0
Socialism
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy characterized by public or government ownership of property and goods.
635 Questions
Why do socialist systems have mixed economies?
Socialism is not considered a mixed economy.
Socialism is defined as a system based on public ownership of the means of production, self-management in enterprises, and production for use instead of production for private profit. There are two types of socialism: planned economies and market socialism.
A mixed economy usually refers to a type of capitalism where the government intervenes in markets to affect economic outcomes, or engages in some minor indirect economic planning. Mixed economies are heavily capitalist: profit-driven enterprise is the dominant form of organization, most firms are privately-owned, and markets are still the primary way of coordinating the economy.
Why has socialism been popular in developing countries?
Socialism is not a form of government. It is an economic system much like capitalism, mercantilism and feudalism.
People support the basic idea of socialism for different reasons.
For economic reasons, one might support socialism as a means to "rationalize" the economic system by eliminating the boom-and-bust cycle inherent to capitalism, to allow for full employment, efficient use of resources, and public ownership over large industries so that the profits can be distributed more evenly amongst the population.
Socialism may also be supported by those who criticize capitalism on cultural and moral grounds.
Philosophically, socialism is advocated for greater equality, individuality as defined as enabling a greater scope for self-actualization and the expansion of democratic-decision making into the economic aspects of society.
How does fascism compare to socialism?
Fascism is a smaller, less noticeable form of government control. For example, the government can control businesses by private leaders, whereas socialism is obvious as to who is in charge, basically if America was controlled by a socialist government it would be President Obama that was obviously in charge. The U.S government is pushing towards socialism.
Which group was most opposed to socialism?
The group that was the most opposed to socialism were capitalists.
How are socialism and marxism similar and different?
Communism is when everyone is equal. For ex. You might live in a small house even though you might be a doctor, but you only have a wife and 1 kid. And another family might have a big house because they have a wife and 4 kids, but they are only a cashier.
Why did socialists think that private ownership of the means of production was bad?
Socialists - today mostly called social-democrats - never were against private property as such. They only protested (especially in the early 20th century) against the sometimes very unequal way in which wealth in some countries was divided and against the lack of care for people who could not provide for themselves - the lack of social security, basically.
Even the Communists were not against private property as such, but they had a habit of taking away property from people who were considered 'capitalists'.
The 'ideal' of a community where no-one had any property so that all property was communal and where people were given an income according to their needs, where a larger income was almost excusively based on a family being larger of members needing special care, was never put into practice anywhere. Only North Korea comes close but of course the ruling elites there have no lack of property, income and perks.
What advantages does a socialist economy have?
What are the benefits of socialism?
it basically eliminates poverty and improves the overall quality of life.
___________
The above answer was written by a socialist and is obviously false because communist/socialist countries usually have a much lower standard of living. It might be true on paper in a society where everyone is motivated by the common good and there is no jealousy or envy, but human nature is an extremely hard beast to tame. Most people do not feel that significant portions of their efforts should go to support people that cannot or will not work. As result both sides have a significant downturn in productivity. The unmotivated that would have worked if they needed to in order to survive, now loaf because they know they will be provided for by the state in any event, and the motivated that would have worked 23 hours a day if they could reap they the benefits of their labor for themselves, now work less than they normally would have, because their efforts are for nought. They only way for them to come out ahead is to work on the side or off the books and now what would have been called productivity in a capitalistic country now becomes a crime. Welcome to the Soviet Union. The highest form of functioning socialism is probably that of the Israeli farming cooperatives called Kibbutzim. The kibbutz has a product, be it chickens, corn, machine tools or automobile windshields. The kibbutz receives all the compensation for it's product and The kibbutz management assigns work to those that live on the kibbutz in exchange for living quarters, food (everyone eats in a communal dining hall, ) education for children, and a living "allowance". There might be scholarships for those that wish to pursue a degree beneficial to the kibbutz, agriculture, engineering etc. Many of the early post independence settlers to Israel came from post holocaust Europe or were expelled from Arab countries and arrived with only the shirts on their backs. The ability to have all their material needs met immediately, in return for a normal working day appealed to many. Today the Kibbutzim are in decline. They have been replaced by settlements that pay inhabitants a normal wage with which the individuals rent or buy homes etc.
