Socialism

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

The main tenant of Socialism is "fair and equitable distribution of wealth"; the idea that the amount of money a person earns should be directly connected to how much they contribute to the group, not their position within the group.

In the middle ages, the rich were rich by birth, and didn't have to work at all to maintain their wealth. The people who lived under their rule worked the land and paid taxes to the landowners. During the time of the Crusades (when the story of Robin Hood takes place) the taxes were high because they were raising armies and needed food, armor and weapons for the men. In the story of Robin Hood, though, Prince John kept the taxes inordinately high (the reason for which changes depending on the version of the story) while his brother, King Richard, was off fighting the Crusades. Robin Hood stole from the rich (i.e. Prince John) and gave that money back to the people who needed it (i.e. the peasants).

So Robin's idea of taking money away from the entitled rich and giving it to the poor as a means of creating a more equitable environment for the good of all falls directly in line with Socialist ideals.

Yes it can. The US already has a considerable amount of socialist policies now with institutions such as public libraries and public schools. There are many other democracies that are far more socialist. Democracy allows people to collectively govern a nation's resources, and communal ownership is the underlying principal of socialism.

Advantages--people's needs are a priority. Food, housing, education and health are paramount in a socialist society. You would not have million dollar mansions subsidized and lying vacant while homeless people abound. If you are poor you can get required medical treatment. Education is free and available to all.

Disadvantages--Corporations and rich people are not the priority in a socialist country; they would pay a considerable tax so that the above advantages can be realized. You could not develop a piece of land in opposition to people's wishes in the community. If you have resources you are expected to pitch in for the less fortunate. Taxes will be higher. Corporations would be subject to democratic control.

The above is an idealization; the practice in reality probably varies.

The biggest criticism of socialism is that there is little to no incentive to do anything. Another major criticism is that it ultimately leads to communism. The third major criticism is that it gives governments too much power.

Utopian socialists often advocated a visionary, ideal community. Many advocated free love and open family relationships and questioned the structures and values of the existing capitalistic framework. Some such Count Claude Henri de Saint-Simon advocated rational management in which private wealth, property, and enterprise was subject to an administration, not its owners. They believed that this management of wealth (not redistribution) would alleviate the poverty and social dislocation prevalent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many others such as Robert Owen advocated enlightened management and a humane industrial environment because he believed that if human beings were placed in the correct environment, they and their character would improve. Still others such as Charles Fourier believed that human passion was ignored in the industrial order. As a result, he advocated phalanxes, communities which would replace the boredom and dullness found in industrial existence with liberated living. Here, people would never do the same work for an entire day, eliminating the problem of boredom. He also advocated an agrarian rather than industrial production and that marriage was reserved for later in life. Some utopian socialists such as Louis Blanc also advocated for an end to competition but did not seek to build a completely new society. Instead, they were more concerned with politics and advocated for political reform to give the vote to the working class, who would use the vote to their own economic advantage in the political processes.

No. He viewed what he called "utopian socialism" as too idealistic and impractical. He proposed scientific socialism instead, because he believed that socialism was the scientifically proven next stage of human economic development.

Britain is supposedly a social democracy. Regarding the welfare state, equal opportunities, etc, it can be argued that there are many elements of Socialism in Britain. Many core socialist values are economic and Britain is economically capitalist. Most British people are centre-left. To compare this with the US: the British right wing is the US left wing. British people overwhelmingly support free national healthcare, equal opportunities, a hugely funded state education system, open government yet also tend to support the economic free market. Britain is not socialist, but it is a social democracy.

Socialism means very different things depending on who you ask.

Socialism itself, in its very basics, is an economic theory in which people have a more even spread of money between all of a nation's citizens than what one generally has in a capitalism. It's supposed to be a transitional period between capitalism and communism in Karl Marx's theory of societal progression, where people are not necessarily equal yet in what they have, but they have equal opportunity and can get help from the wealthy when they are poor because they are down on their luck.

It's hard to delve too far into the topic without being one-sided. There are good things and bad things about every economic theory--capitalism, socialism, communism, even mercantilism--but descriptions of each tend to float towards making one sound much better than another.

In the United States of America, when people, usually people who identify with the conservative or Republican ideologies, talk about socialism, they often mean when the central government decides to use their tax income from the citizens to support welfare projects which help the poor get back on their feet. People who support this use of taxpayer money say that it is more fair; people who are against this use of taxpayer money say that often poor people are lazy or will become lazy if they know that they will be supported by the government when they do not work.

Otto von Bismarck did not believe in socialism as he saw it as oppressive to the hardworking people. This is one of the reasons that he did campaign against it.

Privatization has to do with who ownes something, Government or Private sector.

Capitalization has to do which where the money is coming form to buy it.

This is just my own view. Someone else may have a better answer.

knights of labor