A lot of people gasp when the word Socialism is uttered. Can citizens of "free" democracies truly understand and judge those from oppressed nations who seek socialism as a way to be able to live with some dignity? if we immediately associate Socialism with machine guns and terrible dictators but we don't really understand what socialism is and what were the circumstances in existence that led to socialism can we make a proper judgement of those people living under it?
215949
Socialism seeks equality and reduction of poverty through communities that hold the capital and means of production. It seeks to answer the flaws in capitalism (monopoly, income ineauality, etc) which occur where imperfect competition exists in capitalist socities\n\nA lot of the cohesive traditions and laws that bind western societies originated in socialist ideals bequeathed by various relgious groups (eg the Quakers) and 19th century reformers\n\nDo not confuse socialism with communism, where the the government replaces the community (with all that implies in terms of totalitarianism)
129074
Democracy is the best we've had so far.  I would like to see more direct democracy in the future.\n\nThe converse of democracy is a dictatorship.  There are many advantages to a dictatorship as well.  Countries with dictatorships essentially take a greater gamble.  A democracy will never vote in the best leader for a country, because the average IQ and political knowledge of a country is not great enough to make this decision.  A dictatorship with a perfect leader would enjoy a strong government for the leader's lifetime.\n\nThe problem with a dictatorship is that when a bad leader is in place, or when power gets the better of them, the country is stuck with them.\n\nKeep in mind that the most deadly dictator of our time, Hitler, was born out of a German democracy.  Now, Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote.  Somehow, the majority government fell and handed the power to him by default.  \n\nAll I can say is that we still have a lot to learn about what makes a great government system.\n\n\np.s...I agree with the comments about communism, but must mention that this is a separate issue from democracy.  A Democratic Communist state could theoretically exist, and it may just happen in the future.  Keep in mind that it may be much ado about nothing.  We call ourselves a Capitalist state, but are far from the true meaning of Capitalist.  All in all, we are a mild socialist state.   Likewise, a future Democracic Communist state would likely not be a true communist state, but simply a stronger form of socialist state.\n\nIe.,,,the possible futures of China or Russia.
216028
Generally speaking, socialism doesn't fit very well with human nature.  There are too many freeloaders - people who will not do their fair share of the work and the other people end up taking care of them.\n\nOnce people get used to the idea that someone else is going to help them (even if they don't need the help), they begin to depend upon it.  And then they want more - more government services, more vacation, more money for less work, more, more, more.\n\nFinally, there isn't enough to go around and the government is forced to deliver the bad news to the people.  The news is that despite decades of promises the government is now going to have to cut back on what it provides.\n\nFor the people, this is shocking, just shocking.  They've spent decades listening to politicians tell them about all the goodies they will receive in the future and, against all reality, they accept the promises and go on as if the government can magically make the impossible happen.\n\nThus, we see the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of draconian economic control of the economy by the government in China, the Indian government finally beginning to shake off decades of torpor in its economy, the Europeans continually trying to find ways to prevent the inevitable change that is certain to occur, etc.
407360
Check out the underground in the former Soviet Union and in China. We already know how a society reacts to it.  Some live with it and go on with the establishment, and others risk their lives for freedom.\n\nIn America today, most would follow the status-quo rather than make a sacrifice.  Others will pay a horrible price to fight for their freedoms.\n\nSue
16101
What you are talking about is something that already exists in our world in some societies. It is known as communism and follows the ideal that everyone is 'equal' regardless of their career and qualities. \n\nHowever, many people, especially those who are part of a democracy are strongly against it, simply because people like to have power.
82514
Socialism is a form of government that controls its society through over taxation. Nobody really rich, nobody really poor. Due to the fact that most Socialist regimes have more funds going out, then coming in, they are destined to go bankrupt. Socialism has had success in countries that have people sharing the same ideologies. (usually places that don't like immigration like Finland, Norway ect.). Communism differs in that it does not allow a balance of privatization vs. government at all and is controlled by more authoritarian measures. Everything is for the "state", and market economies are not allowed to exist. Lack of ownership by individuals is another difference between Communism and Socialism. Hillary Clinton agenda is a good example of a socialist. Chavez in Venezuela is a good example of how Communism takes root.....Best to think of governments in this way. Draw a line.....at the furthest left is communism....then socialism...then the democratic party in the US....then moderate.....then repblican party US.........then fascism.......and all the way Right no government.
