the jobs, and create the wealth of the Country. They start major flows of cold hard cash. Appreciate these people, or bring yourself to their level, and have a say yourself. Do not drag everyone down to a level you see fit. That is the flaw of all social thinking. Or be satisfied to do your own socialist thing, act how you feel, don't force your thinking into policy. Free market environments are most fair.Beware of the touting Socialtician.Only my opinion.But, you are right. Charity should start in your own Country first. I'll give you that one, and that one only. People should be donating their income, not having it stolen by Government.Socialism, as defined, is a political system of communal ownership. Socialism, as practiced here in the U.S., is a social rather than political system. If you look at the U.S. budget, more money is spent on social programs than many countries GNP. I see the usual America bashing going on here, which is upsetting. What makes you think we don't understand the various -isms of the world? We do. Many of still believe that it's the individual's responsibility to provide for themselves, rather than the European model of "cradle to grave" government assistance. That attitude, and American industry is what has twice kept vast portions of Europe out of the hands of the Germans. In WWII Communists bore the brunt of destroying the NAZI (National Socialist) war machine. 75% of German soldiers who died were killed by Communist troops. The U.S. provided men and materiel to all fronts of the war, and that materiel kept Europe and the USSR alive until we could open other fronts.Having said that, we should allow Ireland, being the world power that it is, to provide all the aid and assistance that the U.S. now provides to so many disaster struck countries. Whether you like it or not, the first question asked isn't "When are the Irish coming?", but "When are the Americans coming?". Guns, guns, guns. Boring, boring, boring. Yes, we have them. The IRA doesn't? We have the Second Amendment because the first thing the British did when we wanted our freedom was to try and disarm us, and because our Constitution calls on American citizens to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression by the government. We are noisy, brawling, have our problems, and are generous to our friends and defeated enemies, funloving, brave, and come to the aid of any that call us. We make mistakes. Show me a country that doesn't. We have meddled. Europe hasn't? When you point your finger at us, you have three pointing back at you. I like our system, I like our country, and I love our people. So do the millions of people from other countries that come here to be free. The United States- where people from other nations come to celebrate their cultures. Maybe we're not so bad after all. For those of you that don't like us, no worries. The next time you have a problem, turn to Canada, Mexico, or the African nation of your choice. Just don't mock us on one hand, and dial for help with the other any more. Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.
What is the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland?
The original conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland was not truly a matter of religion -- it was a matter of social class.Put quite briefly, the majority of the population in Ireland, post 1000 A. D., was Catholic. They never underwent the church reform that England did in the 1500s. Thus, by the 1600s, England = Anglican (Protestant), and Ireland = Catholic.When England began to establish plantations in Ireland and establish themselves as the ruling class, they often did it in a relatively unpleasant and domineering fashion, making themselves unpopular with their new subjects in the manner of America and India.Hostility arouse between Catholics and Protestants in this way not because the religions themselves bore marked differences, but because these denominations were attached to two very different classes. Intermarriages were frowned upon, not for spiritual reasons, but because the Protestant was marrying below their class.This hostility between the denominations continued into the present for many of the same reasons. Protestantism represents the continued presence of England in Northern Irish affairs, while Catholicism bears the stigma of being the religion of the poor, the rebels, and the socialists intent on a free Ireland.I hope this helps answer your question. Tim Pat Coogan has published some very good books on the subject, and many books on the IRA give good, concise histories of earlier conflicts before the IRA.AnswerMaggie, your answer is more or less correct. However, there is another aspect. British colonial activity in Ireland isn't to be condemned simply because it was executed in such a harsh and murderous manner. It is to be condemned because colonialism is always wrong. With regard to the harsh nature of the occupation here, the British government used religious difference as a political tool over and over again since inventing it shortly after the 1798 United Irish revolution. It has been used by both sides, to their mutual disgrace.For those who don't know, the United Irishmen aimed to unite Protestants, Catholics, and Dissenters in a single military force aimed to drive the British out of Ireland. (Not such an unrealistic idea - the population of each country was very similar). This