0
Socialism
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy characterized by public or government ownership of property and goods.
635 Questions
Why did Engels write about Socialism?
Engels wrote about socialism to promote the ideas of Karl Marx and to advocate for a society that operated on principles of equality, cooperation, and communal ownership of resources. He believed that socialism could lead to a more just and egalitarian society, free from exploitation and oppression. Engels saw socialism as a necessary response to the injustices and inequalities of industrial capitalism.
What was the attitude of the Bolshevik Party regarding the inequalities of wealth in Czarist Russia?
The prerevolutionary Bolshevik Party's attitude toward the inequalities of wealth was a policy of uncertain. Lenin took what he believed to be the correct Marxist view that during the early stages of the creation of a socialist state, it would take time for inequalities in wealth and power to dissolve. This made perfect sense to Lenin. The far left members of the Party wanted a changeover as fast as possible and the more moderate members of the Party believed a slower evolution would be "smoother" and avoid violence that would cause lasting harm among the peoples of Russia.
What is difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?
Socialists want major industries owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Socialists want a governmental system that advocates community ownership of land and businesses. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism. Democrats believe in central planning and want major industries such as healthcare owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. Democrats advocate a governmental system of community ownership of land and businesses; Democrats advocate Obamacare vs private medicine. Democrats do night believe in the Constitution, separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, or rule of law. Democrats despise capitalism.
Under Socialism man exploits man. Under the Democratic Party it's the other way around.
Why should the socialism approach to governance be encouraged instead of the capitalist approach?
well, depends on if you were taught or learned socialism=totalitarianism, or if you were taught or learned capitalism= minority in control of production unfairly. If you ask me, socialism is much better because its the path to communism (no government, classes, and full equallity). It is wrong to contrast the two because socialism is a transition stage while capitalism is supposed to be permenant.
Despite common belief, true socialism is not completely controlled by the government. The government has the means of large scale production, but the population must be as involved as possible, in order for a colaborative approach to distributing the products to those in need, building up infrastructure where needed and later identifying the wants of people(when there are enough resources), unlike the USSR which completely alienated its population. In socialism, the mindset would be changed in order for people to want to work not just for profit, but for the good of society (takes a long time). Do not get this confused with total submision, there is still personal gain in working, but there is also more connectedness to others. Nowadays, you do not fell a need to do anything unless you get rewarded which is very bad. There should still be something there, but it shouldn't be the only reason to do anything. This is one of the goals of socialism to be practiced in communism.
In modern capitalist society, most production is controlled by 2% of the population. think that is immoral and the capitalists have made it seem like it is impossible to change, that it is against our nature, but people have done unselfish things in the past. We are equally capable of both, it is just easier to be selfish under capitalism. It also benefits capitalists because if there is less connectedness, people will not help each other and will not find the true target and instead fight each other.
It is true that the government controls large scale production under socialism, but the people must be as involved as possible in the decision making, telling the government what they need. The government must listen. If this is not happening, then it is not socialism and the people must rebel. That means their can not be a standing army, but instead a workers militia apart from the government controlled by those who are not tied to the government, but are not capitalist sympathisers either.
The military part may not work, but it is just an idea I thought up. If you want mor info, i suggest reading The Communist Manifesto and visiting communist websites. They may not give you an unbiased opinion of capitalism, but they will tell you what communis truly is. In any case Socialism=transition stage to communism, Communism=production is controlled socially by all in society w/o governments or classes.
There may need to be population control under communism because there are not infinate resources to share and if everyone is going to get equall, plentifull amounts, than there can not be un controlled amounts of people, otherwise, people would gradually get less and less.
The fact that there will still be planned production in communism does not mean that there needs to be a government, it just means during socialism people have to be taught to be responsible enough to make decisions, without anyone telling them what to do and, because no one is higher than anyone else, there would be meetings and people would have to make decisions based on concensus. This could be probematic because one group may think they are so right that they take up armed struggle and dissolve communist society. This can easilly be avoided if people continue democratic centralism, but through entire society where the majority of the population decide something and all others must follow. The minority must be given an equal opportunity to argue and most likely there should be decisions that benefit both sides. It seems very hard to imagine if there is no control, almost impossible. But that would be ultimate freedom and a true democracy based on majority vote always.
This is all based on what I have leared about communism and socialism, I do not actually know if the communism I described is directly the same as the CPUSA believes it should be because no one really addresses it to its fullest, probably because figuring out socialism would be more important right now.
I know I have'NT answered completely and rebuttled all the arguments. I gave a lose description with some random ideas pulled out of communism or socialism, but read the manifesto and visit those sites. They will definitely answer any questions you may have. The best experiences are learning about things that you hate, but do not really know anything about. And more imprtantly, the info must come from a non biased site or a site that is for your topic. Ohterwise it may be false. I would not get info on capitalism from a communist site unless i had already found a trustworthy source and agreed with what the communist site said.
