What exactly is socialism?

The term is thrown around a lot, and people seem to have different opinions on it's meaning, especially in the US.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

Socialism is feeling when that make you mingle in a group care them and enjoy with them make you happy.

 

The kibbutz system in Israel is an excellent example of socialism.

 

There is no single clearly and concisely defined and accepted definition.

 

Socialisms a very broad church,from near centerist politics to Marxism on the far left. Historically it draws from a number of different strands including religions and social upheavals as well as the working conditions of the lower classes in Europe from the later middle ages onwards and over time to the wider world.
In all its shades and manifestations Socialisms general aim is the redistribution of the means of production and wealth from an unequal societal state to a more equal one. In theory in its purest form Upper classes would cease to exist in a Socialist State leaving only a working class. Marx said that once this state is achieved it may then evolve toward the Communist model in which the State itself withers and localised Communes made up of workers/members of the community take over governance. No Socialist Country has ever achieved this state.

In Europe, where socialism has been succesful,it has been adapted by the State to complement and exist alongside Capitalism,merging also with liberal values to ensure welfare and social reforms in the workplace and in broader society generally. Socialists would argue that theirs is an extension of Democracy in that it strives to ensure equality and a fairer sharing of wealth and resources (eg Education) across the population. Critics point out that the more socialist a given State is the fewer the opportunities exist for individual advancement among its people and that Social economies are relatively stagnant when compared with more dynamic Capitalist ones.

The Marxist-Leninist system attempted in the Soviet Union in 1900s is generally accepted now as a failed system. Socialism has ,ironicly, been most succesful when combined with its opporsite-Capitalism though both need to be adapted to coexist by the State. It can be argued that all succesful modern Democratic States require some degree of Liberal Socialism to function fairly and effectively.

 

That was a nicely worded post. Perhaps leading towards a civil discussion going forth? If nothing else I give you an "A" for effort.

 

Socialism is about equality - equality in the workplace, sexual equality, racial equality and most importantly a level playing field!

 

If ever the human species reaches a point where they can be gathered and someone say every 10th person line up to the right, we need you to perform neurosurgery, every 3rd person move to the left you'll be pilots flying international routes, etc. then we'll be able to apply socialism effectively and efficiently. There probably will never be a level playing field, no matter how hard we try to create one, and people tend to produce more acceptable societies to live within than do governments who cannot account for all variations that exist between people and the environments in which they exist, fairly in a redistributive way.

 

Socialism is that which scares the greedy. Capitalism is that which fucks the needy,as it stands today. A combination of the two would be more equitable, however,with so few in control of how this nation is now governed-not possible. The powerfull will not hear of it.

 

No, the rich like socialism and use socialism as a tool to confiscate wealth from the people, so that money can be used as the state sees fit. I realize that the proponents of socialism see it as being about creating economic equality and helping the poor, but really it's not. It's about creating dependency on the state.

That isn't to say I am a fan of capitalism, but true capitalism does not even exist.

 

The essence remains to be spreading the wealth and creating equality. Just because it turns out to be creating dependency on the state doesn't mean that that is the essence of what socialism is about.

 

I was refering to populist socialism,not the socialism that is now used by the rich to increase their wealth. They do take care of their own. And as far as capitalism goes,it's a one way path to ecological destruction and chaos,what with the seeming unstoppable gain in population and the manufactured desire for material goods. Humanitys need for a paradigm shift in the way the systems of education,interactions between groups of people(countries) ,between individuals, relative to where we actually live--that is ,a little blue ball coming from?-heading to? -and what WE have to lose if some critical long range thinking doesn't take the place of what now manifests as a human clusterfuck ,is evident to me. --------sorry-too late.

 

Thank you for your kind words re my post. Yes I hope that we can have a reasoned discussion on this page. Mistrust of the State is not confined to American Constitutionalists. Right across the political spectrum we all see its many flaws albeit in different ways. Reading your posts so far your emphasis seems to be very much upon the individual taking responsibility for their role in society with minimal,if any interference from the State. I may be totally wrong but that 'end' seems to fit with the Anarchist ideal as I understand it. Marxism too idealises the withering of the State with the evolving of localised Communes as their aim.
I'm trying to understand what Constitutuional Republicanism would look like giyen a free hand to develop,had it not been waylaid by Democracy. Neither Socialism nor Democracy could cope with all the variables of individualism in a diverse society,as you say,I think thats becoming more obvious all the time!

 

Socialism is a massive government.

 

Hi Pressed Rat, I hear what you're saying about Socialism creating a dependency upon the State,I have to accept that you are not entirely wrong. Problem is that some people,because of illness or frailty, are dependent on the State anyway. A liberal socialist welfare system is the most feasible & humane way to deliver that.

Ive no problem about taking money from the genuinly rich to facilitate social welfare,believe me,they can afford it-enough to pay accountants to find them tax-dodges!

 

Socialism is when the means of production is owned by the public..the people.

Communism = government owned.
Capitalism = individually and privately owned.

Contrary to popular belief, the greedy do NOT like socialism as there is no massive profit to be made when the workers have controlling interest in the companies they work in. They no longer work FOR the boss-man...they work for themselves.

This is ideal if it were possible to start from scratch and set it up right as it would promote both higher quality products and services as well as personal happiness and satisfaction. The world would be a more peaceful place and everyone would be far more free than most of us are now, living from paycheck to paycheck, subject to being unemployed at a distant stranger's whim or decision.

There would need to be governmental regulations in place merely to keep the greedy individuals from wresting the control of assets and goods and production back out of the hands of 'the people.'

It would be a good thing for the government in a socialist country (if one ever actually exists on this planet) to provide all citizens with the necessary utilities (electricity, gas, water, sewer, disposal, etc) at not out of pocket costs but rather funded by taxes.

Of course, that would require that the capitalist war-mongers cease their aggressive money-gobbling habits and let taxes serve those who are taxed rather than their own fat cat wallets.

That might require a miracle.

 

In my opinion, there would be greater variance in each of the individual societies and States based upon the needs and wants of their population and the resources available to provide them, allowing and/or necessitating persons to exercise the unalienable Rights we each are claimed to be endowed with in search of where we could best fulfill our Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness to our individual satisfaction.
I have no problem with Socialism or Democracy when exercised within a group of people who mutually accept the way it applies to them individually, as long as they remain free to escape from what they feel unacceptable or persecutory.
As a Nation of Laws, not men, Federal Laws, applicable to ALL the people, should be written clearly and concisely, and in a way leaving little to require interpretation, AND most importantly applied to ALL equally regardless of the station in life.

 

babalon1919,

Capitalism - A competive free market system based on supply and demand, allowing each individual consumer free to choose how and where they exchange the fruits of their labors.

Socialism - Fulfillment of ones needs and wants based upon his/her contribution.

Communism - All needs and perhaps some wants fulfilled, based on need regardless of contribution.

That's how I prefer to define them. Personally, I prefer Capitalism, and while the preference of others may differ, I doubt seriously that it will ever be possible for any one of the systems to gain total acceptance by all the population without the use of force.

What would you do about those who are NOT taxed?

 

It probably all depends on if one has lived poor or rich or both or whatever.
I have lived both and all shades in between. Maybe you have never been down on your luck to the point of being truly HUNGRY.
It bothered me to have enough to eat when I knew how it felt to not have enough...but giving away one's wealth does not feed the hungry or alleviate any problem at all. The problems are inherent in the structure of our society.

Capital = material concerns
Social = people concerns
I haven't figured out where the communism idea fits in that meme, but I don't think that its relevant to the US in the present day.
:smoking:

Make them pay their taxes. :sunny: