Socialism

To a small extent yes;

On one hand you have great fear of communism generated by the 1916 Russian revolution.

Take America during this period;

The journalist Kenneth Roberts wrote that "social democracy gives off a distinct sour Bolshevik odour". He was part of the 100% Americanism movement that preached sermons and lectured at university although hit only spread its message to a few, the fact that this fear was here illustrates that many of the Super capitalists in America were tending towards capitalism.

The Palmer raids in 1919 demonstrate effectively the fear that many people had of communism. After his house was bombed the then Attorney General A.M.Palmer created a "red scare", using the General intelligence division to arrest around 6,000 "foreign radicals", 5400 were later released due to lack of evidence. The public lost interest as they saw the threat had been exaggerated. The ability of Palmer to create such a scare in the first place in America and also in many other Western countries.

Count Carlo Sforza noted that "the privileged classes wanted security against a "red danger" more imaginary than real - and to them the best bulwarks against the "red danger" were the two dictators in Berlin and Rome".

Indeed a British envoy stated that "These Japanese how violent, how barbarous! Just the stuff we need to destroy Moscow" and the same was true of the Germans and the Italians and their view.

This Mussolini quote illustrates the great ideological divides between fascism and "We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism". The charisma of the two infamous fascist leaders meant that they could sell fascism as a way to overt socialism to many leading conservatives. This prompted many prominent bankers, financers and business chiefs to donate to fascist parties.

Therefore fear of socialism and communism's played a major part in the development of fascism but bourgeoisie hate of socialism also contributed to the origin of Fascism.

Fascism was a combination of pre-existing ideologies such as nationalism and militarism. What caused these ideologies to fuse together was WW1 which discontented Italians and Germans after Versailles, and its effect to split the political left between internationalist and nationalists. Fear of socialism (amongst the general population and not just the upper-class) also contributed.

As fascist parties expanded and no longer depended heavily on the support of business they adopted a very anti-capitalist approach - turning on its creators.

Mussolini detested the "super capitalism" that caused the depression and even criminalised 1st class train cabins.

Hitler stated that the bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit, "Fatherland" is only a word for them". This conflict in views between moderate conservatism and fascism made the clash inevitable the tragedy was that British and French Tories did not realised it 10years too late.

So yes Fascism was the answer of many German and Italian conservatives to the growing red threat in their own countries. British and French conservatives failed to see how fascism turned on its creators and adopted a policy of non-interventionism as they saw it as a means to stand against Moscow.

Federal Land i.e. national parks, federal buildings

No, Hitler wasn't a socialist. He was a fascist.

Why people get confused on the issue is because those that simply look at the names of historical items, rather than examining their context, see the word "socialist" in the official name of the Nazi party, and presume that they are socialists as we currently think of the word.

That's not the case.

Hitler was not a socialist. He was a fascist. The Nazi party, despite its name, was not a socialist party. It was a fascist party.

Bear in mind that Saddam Hussein called himself a President, the nation had a Parliament, and was deemed a Republic - if we were to take their word on it at least.

What words a nation chooses to identify itself with are up to that nation. That doesn't always mean it's accurate, or that it applies in a modern context however.

Socialism is an economic system based on public or cooperative ownership of the means of production, worker's self-management and collective decision-making in enterprises, and production for use.

Marxism is an economic and sociological theory on capitalism, economic development and social class that predicts socialism to be an outcome of economic and technological development.

Many socialists agreed with Marxist or quasi-Marxist analysis and theories, but not all socialists agree with or are Marxist. In short, Marxism is a theory; Socialism is a system.

There are probably no countries in the world today which could truly be called "Socialist." To be so would require that the people owned, managed, and enjoyed the earnings of all the country's industry. A rather Utopian ideal which never has occurred in the real world, although the Communist bloc pretended its countries were so organized.

