What do we really know about socialism?
475728
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)
951857
Technology.  Just look at Russia to see why socialism is a horrific idea.  A generation living under the government of the USSR has created an entire country of people with entitlement minds.  Since coming out from that government, they have no work ethic, and that is why you see all the dilapidated buildings that there are in Russia.
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.
497169
Maybe Socialism is better, but capitalism is more human unfortunately.\n\nsocialism is a great idea, but it has to be everywhere for it to work because if there is a capitalist nation next door then it begins dragging the socialist down.\n\nsorry I had to be practical
547331
socialism deals with collective ownership  for example every worker in a restaurant owns the restaurant and split the profit\n\ncapitalism deals with private ownership for example only one person owns a restaurant
170424
I am talking in a economical sense. Politcally I do not how to answer your question. True communism requires equally distribution of capital. Socialism does not. Both have high levels of government ownership of industry.
910242
My understanding (from my college days), is that communism is a political system, and socialism is an economic system.\n\nSo socialism contrasts with capitalism.\n\nOnly those of us on the very far left in the US are socialists; most democrats and liberals are not -- though some believe in SOME socialism (such as Social Security and welfare for the poor, medicare, and other things).\n\nCompared to civilized countries, we don't really have much of a left here.\n\nWell, I guess the progressives are fairly left, and that's a growing group.\n\nBut most Americans, including liberals and democrats, are capitalists, with liberals and dems having slight socialist leanings.\n\nNo democrats or liberals are communist, as far as I know.\n\nThere is a communist party in the US, but it's tiny.
947062
democratic socialism at it's best! what a great place to live.infanticide!
561151
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 :)
1055737
Yes I knew that.\n\nIf you do any research on this by chance, you will find that true communism is the only real form of a pure democracy.
208570
The Real Social Impact of Stalin’s Rule over Russia.\n\nThe First Five Year Plan:\n\nBy squeezing profits out of the agricultural sector, heavy industrial production increased from 300-600 percent. \n\nBelieved rapid industrialization was the only way to preserve socialism. \n\nIndustrial labor force was created overnight as men and women were put at work.\n\nThe number of women in the industrial work force tripled in the decade after 1929.\n\nIndustrial production also increased between the years 1929-1932.\n\nStalin forced collectivization and confiscated land. By 1938, private land was almost eliminated. \n\nThe Second Five Year Plan:\n\nSucceeded in reducing the Soviet Union’s dependence on foreign imports (heavy industry, machinery, metal works)\n\nThe industrial development and collectivization brought growing urbanization to the country. \n\nComintern(Communist International):\n\nStalin wanted it to promote the unity of working classes everywhere and cooperate with existing worker organizations. \n\nIt must seek to sever the ties between Communist parties and social democratic parties. \n\nAs a result, socialism in Europe was badly split between communists and democratic socialists. (ruined the triumph of fascists movements; Germany.\n\nThe New Soviet Estate:\n\nStalin was committed to the liberation of women.\n\nTheir double burden became heavier during his reign. \n\nThey held full time jobs while doing household chores and taking care of the children.\n\nThe family was glorified as the mainstay of the socialist order.\n\nThe independence of women was challenged as a threat to Soviet productivity. \n\nMassive Loss of Human Life\n\nBecause of the collectivization, 25 million peasants suffered. At least 5 million peasants died between 1929 and 1932. Collectivization ripped apart village life, ruined families, and sent homeless peasants into exile. \n\nAbout 300,000 people were put to death. (engineers, managers, officers of the navy, etc.)\n\n7 million people were placed in labor camps. \n\nThey dealt a severe blow to the command of the army.\n\nIt also resulted in the shortage of qualified industrial personnel, therefore, slowing growth of industry.
901533
Yes, because the definition of socialism is simply being against capitalism. It doesn't make you communist or anti-American. They also believe in protecting the earth, economy, and rights of the American people. Not really bad folks actually. Why are people attacking the Green Party?