What is the difference between socialism and nazism?
The German Nazi (National Socialist) Party was politically fascist, which is a corporatist, racist, overwhelmingly petty bourgeois pastiche of ideologies based on the supremacy of the state over the individual, the importance of tightly centralized power and the fetishization of national myths and heroes. Socialism is multinational and working-class in character, seeking to establish a fully democratic, classless society.
Confusion between, and the conflation of, Nazis and socialists is due to the Nazi Party's name, which was in full the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). When Hitler joined the DAP in the early 1920s and quickly became its most prominent member and leader, the party's basic politics were not much different from those that later marked the Nazis' rise to power -- anti-Semitic, anti-socialist, anti-communist, opportunistic and wedded to violence -- but they were murky. The party was also quite small, one of dozens of right-wing populist formations at the time. By upping the nationalist ante, scapegoating national minorities and adding "socialist" to the party's name, Hitler found he was better able to attract disenchanted WWI veterans and workers left jobless during the hard economic times that followed the Treaty of Versailles. To better distinguish his party and its ethos from the more established socialist and communist entities at the time, and to reflect its intense nationalism, he also added "national" to the name.
Socialism was the Nazis' greatest threat to power. In the years before the fated election that led to Hitler becoming chancellor, the Nazis' SA brownshirts engaged in incredibly violent, sometimes deadly, attacks on socialists and communists, in addition to their favored Jewish targets. Socialists and communists were some of the first concentration camp inmates.
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE! It's true, the Nazi's hated other flavors of Socialism, Communism and probably any other imaginable method of collectivism.
But the Nazi version of Socialism is far more similar to traditional other forms of collectivism than it is to market economy.
Let's face it, collectivism feeds on big, controlling government; a market economy needs far less oversight and control.
You need a lot of government employees to round up a few million Jews and force them to their deaths.
Part of the problem here is, in addition to what was stated above about "Socialist" being part of the full name of the party, is the mistaken belief, primarily among Americans, that "big government" is the exclusively the purview of leftist, especially socialist or communist, political parties or systems. This is simply not true. Not all leftist movements advocate having large government apparatuses; for example, the various anarchist movements are typically considered extreme leftist yet advocate for small, localized governments at most. Even Communism, as described by Marx, advocates ridding of government in favor of local councils- Marx pointed to the Paris Commune as the prime example to follow.
By the same token, Fascism (including Nazism, which is different but similar enough to be lumped with it), is almost universally considered "extreme right" yet advocates for a powerful central government. Not to bring about a "workers paradise" as the Communists and Socialists would advocate, but to enforce their extremist nationalism and anti-communism. The sectors of government they enlarged most tend to be ones that conservatives tend to be accepting of, like the military, police, and counter-intelligence agencies. Fascist states also tended to be very friendly towards large corporations in their countries, and even worked hand-in-hand with them.
Instead of focusing on trivialities like the name or misconceptions of "big government", look at what the movements and parties actually advocate for, and, more importantly, what they actually do once they're in power. The Nazis forced concepts upon their people that are typical of the far right- extreme nationalism/patriotism, hatred of "foreigners" (in their case, mainly Jews but also Slavs- that is, Russians, Polish, Serbs, etc), desire for a return of a prior golden age (aka "make our country great again"), adulation for the military and military victories, and generally upholding capitalist principles (the Nazis largely practiced what we'd today call "crony capitalism"). Adolf Hitler even relaxed gun laws in 1938 for Germans (and restricted them for "foreigners")!
