A question about Socialism?
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.
241891
Socialism is a general term for a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is different from the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.
291999
Most societies, despite rhetoric, are socialist to some extent.  Specifically, this means at least some central government control of economic events.  Look at most 1st world countries for your answers (example: USA or UK).  Pure socialism cannot exist, although you get some countries calling themselves "social capitalists." (If that interests you, study Scandinavian countries)\n\nCommunist politics are generally difficult to untangle from economics.  Theoretically, communist countries must be consensus democracies, but this is impossible outside of small, like-minded groups, hence actual communist economies have possibly only existed in small, isolated villages (usually 3rd world), where the pay is the same because everyone lives in the same hut and there is no currency.  Communism is utopian (a pipedream).  Otherwise, the best answer is by consensus, which would be nice, but isn't politics (resultant over conflicts of interest).  My best guess would be that ALL people in such a society would place conflict resolution and equality over profit and selfishness such that any conflict would be resolved out of not only a personal but a societal desire to avoid conflict.  (Note: small isolated villages also have many of the health and sanitary problems that we internet users tend to lack.)\n\nIronically, pure capitalism is the same as communism.  Everyone is looking out for themselves: anarchy.  But it's an untenable position as some people will find that it's in their best interests to form coalitions for protection and self-preservation and - viola! - hello socialism!  If you want to see something approaching pure capitalism, enter a room full of maximum security prisioners for several hours and nothing to do.  This is why some people prefer the delusion of communism over capitalism, despite the fact that neither is realistic because not everyone is altruistic or violently selfish.  How can you tell we are not a pure capitalist country?  Child sex slavery is illegal.\n\nIF, however, you want to go with polical rhetoric definitions, please see your party representatives to give you their nonsense dogmatic responses.  (PS: Subtext is that the "communist party" never really was communist, but like our political parties, knew how to play on a popular lie.)
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.
879167
unrestrained corporate control of society is closer to fascism than economic socialism is. an oligarchy of corporate society is essentially what mussolini defined as a fascist state. you see much more of that working behind the scenes in some western countries than in poorer left wing socialist states that are nationalizing their industires. the fact that people are so ignorant of what the actual meanings of the words they toss around is kinda sad.. do some research- fascism is the establishment of a totalitarian system run by oligarchs, not a socialist system. and there are oligarchs in every country, including the ones we like to call 'free'. some are just better at hiding it than others.
35321
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.
1124946
What an excellent question! If anyone has called you a Socialist Bimbo for asking this question, please ignore them. Chances are that they probably don’t have a good understanding of the concept anyway, and they are only calling you names because they’ve heard that “Socialism/Communism is bad”. I doubt that they could give you a satisfactory explanantion. It speaks volumes about your character that you’re actually trying to learn something. We really need to see more questions like this on Answers.com.\n\nSocialism is a particular type of socio-economic doctrine which advocates social control over the distribution of wealth and property. Basically, rather than having private ownership of the means of production, there is collective, social control.\nThis stands in stark contrast to Capitalism. Capitalism is a socio-economic doctrine which advocates private ownership of property and over the means of production. You can think of these different doctrines as being on a continuum with zero social control of property on the far left and absolute social control on the far right.\n\nOn the far left, you would have Capitalism, and next you would find “Mixed economies”. The United States is actually not a Capitalist country anymore, we are really a mixed economy where there is some social control of propery. Think of things like public parks, which are collectively owned.  As you continue to the right, you will find Socialism, and finally, you will find Communism where the “State” owns everything. There is absolutely zero private property in a Communist economy.\n\nSo that’s the basic breakdown, and now I will quickly explain the problems with “State” ownership of property. Imagine for a moment that you live in a Communist country. The government owns everything including property and businesses. You wake up in the morning and go to work, just like you might here in the U.S., but there is one key difference. In a Communist system, the government owns everything; they get your paycheck at the end of the week. Even if you are the hardest worker in the entire country, they take your whole paycheck. They also collect everyone else’s paychecks throughout the entire country and then they decide the best way to spend “their” money.