What is good that socialism has made?
338760
Absolutely nothing. Socialism theoritically sounds great. In practice, no one is so altruistic to believe in socialism. In fact socialism has caused severe damage to people than Capitalism. At least in capitalism the best make it somewhere on the top or just above the middle or at least above poverty level. Socialism in the long run creates poverty, no jobs, spoilt education, lopsided views and revolutionary ideas that might lead to terrorist activities. Socialism must be shunned like communalism and terrorism. It has been proved to be a failure and I do not know why there is so much of talk about it. If socialism has to succeed, we need humans like Gods. By the way, have you heard of Dachas?? They were part of a socialistic government and leaders of politburo used it. So much for socialism.
308185
A representative government has proven itself to be the best form of government.  No arguing that.  The US also has capitalism going for it.
1158990
You need to understand the difference between socialism and communism. There are several socialist and quasi-socialist countries that are highly successful in the world today (market socialism).
768963
Checks and balances are good.
824408
Well the most socialist that includes a free market and democratically elected government that I know of is Sweden.. Their gov. guarantees all of what you said Housing, Education, Health care, retirement as well as child care. This government has gotten so large that  65- 70% of all workers work directly or indirectly for the government. then again close to 70% of their paycheck goes to taxes. \nThis is the best unbiased example I can give of a free socialist state.\n\nThat choice is a perfectly valid choice for some people and the Swedes seem reasonably happy with it.\n\nThat said, I am not an advocate of a similar system here. Here are my reasons why\n-The Swedish economy per capita went from being one of europes strongest at the turn of the century to one of the weakest\n- High taxation rate drives private capital elsewhere and is one reason why the Government itself is the majority employer in Sweden. This has greatly reduced individual opportunity  to make any significant improvement in economic status..\n-with the Government providing housing health care and child care there is little use for marriage as an institution. The primary purpose of marriage is to provide a financially stable and nurturing environment in order to raise a family. In Sweden the Government has taken over these rolls  You may disagree with me but the statistics speak for themselves close to 50% of all couples in Sweden do not marry and the numbers are increasing. This in turn has lead to a negative population growth the birthrate in Sweden in among the lowest in the E.U.\n- In the end with a negative population growth and huge entitlements from the govt the populace ages and the whole system begins to collapse on itself. this is already starting in Sweden. this to a much lesser degree is happening here when it comes to social security to give you an example.\n\nI chose Sweden because it is a Socialist society born of democracy and not of totalitarianism as in such places as Cuba. this most embodies the path advocated by American socialist. I have tried to relate in an honest and unbiased  presentation the facts and why I object to that type of system and left the rhetoric to others. My point is a socialist state such as Swedens when transfered to a much more populace state like the US has even more difficulty sustaining itself. Sweden has managed to do it only by having a modest population and having the good fortune of substantial Oil revenues to bolster the tax base. My other point is that The big brother government tends to break down basic social structures over time, stiffel entrepreneurship and personal wealth generation and lessen opportunity that is the back bone of what has made America what it is.\n\nYou might look at Sweden and say sounds like paradise and you are entitled to that choice it is as valid as mine. I am not saying socialism is wrong. I am saying it is wrong for me and I believe wrong for my fellow citizens.
381254
Capitalism is commonly understood to mean an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, often through the employment of labour. Other systems would include monarchism (the monarch owns everything), socialism (communities own everything) and communism (the state owns everything).\n\nIs it good? The capitalist mode of production is capable of tremendous growth because the capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies. Marx considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly revolutionized the means of production. But Marx argued that capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. And when it collapses (eg as in the Great Reccession of the 1920's and 30's then things are very bad).
422631
There are \nDictatorships\nDemocracies\nTheocracies\nRepublic\nConfederacies\nto name a few\n\nOh Socialism is no about government it is about money as is Capitalism, and Fascism.
734423
No.  Socialism is just one step away from Communism.
786598
Except for a few periods in the history of our nation, we HAVE had socialism here.  In our republic, where we hope to allow the pursuit of happiness to go unfettered by means of laissez-faire capitalism, we deny that same pursuit of happiness to most of the working class.  The endless amassment of wealth for wealth's sake that results from laissez-faire capitalism, as well as the ever-increasing striving for efficiency that naturally leads to the outsourcing and exporting of jobs to contractors and nations where labor can be had more cheaply eliminate the prospect of well-paying work for Americans.  This leads to phenomena such as the decline of the middle class.  What the plutocrats seem to have overlooked is that Americans control America, and the plutocrats don't.  Do we need socialism here?  I am almost inclined to say that a little more socialism would go a long way toward preventing complete anarchy.  If we say, "In order to do business in our country, you are going to have to respect the People who are allowing you to do so, and you are going to have to accept that there will be costs associated with maintaining the powerful military that protects your interests, and the infrastructure you use to transport your goods, and the population that performs your work.  If that doesn't suit you, please leave and do not do business here, as you have already seen fit to do away with the American jobs, and most of the population is (or should be) questioning what advantage 'We The People' are supposed to be enjoying by having you do business in OUR COUNTRY."\nSo, if by "socialism," you mean the idea that there should be redistribution of wealth from the obscenely wealthy into social programs that benefit the most miserable persons, where the declining middle class (which is the only thing standing between people who have too much and people with nothing to lose) don't have to get tax increases they can not afford, but where it's still okay to be wealthy and pursue wealth... then YES.  We need some socialism.\nWe don't need pure socialism any more than we need pure capitalism.  We definitely need more socialism than we have had recently.  Nations more socialist than ours (but not purely socialist, EGADS!) seem to have the following characteristics:\nThere is a robust middle class.\nThere are people who are poor, but not desperate.\nThere are people are are rich, but not obscenely rich or rich enough to buy countries (or governments, for that matter.)\nThey are not hostages to capital interests.
47659
It provides for more economic growth due to the incentives provided to the people.  Many have abandoned socialism because it cause the nation to stagnate.  In a socialist society, there is no incentive to create anything.  Creating a new service/product will not benefit you.  It a capitalist society, you will benefit for inventing a new service/product.  There is more incentive to creat something new or improve something.
309457
People are good. \nThe govt need to change its attitude.
911961
Socialism is causing massive death, poverty, AIDS and slavery in the third world.  Because they have chosen to embrace marxist values, they are doomed.  This process is well underway, especially in africa and haiti.
124338
I think there is a combination of socialism and democracy that has yet to be realized. As for America, you alsom must realize that all empires eventually fall. Be it in 100 years or 1000. Nothing lasts forever.
95793
There is no incentive, other than total fairness.  But it does not work and never did.  Socialism is just the government owning the means of production, not like communisim which is that and running the entire economy of the nation.  It does not work, and innovation, and freedom are stifled completely.  Life isn't fair, and making it so didn't work for Russia and will not ever work.
558687
Socialism is about sharing out wealth and resources between everyone, the rich and the poor.  This is how we get the most good out of the resources we have.  There are different types of socialism - some people mean communism when they say socialism (everyone getting the same wage for every job) but some just mean people having a fair start in life, everyone being born with the chance to become rich if they are talented enough, and the welfare state.
475174
why the socialist party of course, at least in America.  They also came up with an 80-hour max. work week, unions, equal pay for women and men, and a host of other things laborers today would be pretty sad to be without.
80752
change is good because otherwise we wouldn't develop, we would be always satisfied with what we already have and change is the key of the progress. some things are worth to be changed, but some major values cannot be changed, or they are changed but during a slow process . change is good because otherwise we will all be the same, have the same cloths, cars, houses....hobbies,,,, as under the communist system....