Socialism

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 They have been replaced by settlements that pay inhabitants a normal wage with which the individuals rent or buy homes etc.

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

Fast communication

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.

no

to train people how to act in acceptable ways

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.

Marx and Engels
Karl Marx

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.

Citizens have to pay taxes.

Graccuhus Babeauf is considered the first socialist. In 1796, he led the conspiracy of equals. Pierre Leroux coined the term in 1832.

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.

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

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

Profits from industrial production should be jointly shared by members of the community.

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.

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