scared the daylights out of the British, who relied on Ireland to feed the less agriculturally productive Britain. They knew that it was only a series of lucky incidents for them, and unlucky ones for the revolutionaries that allowed the British to hold on here. Therefore they had to find a way to divide and conquer. Throughout history, religion has worked nicely in this role. So yet again it was brought into play. One of the first markers of this was the founding of the Orange Order, an organisation dedicated to remembering William of Orange, a King of England of Dutch origin in the early 1700s. A fairly large scale war was fought between William and his rival for the throne - James throughout England, but mostly in Ireland. In reality, this war had little to do with Irish nationalists, as these were two foreigners fighting over what amounted to the throne of England and influence in Europe. Catholics and Protestants fought for both.After the United Irishmen revolution over 100 years after the Williamite wars, the British founded the Orange Order on the pretext that the Williamite war was fought exclusively by Protestants on one side, and Catholics on the other. It has all sorts of overtones of racial and ethnic bigotry associated with it. In any case, the Orange Order, and related organisations led and nurtured the Protestant Hatred of catholics.On the other side, the Catholic Church has always been the enemy of popular freedom movements throughout the world. In point of fact, most revolutionaries in Ireland were excommunicated by the church for their activities. It is only after we achieved independence that the church found a sense of nationalism, that had heretofore been undiscovered! Catholicism had been brutally suppressed in Ireland - catholics couldn't own properties, trade in certain circumstances, were subject to tithes to support the established church - (The Church of Ireland - an Anglican church), amongst other repressions. Eventually it was allowed back in. That time of repression allied to the propoganda of the catholic church fomented a misunderstanding of protestantism, and consequently helped to form a deep and abiding bigotry amongst some of the Irish Nationalist catholic populations. I'm sure there's more stupidity involved here too.In any case, both sides played into the British governments hands. It is easy to divide and conquer when there is already religious tension. This religious card was played over and over again by successive British governments to establish majorities at critical time in mainland British politics. It led to an institutionalised religious intolerance. Over time it has created a society in Northern Ireland that is unbelievably absurd. It is probably the most mollycoddled of places in the world. There is government funding galore, straight out of London, and increasingly Dublin. The political leaders have a world status unimaginably far in excess of what you'd expect when you look at the actual population and territorial limits. One can drive from one end of Northern Ireland to the other in at most a couple of hours. The entire population of Northern Ireland is a good deal less than that of Manchester in England. We don't see the Mayor of Manchester getting broadcast all over the world, and behaving like a spoied child.The church my girlfriend's family attends gets vandalised from time to time by catholic kids from the council estate nearby. As a person who grew up in a catholic family, it always astonishes me when catholics assume that Protestants are unionist, or perhaps even Orange Order members. I'd go so far as to say that the most prominent of Irish nationalist and revolutionary heroes were protestant. The person who first flew the tricolour was protestant, the leaders of the United Irishmen were protestant, many of the 1916 revolutionaries were protestant.Needless to say, the whole thing is stupid, stupid, stupid.AnswerWhat do you mean by colonialism in proper? Ireland was a part of the realm after the Union of Kingdoms (1603)? And part of the British state by the Act of Union? Do you imply British imperialism with colonialism? And a counterfactual question: If reformation has succeeded, wouldn't have been an Irish question?Answerliving here in northern Ireland the simple answer is that most protestant are proud to be british and wish to remain so . the majority of the roman catholics want a united Ireland some have used force to try and achieve this whilst the protestants have used force to oppose this . hope this is of some help to you all AnswerPAULAall the answer is really, that prodestants wanted to take over Ireland, and Ireland wanted to be free and they went about this in a number of ways leading to some sad in murderous ways to get what they wanted. and this shaped many different views! AnswerPlenty of good answers here. It's complex and simple at the same time. All in all, it's the british ace in the hole. Find differances, exploit them, and fuel the fire. Divide and conquer. Draw attention away from themselves and rule through their puppet. In the colony of N.Ireland their puppet was fanatical Relgious Scots who gave up their independance. Their reward was land in Ireland, military protection, the privilage of swearing alligiance to a foreign queen, loss of the true Scotish Identity (a very Proud and distinctly different one from that of britons), and of course, they could also call