Socialism

No. Socialism didn't exist when Plato was alive. This is a modern concept on a plan for government. From Plato we get the theory of Forms that states we know the world we know through the senses is only an imitation of the pure, eternal, and unchanging world of the Forms. Plato saw love as motivated by a longing for the highest form of beauty and as a motivational power through which the highest of achievements are possible.

Capitalism: a small number of people own the earth’s resources; most people have to work for a wage; production takes place for the sake of profit. Socialism: common ownership, production for use, no classes or state.

Many Americans feel that president Obama's health reforms smack of socialism and they don't like it.

It was from Socialism that Communism was born.

None. Socialism (a classless stateless society based on production for use and democratic control) will have to be a worldwide system, as production and distribution under capitalism are already global. Socialism will have no countries or borders or passports.

Nobody. The Socialist movement has no need of leaders. Workers must liberate themselves.

Yes they do The Danes have a mixed economy high taxes and a welfare state that takes care of the unemployed and the sick. They seem to be doing it in a way that works for them.

FICA, the abbreviation for Federal Insurance Contribution Act, also known as Social Security.

Social Security is also known as Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), although retirement and survivors' benefits are only a portion of the SSA's obligations.

Completely unrelated. Communism is an economic form. Terrorism has quite a few definitions, but none of them are economic. I would say that terrorism is a tactical doctrine. There is no comparison between these two concepts. Terrorism is nothing only used to stike fear communism is econamic who ever said communism Vs terrorism knows nothing

Nowhere, if you are referring to the original definition of socialism which is that of true equality and democracy.

Some eastern European countries, most notably Sweden, are somewhat socialist but mostly capitalist. Others, such as China or Cuba, try to look socialist, but they are not.

There is no one economic policy for socialism, different socialist movements and parties have different platforms and policies.

Communism is an extreme form of socialism and permits no private property.

All Socialism is radical, as it involves advocating the abolition of the wages system and establishment of a classless stateless society.

Theodore Roosevelt was an opponent of socialism, but some socialist proposals eventually were implemented in the Progressive era.

Market socialism should be contrasted with a planned economy, or planned socialism.

Market socialism involves the use of markets and prices for determining how to use and allocate factors of production among organizations. These organizations may be state-owned or co-operatively owned; so market socialism can be a type of state socialism.

State socialism is contrasted with co-operative socialism. In state socialism, the means of production are owned and managed by a public body. In contrast, cooperative socialism involves ownership of the means of production by the employees or by councils of consumer co-operatives.

It is possible to have state-market socialism and cooperative-market socialism.

Likewise, it is possible to have cooperative-planned socialism and state-planned socialism.

That saying is attributed to Norman Thomas. See the link for more information on Thomas.

Ok i as a Russian know this...

Communism is when everyone is equal and that fails epicly and the other thing is when you have to levels rich and poor...theres no in between, mostly the people are poor...

Ok i as a Russian know this...

Communism is when everyone is equal and that fails epicly and the other thing is when you have to levels rich and poor...theres no in between, mostly the people are poor...

No, they were not.

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.

"Democratic Socialist" is a term used by the centre-left of politics to describe a combination of Trades Unionism and workers Co-operatives, generally accepting a few features of a market economy and a popular mandate in contrast to the extremes of revolutionary Socialism.

As far as i understand it, Marx socialism is very much a science, and he gives many guidelines to achieve the ultimate goal that he writes about. He teaches not only of the happy ending, but the work to be done in between. He also came quite a bit later than the Utopian Socialists.

Utopian socialism is a very different thing. Around the year 1820, the middle of the industrial revolution, there was a lot of change, and a lot of societal growth. The utopian thinkers, for the most part, were responding to a societal disconnect, and a society that no longer held traditional values. Famous utopian socialists inclue Fourier, Saint- Simons and Owen, French and British. There were also Germans who upheld these ideas. Most utopian philosophers differ greatly in their ideals, but they all strive to create a world that is utopian in its nature, a paradise for people to live in.

However, the main difference between Marxism and Utopian Socialism is the 'getting there'. The utopian socialist do not think of the long term, nor how difficult it will be to create the worlds that they envision

In today's China, the old form of socialism, meaning total ownership of the means of production, has slowly been eroded. The Chinese Communist Party still controls the politics and economy of China, however, parts of China's economy have been changed to a more mixed economy. I emphasize "parts". One example of a non socialist China is the stock exchange in Shanghai.

1. The means of production are owned and controlled democratically by the workers, insuring fair treatment of all in the workplace, and the economy is planned to improve standards of living for the entire country instead of generate profit from exploitation of workers. 2. Healthcare, housing, food, electricity, etc. are all provided for free to all citizens of the country, by the state, ensuring quality of life. This improves as the economy completes its goals under the plan. Keep in mind that the CCCP(USSR) and China were never socialist or communist at any point. For more information go to http://www.marxists.org/

No, not as I understand it. There well be much in the US Declaration of Independence which comes across as a socialist manifesto, but in practice it is a very different culture to what would be considered 'Socilalist'. As with the French Revolutionary ideals of Liberty, Equality & Fraternity: Fine words indeed. But the practice has been very, very different in essence.

Now Romania is a semi-presidential republic.