325151
War, poverty, exploitation and oppression are products of the capitalist system, a system in which a minority ruling class profits from the labor of the majority. The alternative is socialism, a society based on workers collectively owning and controlling the wealth their labor creates.\n\nIt is the right governmental structure for a post-industrailized society like ours.  But capitalists have fought the people of the US about this for years and has won.  People really can't even think outseide the bounds of capitalist mind control, they can't envision a just society.
499518
i aggree with Phil when he says "Democracy is a very over-used and incorrectly used term\n\nWhat happens in many Western countries and the USA is called an OLIGARCHY and a PLUTOCRACY.\n\nThese are not true democracies - until 'we' can have a real democracy, we cannot export anything but a lie. "\n\nultimatly, help is for those that want it, not those that need it.....
494462
Wait.  Slow down.  Too many questions in one post.\n\nAnarchy is no government, outside of perhaps small, practical, local based government.  There are major pit-falls with this, such as, what do you do when your society grows bigger than the local village?  And, how do you protect your little local village from the large, hostile, heavily armed military under the control of the king who controls five villages, and wants to take over your village and confiscate your nice, fertile fields?\n\nCommunism is different from anarchy, in that while communism's ultimate goal is a classless, stateless society, it relies on government to redistribute property to attain this classless society.  And, as we have all found out after the glorious experiments in Russia, China and Cuba, COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK.\n\nSocialism is a broader political philosophy which holds that the means of production should be distributed equally among all in society.  Socialism actually encompasses a pretty wide array of doctrines, anywhere from your classic Marxist-Leninist (sp?) Communist doctrine to the more moderate socialism that helped spawn trade unions and welfare programs.  \n\nSocialism, anarchy and communism are all kind of intertwined.  My best advice would be go to the sources, Marx, Engels, Keynes and Chomsky.  They'll give you some nice big ideas to turn over in your head for awhile.\n\nLast note:  "Socialism" has been turned into a dirty word by modern conservatives.  Extreme, unadulterated socialism is not good and does not work, just like extreme, unadulterated capitalism is not good and does not work (do some research on the Industrial Revolution and the "Gilded Age," the economic conditions of which lead almost directly to the rise of socialism and communism).  There are valuable concepts in socialism which can and have made society better - such as labor unions and social welfare programs.
195135
This is a pretty broad question.\n\nFirst, a basic review of the political spectrum:\n\nIn theory, you have communism on the far left and fascism on the far right. The distribution from left to right goes something like this:\n\ncommunism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism\n\nwith other steps in between of course.\n\nSince socialism is associated with the left side of the political spectrum, many people confuse it with communism. Opponents of socialism tend to use both words interchangeably in order to imply that the failures of communism are present with socialism as well; in other words, to confuse people and make socialism sound bad.\n\nIn general, the farther you move to either extreme (either communism or fascism), the more centralized the government tends to become.\n\nDemocracy is represented by the central portion: liberalism and conservatism.\n\nMost European nations practice socialism to some degree or another. Some are very successful at it (e.g. Sweden), others are having more problems with it (e.g. France). In general, however, in socialist nations like France where there are social problems, the problems stem not from socialism itself but from other factors (e.g. very high numbers of immigrants, etc...).\n\nSince socialism tends to back a system where there is a back-up plan to assist those who are not flourishing in society due to lack of employment, low pay rates, etc..., then any government program that attempts to help those who are not flourishing could theoretically be called socialist. In this sense, socialism is being constrasted with a laissez-faire system in which the market is allowed to operate with complete independence. However, even those who vehemently oppose socialism have to agree that a completely free market would result in juvenile sweat shops, endentured servitude, and a lot of other activities that are not good for one segment of society or another unless there were laws in place to prevent these things.\n\nIn other words, a completely free market with no legal intervention would be a pretty ugly place. Certain laws and social programs have to be developed to keep society equitable for all. Where to draw the line is the major question. \n\nFor example: Is public education, child care, etc... something each parent should be responsible for, or should society pitch in as well? Personally, I think it's obvious that society as a whole benefits from educated children, so society as a whole should help pay for education. Think of it this way: if education was only available to the wealthy, then those who grew up uneducated would become a drain on society and crime rates would sky rocket. So you can either pay for education or pay for increased police forces; take your pick. Likewise, society benefits from assisting families with child care so parents can work. If people can't find affordable health care, they'll just stay home with their kid(s) and collect unemployment. Which is worse?