themselves british. What a treat. We can see this same technque "the relgious confict card" as I will label it. In other places the british did'NT accidently find themselves. In India, after they had robbed that country blind via a network of hired mercernaries, all of course directed and assisted by the british. They used the tatic as an exit stradegy. So, they rallied to the cause of fundamentalist religious fervor and divided the people of India. Hinduism was the dominant religion, some though were Muslim. They expoited the difference by carving out of India and new country...Pakistan. Complete with a divided and now disputed capital of Kasmir. Same ploy as in Ireland but for a slightly differant reason, was it employed. They, the british were overstreatched (like the Romans once found themselves)and the natives of either religion found common ground (Freedom). The difference though was that they left India. They were able to steal enough ( apperently enough to satisfy even the Devil) that they actually left. Ireland though, is too close to home. It was the first colony outside their home island. Plus their is a deep rooted racism against the Irish in british history and culture. They just can't accept the spirt of freedom in other people. People outside their own violent and racist sense of nationalism. Finally, The question should be "What IS the conflict. Not "what WAS the conflict", as there still IS the british colony of N.Ireland. Pherhaps altogether the best question should be..."What role is the british government resposible for in the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland?" AnswerThe reason why the British continue to remain in Northern Ireland is to protect the majority that wish to remain a part of Great Britain. The IRA are a band of communists that do not give one iota for democracy nor the rights of the individual; the Irish included. What they aim for is a socialist republic along the lines of the former Soviet Union. This is evident in everything they say and do and they arn't fooling anyone. Yes, Great Britain was a colonial power and their model of government is the basis of Western democracy; including the United States. What we have seen in the last 5 hundred years is an improvement in the standard of living and wealth anywhere the British model of government has been established. Where it met resistance was from peoples like the IRA who didn't give a tinker's hoot about their own populations but attempted to maintain their own little fiefdoms "by any means necessary". Why was Great Britain a colonial power? The short answer is they had to. The old eastern trade routes were cut off by the Islamic empires and every European power had to find new sources of trade. Couple this with the fact that Great Britain itself was the most invaded country in history and you can imagine the attitude that might develop over the ages. Great Britain has nothing to apologize for. Are they perfect? Certainly not. But at least they had the stones to go out and stake their claim - which is more than I can say about the Irish. It should be duly noted that with all their bleating about how bad the British have been and that colonialism is so horrid, the Irish represent the largest demographic in North America and they seem to have exploited the very land that they claim shouldn't have been invaded - very well indeed. Maybe if Ireland actually pried its head out of its behind it may see that the British have been instrumental in the moving forward of mankind. How would you like to join instead of crying like a baby. AnswerWow !!! ... The last answer was racism and apologetics all wrapped up in the union jack like a big fish supper swimming in vinegar !!! A living testament to the definition of ignorance and (not very) subtle hate. Firstly, the author goes straight to the question of majority. The problem though, is that he failed to clarify what his idea of majority is... To this person, the majority of Irish people only pertains to the majority of 6 out of 32 counties which constitute Ireland ... Ireland being the island where Irish come from, thus making anyone born there "Irish". So, the Irish majority, in a democracy, would have to include the majority of counties that constitute Ireland and the Irish. These would be the 26 counties in the south. They actually constitute a majority that is not counted by the author above or the british government. The reason being that: if the majority of Irish were given the democratic right of Irish people to determine their own fate - they would most likely vote for complete independence from the savages that have murdered and stolen so much from them - just like many of the other victims of british colonial terrorism have chosen. Ireland was divided by the british under threat of an "immediate and terrible war" in order to cause a civil war between the Irish - a tactic they have perfected in many other countries. The reason they chose the area known as "Northern Ireland" is because they had a concentration of people loyal to them. People whose ancestors were enticed by the british to settle there in order to upset the majority of native Irish people. They were given free land and money by the british with the strict provision that they would not rent land to the native Irish in the area. Nor were they to hire native Irish to work for them. Thus, creating an artificial pro-british majority