Unfortunately this isn't that black and white. Socialism is a socio-economic system of society (in other words, a way for a society to function) in which all voices democratically equal in both the government and the economy.
(Note that there have been many states, such as Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, which have claimed to be socialist but are not. These are definitely bad and not socialist at all. When I refer to socialism here I am referring to the original idea of it only)
I think that socialism is good, but that's just my opinion. Do some research! Avoid the propaganda, and don't be afraid to look at many different and foreign points of view. Think for yourself
That depends on how they came to power. In the Soviet Union socialist principles were adopted under Communist rule. Most Americans equate Socialism and Communism as the same thing. It is not. The single party system which is Communism, perverted the tenets of Socialism and tainted the principles of the movement.
Socialism has been successful in various democratic countries like England and Canada to name two. In these countries the Socialist Parties were duly elected by the people. In Canada they are called the New Democratic Party.
If it weren't for these socially conscious movements, the average Joe would not have Old Age Security and the Canada Pension. Nor would they have Medicare to name but a few of the modern innovations they are ultimately responsible for.
Albeit, in Canada they have never formed a national government. But, the two old line parties were quick to adopt these social reforms when they saw the support the socialists were getting in the polls.
They have proven time after time that you don't necessarily have to form a government to have a positive influence on the government of the day.
Is Japan a socialism or communism economy?
Japan is Capitalist.
But don't get too caught up in labels. They don't care about that.
No one, Rusia was in the grip of a ruthless autocracy that claimed to represent the socialist ideal. Lenin and Leon Trotsky, were the perpetrators of the Russian Communist Revolution replacing the previous dictators of the tsarists regime with their own dictatorship. whether the ideals that the original aims may ever have come to fruition will never be known as Trotsky was murdered leaving Lenin in absolute charge.
In layman's terms what is socialism?
Socialism is basically when the government regulates the economy . It's a little less liberal than Communism but similar . It's generally considered the opposite of Capitalism (when the government leaves the economy up to the people to control) just as aren't truly Capitalist . A lot of Communist countries are actually Socialist . Hope this helped :)
Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making money (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a small group of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists.
The rise of socialism and the acquisition of power by socialist parties or movements varies across different countries and historical contexts. In some cases, socialism has been achieved through democratic means, with socialist parties winning elections and forming governments. In other cases, socialism has been established through revolution or overthrow of existing power structures.
Graccuhus Babeauf is considered the first socialist. In 1796, he led the conspiracy of equals. Pierre Leroux coined the term in 1832.
Would Socialism Work In America?
No, I fear that most Americans are lazy and would take advantage of the benefits. I wish that society was more equal, but people will not work for abstract ideas like the benefit of society or even their community. Some would but it would be the same ones who work now under capitalism so the ending benefit would be the same. People are not naturally good, they are naturally selfish, lazy and mean. Society works to remedy this. The current system is the best we should only work to improve it through more access to education and a culture that does not reward hedonism. Also, socialists always tell me to hate my employer like they would be such a better employer. The new boss would look just like the old boss. The peculiarness of the human situation seems to say that a mix of socialism and capitalism is the best answer. The system needs to reward responsibility and hard work. Honestly the mass of Americans are not as smart as Europeans and have an unfortunate tendency towards criminal and sociopath behavior.
How is pure socialism different than democratic socialism?