877174
post office, public hospital, public transportation, public school, fire station\n\nThese institutions do not have to do much with socialism itself, but I guess this was your question.
892900
Oh so much, not the least of which is the dangers capitalism poses to the future of our society. We need a world that works together, one that takes care of all and allows more people to better themselves so that any real survival of the fittest truly is survival of the fittest, not just those that are lucky, born into power or wealthy. \nI could go on all day, but just to sum up: we need democratic socialism.
663976
ugh, i just answered this to find you removed it, here I go again.\n\nActually the word 'socialist' better describes todays 'democrats'.  People can still have liberal ideals without having them freakishly to the left of reality.\n\nLiberals are basically the ones who think a world wide utopia is possible if they 'live and let live'.  They are unable to mentally comprehend the fact that there are others in this world who do not tolerate views different than theirs.  Liberals, for some reason, are hypocritical in most of their thinking.  For instance, since they don't like George W. Bush, they think that a man who gassed to death over 30 thousand of his countries innocent people should be left in power, and defend the lives of people on death row, who were convicted of the most heinous crimes known to man.  Yet liberals for some reason think it is OK for a mother to kill a child.  \n\nLiberals also say it is wrong to discriminate by race/ religion (as do conservatives), but then the liberals turn around and make laws that give benifits to some, and not all, such as 'affirmative action'.  If that is not hypocrocy, what is?\n\nBasically Socialists, Liberals, Democrats, all stand for the same things.  They want to take businesses away from the ones who built them, and give them to the government to run, and give out free stuff to everyone.  What they fail to realize is that over time, the few who are working to support everyone else, will get tired of doing all the work, and the work will gradually decline, thus leading less to distribute.  Eventually we will be sitting in bread lines, waiting for our government rations, because it doesn't matter how hard you work, you will get the same amount of bread as the lazy democrat in line next to you.
767686
Because today's Democrats are as close as you can get to socialists as they can be.\n\nMany if not a majority either do not believe in or doubt God.\nWealth re-distribution\nUniversal Health Care\nHigh Taxes\nLarge all-powerful government\nGovernment control over private property\n\nThese were/are all major characteristics of the USSR/Cuba\nThey are all also now descriptors of the Democratic Party\nSounds like socialism to me
849458
Cultural socialism is a term used by some mostly conservative writers to characterize the movement of some Liberal progressives away from economic socialism into areas of state social guardianship. While  our forefathers had the concept that rights were endowed by a creator or we innate you had them by being born \nCultural Socialism implies that rights are derived from Government's and societies. The implication is that you have civil rights, for example, because the government granted them to you. and is closely aligned to the concepts moral relativism  and secularism. . Ergo if the state is secular then rights granted are derived from secular source ie. Govt  or Society (Democracy). The term is more a contrivance than an accepted label.That said it does allow for some interesting debate. For instance if rights are conveyed by the will of the people then by the will of the people they can be revoked yes?These arguments come to a head in debates over things like abortion.\nFrom the right you'll hear Every humane has a right to life conveyed to him at conception not granted but innate\nFrom the left you'll hear a woman has the right to choose her own health care, has a right to privacy in reproduction (reproductive rights)\nThe discord arises when a government takes an innate right like the right to privacy and infers another right  IE reproductive rights from it. Conservatives being for the most part strict constructionist constitutionally  disagree with this philosophy implying that it is  social engineering and that no right to abortion is stated or expressed.\nMore broadly it refers the cheapening of the idea of rights as envisioned by the founders. So say an individual states I have a basic right to be nourished through this thinking then if it is a basic "Right" then it is the governments job to ensure you are nourished or I have a "right" to a Livable Wage or I have a "right" to health care. See where this leads?\nIn sum, cultural socialism generally refers to progressives inferring rights in place of the more accurate needs  to further their own political initiatives such as socialized medicine, abortion etc... As I previously stated this is label created by social conservatives to further there own ideas but does raise some valid arguments