Contrary to the common misconception in the USA, Sweden is not a Socialist Country. It has one of the world's oldest stock exchanges and the ownership of businesses and industry is exchanged daily and just as robustly as on the New York Stock Exchange in the USA. Except for some minor extraction industries, and some public transportation, all Swedish businesses and industry are in private hands. Current estimate would be that over 95% of industry is in private hands, which is about where it is in the USA. The major "Socialized" industry is the health care sector. While the USA has a large socialized health care sector under Medicare and medical care for members of the Military families and for Veterans, the Swedish system is more extensive. However, the USA has a larger public transit sector.

Were I asked to speculate on which European country was the most Socialist, I would guess Norway for the simple reason that a large part of its oil and gas industry is State owned. So far the profits from that industry seem to have been directed to the general welfare of the populace.

tl;dr version: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland - these countries enjoy the highest standard of living

The main tenant of Socialism is "fair and equitable distribution of wealth"; the idea that the amount of money a person earns should be directly connected to how much they contribute to the group, not their position within the group.

In the middle ages, the rich were rich by birth, and didn't have to work at all to maintain their wealth. The people who lived under their rule worked the land and paid taxes to the landowners. During the time of the Crusades (when the story of Robin Hood takes place) the taxes were high because they were raising armies and needed food, armor and weapons for the men. In the story of Robin Hood, though, Prince John kept the taxes inordinately high (the reason for which changes depending on the version of the story) while his brother, King Richard, was off fighting the Crusades. Robin Hood stole from the rich (i.e. Prince John) and gave that money back to the people who needed it (i.e. the peasants).

So Robin's idea of taking money away from the entitled rich and giving it to the poor as a means of creating a more equitable environment for the good of all falls directly in line with Socialist ideals.

Yes it can. The US already has a considerable amount of socialist policies now with institutions such as public libraries and public schools. There are many other democracies that are far more socialist. Democracy allows people to collectively govern a nation's resources, and communal ownership is the underlying principal of socialism.

Advantages--people's needs are a priority. Food, housing, education and health are paramount in a socialist society. You would not have million dollar mansions subsidized and lying vacant while homeless people abound. If you are poor you can get required medical treatment. Education is free and available to all.

Disadvantages--Corporations and rich people are not the priority in a socialist country; they would pay a considerable tax so that the above advantages can be realized. You could not develop a piece of land in opposition to people's wishes in the community. If you have resources you are expected to pitch in for the less fortunate. Taxes will be higher. Corporations would be subject to democratic control.

The above is an idealization; the practice in reality probably varies.

The biggest criticism of socialism is that there is little to no incentive to do anything. Another major criticism is that it ultimately leads to communism. The third major criticism is that it gives governments too much power.

Utopian socialists often advocated a visionary, ideal community. Many advocated free love and open family relationships and questioned the structures and values of the existing capitalistic framework. Some such Count Claude Henri de Saint-Simon advocated rational management in which private wealth, property, and enterprise was subject to an administration, not its owners. They believed that this management of wealth (not redistribution) would alleviate the poverty and social dislocation prevalent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many others such as Robert Owen advocated enlightened management and a humane industrial environment because he believed that if human beings were placed in the correct environment, they and their character would improve. Still others such as Charles Fourier believed that human passion was ignored in the industrial order. As a result, he advocated phalanxes, communities which would replace the boredom and dullness found in industrial existence with liberated living. Here, people would never do the same work for an entire day, eliminating the problem of boredom. He also advocated an agrarian rather than industrial production and that marriage was reserved for later in life. Some utopian socialists such as Louis Blanc also advocated for an end to competition but did not seek to build a completely new society. Instead, they were more concerned with politics and advocated for political reform to give the vote to the working class, who would use the vote to their own economic advantage in the political processes.

No. He viewed what he called "utopian socialism" as too idealistic and impractical. He proposed scientific socialism instead, because he believed that socialism was the scientifically proven next stage of human economic development.