40278
People could talk about that for hours. I'll try to be short and to go to the essential.\n\nThe right to live is a basic Human Right, no matter who you are and what you've done.\n\nAlmost all democratic countries in the world agree with that, except very few of them (no comment on them!).
350725
To those who are skeptical about freedom, democracy, liberty, and justice, why don't you guys move to the countries governed by the dictatorship governments? You don't need to make a sarcastic remark about freedom here. Just go and take a look at the plight of the people from those countries.
636430
Comparing it to communism isn't entirely wrong, but it's a big red herring, in my opinion. Sure there are similarities to the Soviet government, but their version of communism became pretty far removed from socialism -- more like a state-controlled form of capitalism.\n\nThe EU as it stands is doing something similar; in the name of benefiting the people, it's working to concentrate economic power in fewer hands. Sure some good legislation makes it through, but a lot of what they're doing is making it easier for large corporations to have their way, similar to the U.S. Calling it communism shields us from the 'capitalist' actuality.\n\nAs for this forum being democratic (re above comment) -- sure we can vote on everything, Big Brother, Pop Idol, X Factor, Yahoo Answers -- but how much influence do we have over our real lives? It's like choice in the shops -- 40 styles of jeans, but so much pressure to be sexy in a particular way or rows of processed food that all tastes like MSG and half an aisle of vegetables flown in from Spain or Kenya. Aren't we being distracted from the limited political options we currently have by the plethora of 'democracy' we experience elsewhere?
172139
no disrespect meant>> but did anyone even read the qustion?? my  anwser is that we feel we have become untouchable. we are ok with saying and doing anything our"freedom" allows and we have the audacity to then say you cant treat me that way. well isnt that a paradox.? you want to do and say anything and you dont let the other guy do and say anything he wants to back at you? thats pretty prideful at its core. and that is wat makes us do the dumb things we do to the wrong people we want wat we want and we take it. we are all (including the misinformed media victims on this site) a bunch of spoiled bullies. we do need to hate and fear, "communism" ............but the "communist" is not the enemy the enemy is our misdirected hostility.. if we live right.... feed clothe and protect. think about the other guy. the communists as you call them will die. and only the thankful poor fellow you helped will live next store not............ our enemy.
263554
Socialism is a complete failure. Look at all the places socialism has been tried, you can't find a single one that worked.\n\nSocialism is a disease, it causes mediocrity and loss of drive. When everyone is given to equally, there is no reason to work harder. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you can do nothing and make the same amount as someone who works very hard... why work hard?\n\nSure, it might be nice if everyone had wonderful free health-care, but it doesn't work. Look at Britain and Canada. Both have socialized health care, and both systems are failing miserably. In Britain, those who can afford it pay for better health care because the system is so poor.\n\nNot to mention, that socialism does not provide equally for everybody. It provides poorly for everyone other than those in power. Compare the living conditions of the typical Russian to those of the ruling party... or the conditions of those starving in North Korea to those of the leaders of the Party there...\n\nCheers :)
13340
Socialisn does not mean equate to freedom and libtery.  Everything for the good of the country.  Read and understand.  there's nothing free about Socialism.
625576
That's the image they would like us all to have of them. In fact they are pushers of the socialist type of government....no middle class....only VERY Welthy and Very poor. \n\nIt's failed in Russia, China, Canada and France. What makes them think it will work here??   Fools!\n\nA democratic government has the best of both worlds. Rich, Middle class and poor.....anyone from any of these situations can rise or fall depending upon their choices.