Socialism

Notice: these aren't EXACT synonyms, but their close enough to be considered socialism.

Communism, welfare statism, collectivism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, proletariat dictatorship, public ownership, statism, economic planning, wealth redistribution, non-classism, social democracy, classless society, fiat economics, etc.

Of the three, it is more capitalistic than anything else. France's government is actually a semi-presidential system.

Edit: The answer above is actually not true, the main economic system and political system, is based so much on socialism it stands next to Norway. At a socialist point.-

the major key difference is that Marxian Socialism believes that without economic freedoms, political freedoms are useless. This is the foundation for socialism. Unfortunately, reform liberalism was only created to coerce the public by implementing somesocialist values, and to deal with the rising socialist movement.

No

no they are not exactly the same.Communitarianism is a way to achieve socialism and to organize people lives like they demand.socialism means all the power to the people but cause its difficult everyone to get heavily attend with the politic situation people decide to make councils how represents them that's communitarinism....

Assuming you are asking about the US, Fred Halstead was the Socialist Workers Party candidate in the 1968 Presidential election.

Socialism and communism were generally a reaction to the excesses of aristocracy or the perceived inequities of capitalism.

Socialism as practiced in modern times often consolidates power in a small ruling group, who use it to benefit themselves.

Governments that try to control too many aspects of their societies adopt many of the aspects of socialism.

It really depends on how you look at it. Techincally a completely socialist society has never been achieved for a substantial period of time. Most "socialism" in history really turned out to be more of a dictatorship. However, many aspects of democratic government have socialist qualities. For example, free health care in England is considered by many to be socialist. Technically, any service provided by the government like public schools or transportation is socialist. So is socialism possible? Yes and no.

"Marxism is the basis of socialism and communism. The question answers its self." This answer is even more confused than the question. Socialism was around in one form or another a long long time before Marxism. And Communism was also professed in one form or another before Marx became synonymous with it (e.g. "The Communist Manifesto" was Marx and Engel's attempt to put a coherent policy statement in place for the official international Communist Party.) It would require a book to answer the original question. But as I have about 45 mins free while I sit here in this airport I will give it a go. I already put my 2 euro in after all! Loosely described socialism was associated with a diverse collection of beliefs that became more and more prevalent in the era of the Enlightenment (late 17th-18th centuries). Some of the great figures in this were Frenchmen such as Saint-Simon, Proudhon, etc. These doctrines, in line with the spirit of the age, began to question the foundations for everyday beliefs which organised, justified and explained society into strict hierarchical orders (such as monarchies, religions, etc). Socialists questioned the claim that these orders were given by God and that they reflected the natural order and place of different human beings. They began to question justifications that the poor were poor, or slaves were slaves, because they had certain given (inferior) natures that made them only fit for those roles. Instead, most socialisms began with the rejection of divine authority and replaced this with the idea that man's nature (whether he be poor, rich, slave, etc) was the result of man-made actions and force (wars, division of property, etc). These societal divisions had obscure historical roots that were often disguised as religious or national ideologies and were therefore accepted as eternal orders (e.g. the Church or the Nation). But they were in reality (according socialists) the result of man's will and need to dominate other men. Socialist's wished to free humans from the domination of other humans. Socialist's believed that society determined the nature/behaviour of any individual you met (not any divinely ordained good or evil nature). And that if you could create a truly free society you would create better truly free humans. This is the root of the name "socialist". These ideas were influences upon - and subsequently greatly influenced by - the French Revolution in 1789. Just over 50 years later, Marx and Engel's were dismayed by the degree to which socialists (and communists who professed similar understandings and goals) were as prone to follow whimsical and idealistic notions of mankind as were their religious counterparts. They were particularly dismayed that these idealistic visions were often completely impractical and only served to discredit more serious demands for political and social change. Changing society required drastic changes to the material division of society they felt. In writing their Manifesto they sought to set down ideas that would clarify the views of the Communist Party and allow supporters of social justice and change to understand what was at stake in the issues which they fought for and debated. Over 30-40 years of writing, both Marx and Engels would lay down a body of work that would become the touch-stone for all those who worked under the name Marxist. They put forward immensely complex and revolutionary understandings of History, Economics, Phillosophy all under the name of a new all-embracing philosophy of Historical Materialism (although this name itself is really a later invention). I am running out of time for my flight. And these issues are too complex to explain here. However, at root, Marx and Engels claimed that all of the history of mankind was a struggle for those material resources (property, food, water, technology) that allowed societies to reproduce themselves. This extraordinarily simple idea underlay every complex organization of society that you can find. All those words in the service of myths or religions or governments or democracy, were really all just justifications for different hierarchies that served the interests of some particular group. Those who suffered from these divisions were trained and forced to accept these words from the moment they were born (Marx called them ideologies). This is where it gets even more complex. For Marx did not claim that his doctrine aimed at revealing a reality or truth that was universal. This would require that God truly existed in order to make that truth universal. Instead he claimed that all truths with regard to philosophy or history, were representative of the interests of certain societal groups. His work sought to show to the working classes how their interests had been silenced and hidden by those who forced them to labour for things that they did not benefit from. In earlier societies these oppressors were Kings or Druids or Popes or Military figures who dominated the production of weapons or books and forced the masses into work (sometimes justifying this order with religious beliefs). But in the era of industrialization and the bourgeois capitalist, things were much more complex (though not much different). In capitalist society, workers worked and the benefits of whatever they produced were taken away by the owner of their factory (the capitalist). The capitalist was backed by the military and legal power of the state which granted him rights of property and ownership. These divisions within society were then justified/explained by numerous ideologies that were paid for and produced by bourgeois academics and universities (such as economics). Marx claimed that capitalist societies agonies and torments would only get worse and worse as the uneven distribution of the products of society only allowed greater inequality and suffering. In order for mankind to be truly free then each individual needed to be freed from having to constantly fight and chase after the basic necessities of life (food, housing, etc). Only then would he/she be free to pursue their own true wants and become their own person. This could only happen once workers had rested control of production from the minority capitalist owners (who used ideology to justify their ownership). Only then could workers turn the aims of production towards the needs of society as a whole. In communist societies work was supposed to become secondary to living. However, as money and production were at the basic root of all society's beliefs and values, this would be immensely difficult to achieve. Capitalists who controlled the state, ideology and the military would not simply "give-up" their rights to ownership and control. They would have to be overturned by force. This would only happen if the working classes began to organise themselves in the face of intimidation and harassment. Marx intended his doctrine to help in the task of this organisation. The day would then finally come when, spaked by increasing hunger, oppression and increasing understanding of their role in society, the workers would rise up and through an international revolution overthrow the capitalist organization of society. Once this happened history as we have known it would come to an end. And in the new egalitarian society, a new even more complex "history" would begin, as each individual member would seek to contribute to societies understanding of what it means to live as a free human. OK out of time. Gotta catch my plane now. I wonder if this will ever be read by anyone at all. In any case I hope it helps someone with their term paper or summat!!