Britain is supposedly a social democracy. Regarding the welfare state, equal opportunities, etc, it can be argued that there are many elements of Socialism in Britain. Many core socialist values are economic and Britain is economically capitalist. Most British people are centre-left. To compare this with the US: the British right wing is the US left wing. British people overwhelmingly support free national healthcare, equal opportunities, a hugely funded state education system, open government yet also tend to support the economic free market. Britain is not socialist, but it is a social democracy.

Socialism means very different things depending on who you ask.

Socialism itself, in its very basics, is an economic theory in which people have a more even spread of money between all of a nation's citizens than what one generally has in a capitalism. It's supposed to be a transitional period between capitalism and communism in Karl Marx's theory of societal progression, where people are not necessarily equal yet in what they have, but they have equal opportunity and can get help from the wealthy when they are poor because they are down on their luck.

It's hard to delve too far into the topic without being one-sided. There are good things and bad things about every economic theory--capitalism, socialism, communism, even mercantilism--but descriptions of each tend to float towards making one sound much better than another.

In the United States of America, when people, usually people who identify with the conservative or Republican ideologies, talk about socialism, they often mean when the central government decides to use their tax income from the citizens to support welfare projects which help the poor get back on their feet. People who support this use of taxpayer money say that it is more fair; people who are against this use of taxpayer money say that often poor people are lazy or will become lazy if they know that they will be supported by the government when they do not work.

Otto von Bismarck did not believe in socialism as he saw it as oppressive to the hardworking people. This is one of the reasons that he did campaign against it.

Privatization has to do with who ownes something, Government or Private sector.

Capitalization has to do which where the money is coming form to buy it.

This is just my own view. Someone else may have a better answer.

knights of labor

Modern Socialism can be traced to the works of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. However, they were hardly the first folks to talk about the central concepts of socalism: the common ownership of property by society as a whole.

During the 1800s, the rise of socialism mainly fell under the banner of what was then known as The Progressive movement, which was primarily an agrarian counter to the Industrial Revolution.

The attractiveness of the socialist philosophy in the late 1800s can be seen as a reaction to the abuses of unregulated Capitalism during the rapid Industrialization of most Western countries. During this period, practically all North American and European countries underwent a dramatic change, from a society dominated by farmers and merchants, to one where industrial workers, industrial owners, and financiers formed the vast majority of the population (and who then held the majority of political power).

During this period of rapid Industrialization, farmers lost most of their former influence, and the new industrial worker class often felt powerless and helpless in the face of the new financier and corporate owner class. Socialism was a very attractive philosophy for those disenfranchized and marginalized groups, as it promised a system where they had the power, and not the industrialists/financiers.

Do be careful, though. Modern Socialism and Modern Communism are radically different that the Progressive and early Socialist movements, and it is very hard to compare current Socialism and Communist thought/philosophy with that prevalant in the 1800s.

Anarchists were socialists and still consider themselves to be socialists.

Anarchists opposed what is today called "state socialism", meaning any type of socialism that advocates for state ownership of the means of production as a form of social ownership.

Liberals, conservatives, fascists and monarchists generally opposed socialism.

to keep the power in the hands of the politicians

to protect the rights of the workers

By doing away with the economy and having a system based on production for use, with free access and no money or prices.

The capitalist systems has failed the majority of people in industrial societies

That's the difference between socialism and democratic socialism. Ever since Obama's election, the term "socialism" has been thrown around and used much too loosely, resulting in any kind of socialist policy to be labeled as socialism. Democratic socialism (even though Bernie is more of a social democrat) is a centrist idea with a small allowance of leftist policy, such as socialized health care and education. In short, democratic socialism is primarily capitalist with little snippets of socialist policy, and is entirely different from socialism.

On average, yes, capitalist countries have more crime, but this is correlation not causation. The reasons that capitalist countries typically have more crime is that fewer of them are police states and more of them have less restrictive gun laws. The monetary policies of capitalism or socialism have no effect on crime.