in that area. The area that was centuries later to become N.Ireland under threat of an "immediate and terrible war"... On top of all of that - N.Ireland house of government was considered (using the words from a statue in front of the building which housed the british "law " makers)... A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people". The above author failed to remember this glaringly obvious fact. I would hope he just didn't know any better. But I feel that he is unable to understand what a democracy is. Unlike the author above, I feel that it is not possible to have a democracy in a colony. Imagine if here in America the senate in New Yorkd declared the senate to be a "White Parliament for a White people"!!! Would Democracy be possible then? Well, according to the author above, we would have to say... Yes! Then,like a script being read we're subject to some conspiracy theories of communism to distract the reader. Imagine that... The communist union in Russia were not socialists. If you consider the definition of socialism. They were a military dictatorship. A workers union, is one form of actual socialism. The people who labor, control themselves. Through a democratic system of electing people to represent them for a short period of time. Until the next democratic election of representatives is chosen. Repeating that process, over and over again. The first thing communist Russia did was to dismantle these unions that began to form. During the time Russia was going through a civil war. Which the communist force won. Once the communists won - all elements of socialism were brutally dismantled. The only connection to socialism, by definition, is that they lied to their people and convinced them that they were a socialist gov., in name, and were there to serve them. That they should unite together under the communist dictators. In socialsm there is no room for a military dictatorship due to the fact that the people determine their own fate through constant elections and democracy. To ensure the wealth created by the workers. is equally and fairly distributed. ... Back to the people who created the wealth. The author's only credible argument is that the now defunct "Official I.R.A." considered themselves communist. He fails to mention the fact that the "P.I.R.A." split from the "Officials" because of the officials identification towards communism. His failure to mention this can be described as " selective amnesia ". ... Then we begin to get into the most deplorable part of the exhortation ... That Britain had to go around the world to murder, rape and steal from every country imaginable, just because they "had to". As is so eloquently explained under this form of idealogy. One could even use it to argue that the " son of sam killer" simply had no choice because the neighbor's dog's told him to do it. He "had to" kill people. What choice did he have ??? He had to !!! We also learn that Britain "was the most invaded country in history" (Vietnam ?) though we are not given the slightest example of evidence - which is a serious problem. Mainly, because the author above probably includes colonies invaded and held by "great Britain"... Colonies kept through brutal terrorism. Thus, in this senario, any victim of "great Britain" could be considered an enemy. Who is an "invader" ??? Despite the fact that they are the natives, when they take up arms to protect their homeland from british colonial terrorism, in their own land, which the british consider to be a part of "great Britain." Despite the feeling of unity with "great Britain" ... the non-british people in their country who found themselves imprisoned in a artificial entity called "great Britain". The author then informs us as to the attitude that they ,(the british) " might develop over the ages." This is true. People that are serial criminals and murderers develop,over a period of time, an attitude towards their victims... A very twisted and sadistic attitude in which they have nothing "to apologise for"... As the above author clearly informs us. Then we are told that the british "atleast had the stones to go out and stake their claim." Which claim is this ? Is it the gold rush ? Is it the claim to inventing a game that you regularly and embarrassingly get defeated at ? ... Is it the claim to having a large body and a small head ? Is it an insurance claim for your dimwit girlfriends lost camera in the English colony of Ibiza ???... Or is it for the salty tears that now run down your face for the loss of your capital city to all of the people that you have taken the piss out of for so long ??? Why don't you just go and invade the Wembley pitch when it's ready ... in the meantime .... ha ha !! AnswerThe British government has used religion to divide Ireland for centuries. They have brutishly executed Irish rebels. While I am on that point they have also wiped out the Scottish Highlanders who oppossed British rule. They have nealy destroyed the Gealic languages of Scotland and Ireland. The Ulster plantations effectivly cut off the Scottish geal from his Irish brother. The Scottish Presbiterian population of Ulster are now bitter enemies with the Irish Catholics. They are separated not by RELIGION, but by a identity of being truly BRITISH or IRISH! The hatred will only end if there is a sense of unity between the two. anyway, we are both from the same gealic clan! We are the same people!