-that is all-
well, depends on if you were taught or learned socialism=totalitarianism, or if you were taught or learned capitalism= minority in control of production unfairly. If you ask me, socialism is much better because its the path to communism (no government, classes, and full equallity). It is wrong to contrast the two because socialism is a transition stage while capitalism is supposed to be permenant.
Despite common belief, true socialism is not completely controlled by the government. The government has the means of large scale production, but the population must be as involved as possible, in order for a colaborative approach to distributing the products to those in need, building up infrastructure where needed and later identifying the wants of people(when there are enough resources), unlike the USSR which completely alienated its population. In socialism, the mindset would be changed in order for people to want to work not just for profit, but for the good of society (takes a long time). Do not get this confused with total submision, there is still personal gain in working, but there is also more connectedness to others. Nowadays, you do not fell a need to do anything unless you get rewarded which is very bad. There should still be something there, but it shouldn't be the only reason to do anything. This is one of the goals of socialism to be practiced in communism.
In modern capitalist society, most production is controlled by 2% of the population. think that is immoral and the capitalists have made it seem like it is impossible to change, that it is against our nature, but people have done unselfish things in the past. We are equally capable of both, it is just easier to be selfish under capitalism. It also benefits capitalists because if there is less connectedness, people will not help each other and will not find the true target and instead fight each other.
It is true that the government controls large scale production under socialism, but the people must be as involved as possible in the decision making, telling the government what they need. The government must listen. If this is not happening, then it is not socialism and the people must rebel. That means their can not be a standing army, but instead a workers militia apart from the government controlled by those who are not tied to the government, but are not capitalist sympathisers either.
The military part may not work, but it is just an idea I thought up. If you want mor info, i suggest reading The Communist Manifesto and visiting communist websites. They may not give you an unbiased opinion of capitalism, but they will tell you what communis truly is. In any case Socialism=transition stage to communism, Communism=production is controlled socially by all in society w/o governments or classes.
There may need to be population control under communism because there are not infinate resources to share and if everyone is going to get equall, plentifull amounts, than there can not be un controlled amounts of people, otherwise, people would gradually get less and less.
The fact that there will still be planned production in communism does not mean that there needs to be a government, it just means during socialism people have to be taught to be responsible enough to make decisions, without anyone telling them what to do and, because no one is higher than anyone else, there would be meetings and people would have to make decisions based on concensus. This could be probematic because one group may think they are so right that they take up armed struggle and dissolve communist society. This can easilly be avoided if people continue democratic centralism, but through entire society where the majority of the population decide something and all others must follow. The minority must be given an equal opportunity to argue and most likely there should be decisions that benefit both sides. It seems very hard to imagine if there is no control, almost impossible. But that would be ultimate freedom and a true democracy based on majority vote always.
This is all based on what I have leared about communism and socialism, I do not actually know if the communism I described is directly the same as the CPUSA believes it should be because no one really addresses it to its fullest, probably because figuring out socialism would be more important right now.
I know I have'NT answered completely and rebuttled all the arguments. I gave a lose description with some random ideas pulled out of communism or socialism, but read the manifesto and visit those sites. They will definitely answer any questions you may have. The best experiences are learning about things that you hate, but do not really know anything about. And more imprtantly, the info must come from a non biased site or a site that is for your topic. Ohterwise it may be false. I would not get info on capitalism from a communist site unless i had already found a trustworthy source and agreed with what the communist site said.
-that is all-
How does socialism provide a compromise between capitalism and communism?
Socialism is not a compromise between capitalism and communism, it is a distinct economic system and mode of production.
A "mixed economy" is often cited as being a compromise between socialism and capitalism, but in practice most mixed economies are interventionist capitalist economies.
What was Mary Tudors full name?
PRINCESS MARY ROSE TUDOR:
The youngest sister of Henry VIII (1491 - 1547) was Princess Mary Rose Tudor (1496 - 1533), who was apparently much favoured. The warship Mary Rose was named after her. She was married twice, first to the King Louis XII of France, and then, when widowed, to Henry's best friend, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. They were the grandparents of Lady Jane Grey, the "nine days queen".
MARY TUDOR (MARY I):
Mary I (1516 - 1558) was the daughter of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon, his first wife. She eventually succeeded to the throne on the death of her half-brother, Edward VI. Nicknamed "Bloody Mary" during her reign for her persecution of Protestants (Mary was a staunch Catholic), when around 300 of them were burned at the stake as heretics. She died in 1558 and was succeeded by her half-sister, Elizabeth I (1533 - 1603).
Any move to extend power to the people.
Actually, any move to extend power to the government.
What are examples literacy'sof life?
