Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

What is Socialism? ?

Update:

♥ µrMøMmÅjøk£mŧt£r ♥, Oh, I See, I'm the Issue.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    From each what he can afford; to each what he needs - a principle of both Socialism and Communism. Both emerged with Karl Marx and others late 19thC, but were separated by their differences and political manipulation. There are problems with defining what "he" can afford, and what "he" needs rather than wants. So from there human nature tends to stomp in! Socialism proposed State ownership of Finance (banks etc), and ownership of the means of production by those who worked with them (employee ownership and therefor participation in management of the business in which they worked). This distinguished it from Communism, which proposed that the State should own the means of production on behalf of the society, and appoint management on merit, with or without worker participation (basis of much debate). Most major modern Western societies have contrived an amalgam of Capitalism and Socialism. Early 20thC variations (e.g. Australia) developed a system in which State provided essential infrastructure and social support, and Capitalism provided what was profitable, or within limits of private capital. So State provided education, essential to capitalist employment, and picked up social problems that might cause unrest (e.g. the dole) for instance. As accumulated capital under Capitalism (which proved enormously productive of market wants) found increasing difficulties with profitable investment (from dominant competition, and risks of new enterprise) it persuaded itself into increasingly taking over infrastructure (roads, rail, water, power, etc). But it has proven only too willing to socialize the costs of risk, failure, or mismanagement (e.g. current finance collapse). A sustainable economy to answer climate change will certainly involve much increased State intervention and manipulation, and regulation of private capitalism. The real debate does not now seem to be between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism, but how much of each is appropriate, and how. But the label catchwords still avoid thought. I notice they are even confused with "Liberal" in USA!

    Source(s): Reading and observing
  • 5 years ago

    I would never want any part of my already eroded, land rights, further Fd with, by a bloated, corrupt, government which is what socialism clearly calls for. Not only the "Governmental control of the production and MEANS of production but also the DISTRIBUTION of the goods produced by the masses.

    If we have seen the truth of the adage"The Masses are Asses," it is in the support of Donald Trump in the Republican Race for the GOP nomination 2016.

  • 5 years ago

    Is yahoo for socialism but afraid to say so.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Socialism is the only civilized alternative to the free market anarchy that brings war death and misery for the vast majority of humanity

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6741839924...

    Socialism portends the greatest and most progressive transformation of the form of man’s social organization in world history – the ending of society based on classes and, therefore, of the exploitation of human beings by other human beings.

    Capitalism, and the imperialist system that develops upon its economic foundations, is the main cause of human poverty, exploitation, violence and suffering in the modern world. As a system of socio-economic organization, capitalism long ago exhausted its historically progressive role. The blood-drenched history of the twentieth century – with its two world wars, innumerable “local” conflicts, the nightmare of Nazism and other forms of military-police dictatorship, eruptions of genocide and communal pogroms – is an unanswerable indictment of the capitalist system. The number of victims claimed by capitalist-inspired violence runs into the hundreds of millions. And this figure does not include the consignment of the peoples of entire continents to unrelenting poverty, with all its attendant miseries.

    The solution to the spreading economic crisis and the deteriorating social position of the working class lies not in the reform of capitalism, for it is beyond reform. The crisis is of a systemic and historical character. As feudalism gave way to capitalism, capitalism must give way to socialism. The key industrial, financial, technological and natural resources must be taken out of the sphere of the capitalist market and private ownership, transferred to society and placed under the democratic supervision and control of the working class. The organization of economic life on the basis of the capitalist law of value must be replaced with its socialist reorganization on the basis of democratic economic planning, whose purpose is the fulfillment of social needs.

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/prin-s25...

    All the campaign talk and media chatter about "socialism" obscures the most fundamental issue: Socialism is not merely a set of technical measures involving state intervention into the economy. All capitalist nations engage in this to one degree or another, depending on circumstances. State ownership does not in any sense define a society as socialist, when the state itself is an organ of class rule controlled by the financial aristocracy.

    Socialism means the reorganization of economic life under the democratic control of the actual producers, the working people whose labor creates all wealth. It can come about only through the independent political mobilization of the working class, led by a revolutionary party, which establishes a new and far more democratic form of state, a workers' state, which exercises ownership and control over the means of production. Socialism cannot be engineered through backroom deals between Wall Street bankers and Washington politicians, or through the policies of any Democratic or Republican politician.

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/pers-o23...

    Source(s): "We will not hand this banner to the masters of falsification. If our generation has proven to be too weak to establish socialism on this earth, we will give its unstained banner to our children. The struggle which looms ahead by far supersedes the significance of individual people, factions and parties. It is a struggle for the future of all humanity. It will be severe. It will be long. Whoever seeks physical repose and spiritual comfort - let him step aside. During times of reaction it is easier to lean on the bureaucracy than on the truth. But for all those for whom socialism is not an empty phrase but the content of their moral life - forward! Neither threats, nor persecution, nor violence will stop us. Perhaps it will be on our bones, but the truth will triumph. We are paving the way for it, and the truth will be victorious. Under the terrible blows of fate I will feel as happy as during the best days of my youth if I can join you in facilitating its victory. For, my friends, the highest human happiness lies not in the exploitation of the present, but in the preparation of the future." Leon Trotsky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    From each according to their ability to each according to their need, as Karl Marx described it. That is communism, I know, but socialism is only a 'softer approach' to that ultimate goal, which is that the state has control of all of the resources and distributes them as it sees fit in order to grow its power.

  • 5 years ago

    Study the life of Jesus for the answer:

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Its a scary word that is a throwback to the old days of the 2nd world (poland, hungary, romania in the cold war) that really doesn't mean much.

    Any affluent society is a bit of both capitalist principles such as the rule of law, contracts, private property...and social programs such as health care, unemployment insurance, tax breaks.

  • 6 years ago

    The Socialist Myth of the Greedy Banker

    http://iakal.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/the-socialis...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.