\n\nMore than likely they will give you some of it back. They will give you enough for food and water, and perhaps even some for medicine if you need it (if there is any money left). That might not sound too bad to you. Everyone has at least the bare neccesities. But there are some serious problems with the system. Imagine that one of your coworkers is extremely lazy. He reports to work just like you, but he doesn’t lift a finger. Actually, imagine that he doesn’t even show up at work; he just sleeps in. At the end of the week, he’ll get exactly the same amount of money that you will. Why should you keep working?\n\nYou probably think that it isn’t fair for him to get paid the same amount when he isn’t doing anything, so the next day when you go in to work you don’t do anything either. Or perhaps you just sleep in too. Don’t worry though, at the end of the week, you’ll still get paid. Whether you work or not, you get paid the same amount. Do you see how this causes a problem? It removes all of the incentive for people to work, and pretty soon everyone is either not working or doing a halfhearted job. It turns out that Communist countries are extremly poor for this reason. \nIf instead, you don’t pay people who don’t come to work they’ll learn that they need to work if they expect money. Also, when you allow people to be paid more for working harder, you give them an incentive to put in extra effort. This is what capitalism is based on.\n\nThere are a range of Socialist movements, each with their own positions on how much social ownership the governement should have. Some Socialists are indistinguishable from Communists, while others lean closer to a “Mixed Econo
789594
Hit it right on the head. I was in England a while back and there was an issue where people were pissed because a stripper had her breast enlargement paid for via the health care system. Her claim was that it helped her earn more money. People here (in the US) need to stop trying to get the government to pay for everything. If a person will just get a job they can take care of their needs. People who can not work for legit reasons I have no problem with helping but the idea that everything should be taken care of by the gov is a socialist view. I do not want to live in that type of world. Survival of the fittest or at lest the hardest working works for me.
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.
670301
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.
293626
Socialism has failed in almost every nation its ever been tried in, and the few still left arent doing so good. Socialism takes away the importance of the individual, and as soon as you do that resentment and discontent are inevitable. Also, whenever a group takes responsibility for something instead of the individual, you have a "public bathroom". no one is responsible for it, so everyone uses it, but no one cleans it, and after awhile it gets pretty nasty.
165899
According to Marx, Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism in which goods and salary are not equal for everyone, unlike the perfect communist society. \n\nFor instance, Mark works on a corn farm. Joe works as a doctor. In a capitalist society, the demand for doctors is much higher than for individuals to work on a farm, so Joe makes much more money than Mark. \n\nIn a communist society, Mark and Joe make the same amount of money, and get the same amount of material goods despite what they do.\n\nIn a socialist society, Joe will still make more money than Mark, but the material goods and services available to both will be the same.
350231
Socialism is an economic system whereby the wealth created by the whole of society is redistributed evenly amongst the populace, ensuring that all are equally rewarded for the work everyone does.\n\nCommunism is a political contruct by which socialism is the main economic form.  In a communist society, a single political party controls the government, there are no real elections, and the populace is kept complacent by a bloated government machine that provides for all of the people.  Socialism is the dominant economic form to ensure the people are deluded into theinking they are taken care of.  \n\nExamples of socialist societies - France, Sweden, England\n\nExamples of Communist societies - Former USSR, China, Cuba
644227
Write a note! you must be joking??\nThe Russian revolution brought about a massive change in the way the country was run politically, the Royals were 'Done way with' (quite rightly)!and the people took over, this caused a lot of dissent between various groups of 'People Leaders' these little problems were  'democratically' resolved by the leaders bumping each other off, they then had a USSR! A United  Soviet Socialist Republic! Not Communist, socialist!\nMany Socialist believe Communism will really arrive when all Socialist countries unite under one banner and all adhere to the same form of Socialism, it's not all over yet by a long chalk!\nThat's your note! \nIf you would like to offer me a commission to write a book on the subject I'm open to offers(business is a bit slack at the moment!
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.
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.
684232
# Strictly speaking, any real or hypothetical state organized along the principles of socialism may be called a socialist state.\n# According to Marxism, socialism is a stage of social and economic development that will replace capitalism, and will in turn be replaced by communism. Thus, in Marxist terms, a socialist state is a state that has abolished capitalism and is moving towards communism.