Literacy practices in students' everyday lives.
Multi-modal. On the whole, students reading and writing combines the use of symbols, pictures, colour, music, etc.
Multi-media. ...
Shared. ...
Non-linear. ...
Agentic. ...
Purposeful to the student.
Generative - involving sense-making and creativity.
How is socialism similar to capitalism?
Both are modes of production, but other than that they have nothing in common. Socialism has no classes, no money, no wages system, production form use, no government.
What is the antonym of socialism?
Antonyms: capitalism, the profit-system, wage labor, business enterprise, private property
British Socialism, is the political ideology of having a socialist state, however far more liberal and emocratic, than the USSR was, for example. We still have a socialist govenment in the UK (The Labour Party) The philiosophy is about raising tha standart of life for all, creating a fair and equal society and developing the nation. Socialism in the UK (As a developed country) is much easier to acheive, because the UK is a rich country which can pay for things like: -The NHS (Free health care for all). The UK was the first country to recognise that a human life is worth more than money, and declared that health treatments should be free. -The Department for Health and Social Security, deals (dealt) with unemplyed people and the poor. It provided them with houses, money to live on and other benefits such as- DLA (Disability living allowane)- Disabled people, due to their in ability to work are paid by the state. Child Benefit- Money you get when you have children to make it easier Maternity Grants- Money when you have a baby. The UK is also the only country in Europe, where the state owns more than 50% of housing. Housing associations and Council houses are provided to people who have low income.
What are some of the excuses people give when they want to end their relationship?
Here are a couple of excuses??? I have come across: "It's not you, it's me." "I love you but I am not IN love with you."
What country does not practice a form of socialism?
You name it, and it's probably not socialist. Even those countries that call themselves socialist are mostly capitalist now.
What is the difference between communism fascism and socialism?
Communism is the theory that all things should be shared equally among all people. The concept of government in communism is that it should exist only to protect this state. In the real world, however, communism always begets totalitarian dictatorships (which are, while not communism in and of themselves, a result of communism).
Fascism is a combination of far-right capitalism and nationalism, where people are completely denied all participation in government in the favor of elites. It is considered the absolute opposite of socialism.
Socialism is the idea that the government exists to help (and to an extent control) people. Socialists support high taxes and government spending on the populus. Basically, it's the concept of "you pay taxes, the government handles everything else."
Scientific socialism is associated with the writing of?
well, the term was introduced by Friedrich Engels , but the theory was first put forward by Karl Marx.
What socialism would later called?
Socialism has always been socialism. Today there seems to be some who use it interchangeably with communism, but this is not the case. Both are two different "isms" and approach government in two different ways.
How did George Bernard Shaw lose credibility as a member of the British Fabian Society?
George Bernard Shaw was a famous Irish playwright and critic. He was born in 1856 and died in 1950. Shaw had expressed his socialist ideas about government and joined the Fabian Society. This Society believed that socialism could be achieved in Great Britain, not by a violent Marxist revolution, but by a gradual democratic progress that would evolve into socialism for Great Britain. Fabians were peaceful and whatever sympathies they may have had with the Soviet Union, they were not "Bolsheviks" by any means.They became closely allied with the Labor Party.Shaw was already well known due to his literary publications.
Somewhere along the line, he became sort of a rogue member of the Fabians.
He became, for lack of a better term, enamored with Benito Mussolini and the concept of "strong-man government. As an aside, Mussolini began his career as a socialist.
Bernard expressed himself in extraordinary letters to various people in the peaceful socialist movement in England. His choice of language was a stunning reversal of what his former beliefs seemed to be.
His own words are part of the public domain. In essence he wrote that "We must get the Socialist movement out of its democratic grooves.
He prepared a more formal statement a few days later:
" We as Socialists, have nothing to do with liberty. Our message, like Mussolini's is one of discipline, of service, of ruthless refusal to acknowledge any right of competence. Liberty belongs not to the day's work, which it is the business of a socialist government to organize, but to the day's leisure, as to which there is plenty of room for Liberal activity."
This was by no means the end to his curious turnabout.
Soon after in his Fabian Autumn Lecture, by declaring that democracy was incompatible with Socialism, which can only be brought into existence by a dictator determined to thrust himself forward without scruple.
He further also made it clear that this was not just a passing bout of impatience by soon prasing Stalin and all the more shocking, in his last Fabian lecture he defended Hitler.
Shaw claimed Hitler's efforts have been obscured in England by the natural indignation and horror at the persecution of Jews. Shaw claimed that Hitler's violence and brutality were regrettable but were natural effect of the continuing "kicking" the exploitation and robbery to which the German people have been subjected to since 1919.
This turned the Fabians and leaders of the Labor party into dismay as Shaw was until then a celebrity , an intellectual and devoted democratic socialist.