Indirect economic planning undertaken by governments in capitalist economies through indirect means (manipulating the money supply, taxation, and creating industrial policies) in order to achieve target outcomes, such as a target rate of economic growth and low levels of unemployment.

Mises equated "socialism" with "central planning", and believed that as states began planning economic activity or even by intervening in markets in a so-called "mixed economy", it would lay the foundation for a further expansion of economic planning into production, investment and distribution, which would constitute a "planned economy".

There can be no such thing. Socialism (classless stateless society based on production for use) cannot be mixed with any other system.

Otto Von Bismarck passed legislation to curb the spread of socialist ideas and push socialist movements underground. These were the infamous "Anti-socialist laws".

He also introduced a set of social policies, such as unemployment insurance and health insurance programs, so workers and the masses would feel as though the current economic system did care for them and that arguing for an alternative (socialism) is unnecessary or wasn't worth the risk.

Socialism is a political structure intended to equalize disparate economic groups, whereas Anarchy eschews any semlance of government. In its original Greek, the word literally means "without a ruler" - an(without)archy(from archon, meaning 'ruler').

An uneven distribution of wealth

Yes, considering George Bernard Shaw was a socialist and wrote mostly how he saw things, Pygmalion can be considered a socialist text. Pygmalion was written as a play, not a novel.

Marx made a detailed analysis and critique of capitalism, and advocated its replacement by a classless Socialist society.

Socialism is an economic theory in which he means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by an entire community rather than an individual. This system distributes goods and money throughout the community.

The government because they hold most of the power.

Bureaucratic socialism (also known as "state socialism") is a form of social organization in which ownership and control of the means of production (such as farms and factories) are vested in the state.

They firmly supported capitalism and were against radical labour leaders and ideologies.

42 amendment

Socialism is a society with no profits and no buying and selling. Gods and services are produced to meet human need.

Socialist ideology emerges as a reflection of the class demand of the exploited working masses, who fight against domination by capital, and the socialist system is born of the struggle of the popular masses who are awakened to socialist ideology.