When I first pondered this question the word democratic stood out in democratic socialism. I basically can only say that communism is not democratic and that socialism is an economic theory and does not involve any social engagement except as it relates to economics. Communism engages itself in the social and economic aspects of our lives which is the primary reason it has been undesirable to most people since the fifties' til' today, dated 4/3/09. So democratic socialism can be said to mean that the government does not intrude into the social aspect of our lives, civil libertarianism, although I imagine that individual rights and personal freedoms would be protected and that while the state owns and operates the market in the economy, it seems to me that is still democratically controlled by the public and members are free to enjoy some ownership and privilege. Communism also tends to be authoritarian in nature which locks out the very essence of democracy. A better question would be this," since socialism is the "in-between" state of capitalism and communism does democratic socialism lead to communism or is it now a distinct political philosophy apart from leading to communism?" I think the answer is that democratic socialism is now distinct but a very inquisitive question definitely worth looking into. Democratic socialism seems like the ideal party for liberals in this progressive age without meaning that you would someday have to become communist. The following websites may be useful. I should note here that democratic socialism is further to the left on the political spectrum than social democracy, which favors aspects of capitalism and justifiably so, but in some countries the two work together in the same party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
Communist parties in the U.S.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Labor_Party_(USA)
Democratic socialist and socialist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_USA
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html and http://www.thelaborparty.org/index.html
What were the similarities between socialism and capitalism during the Industrial Revolution?
The industrial revolution allowed through the use of machines and mechanization of craftsmanship the ability of an unskilled laborer to make a salable good. In the times before automation and mass production, the more qualified craftsman was able to sell his goods at a premium price. Interestingly without the use of advertising and marketing, goods of higher quality actually commanded a higher price. The more skilled craftsman commanded more money for the better made product. This created a stratification of social classes as the higher skilled worker was paid more per period of time working than the unskilled worker, and could afford nicer things, nicer living quarters etc.
Through mass production the quality of goods became more generic. An unskilled laborer could make the same product as a skilled laborer. The skill of the worker became less important as did the quality of the product. Now the skilled laborers with the different level of wealth that they accumulated became factory owners employing generic unskilled laborers. This had the potential real and imagined for the factory owners to drive down labor costs and lower wages based on the fact that more workers were available to do the job, no skill required. As labor costs plummeted, workers began to rally together for the express purpose of prioritizing their needs and rights, and this lead to the formation of unions. Obviously the focusing on needs isn't bad, but when it comes at the cost of the focus on quality of the goods it is an issue.
Unions (as with the welfare class now) found that they could control the outcome of elections through control of voting blocks of people. However as with any group leaders rise to the top. The leaders because of the power placed in their hands become corrupt. Now that isn't that all leaders have a natural tendency to become corrupt. But, the system itself attracts those with the ambition and thirst for power and as a scholar once said "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Unions "pool" portions of union dues as political contributions to help with the union's "general good". Many members of the union don't agre with the direction of these contributions but have no say once the funds are garnished. Unions in them selves are examples of socialist governed organizations.
In a socialist system there are still levels and stratification of wealth, the leaders of the political scene become the ruling and wealthy class and the workers through redistribution of wealth become more and more homogenized and less individualized. The political leaders need to rely on the wealthy for control and advice.
Now for a political rant, any time the government (whether it be elected officials or union leaders) needs become more important than the needs of the people, socialism exists. In 2010 the great American way is being jeopardised. The very things that made our country are slowly being whittled away, and the government is becoming the head of industry, head of the household etc.
I remember being a child in the early 70's and seeing pictures of hundreds of communist Chinese school children lining up for school, and they all looked the same, homogenized. In socialist as well as communist countries individual expressions and free thought are discouraged. The view of any thought other than the party line is discouraged. This doesn't too far from where we are now and where we are going. My own children wear uniforms in public school, the very things they told us were bad back then they have a list of reasons why now they are good and preferred. Scary
Which statement best illustrates ideals that reflect socialism?
Profits from industrial production should be jointly shared by members of the community.
What is a socialist government?
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage 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 equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct-exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils-or indirect-exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is characterized by state or community ownership or control of the means of production. The above is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Socialism.
However, it is quite an elusive term, of which the boundaries have become blurred. For instance, the UK Labour Party (Current UK Government) of which Tony Blair used to lead is a "democratic socialist" party affiliated with Socialism International.
The same can be said for the French government, as for the German government and many other European governments, as an example that there is no prevailing definetion of socialism as it varies from one territory to another.
