Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What is Your Definition of Socialism?

1 Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a) system of society or group living in which there is no private property b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3 A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Philliefan73

Your definitions of socialism are actually the definition of communism. Socialism is the regulation of capitalist society such that it does not become a fascist society with corporate control of the government. You might want to read up on it a little bit. US schools don't do a very good job of teaching the distinction between the two.

Lickitysplit · 70-79, M

That is funny, since I copied the definition verbatim from the Merriam Webster Dictionary. I would say that they are authoritative on the correct deefinition.

Philliefan73

I'm sure you believe that. However, instead of looking at a dictionary, look at a country that practices it. You'll see that the state does NOT own the means of production, but does place caps on individual profiteering.

HarryDemon

Actually, LS is right in his definiton of Socialism; it means the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The problems with that are that common, in other words, state, ownership, means there is no competition in an industry, so it has no incentive to try to do well. Socialist states can never raise enough in tax to pay for their spending, so end up borrowing money, have no idea how they will pay it back, so bankrupt the nation. And socialist governments try to control and interfere with every aspect of your life. I certainly believe that social programmes should be provided to cater for those in need, but I don't believe the state is usually the best equipped to do it. And where it is working, such as in our wonderful British NHS, the downside is, it becomes a political football. America never elects socialists due to a fear of it, which is irrational given that they have no experience of living with it. Here in Britain, it can't get elected, at least not to the Westminster parliament (the Scots parliament and Welsh or Northern Irish assemblies are different) because we have had it, and know what a mess it made!

Lickitysplit · 70-79, M

Excellent comment Harry.

I believe that in general, the more culturally diverse or heterogenous a nation becomes, the less likely any form of socialism is to work.

Some cultures and people have a very strong work ethic. Others do not. Often this is a result of the fact that there was no work to be had, but none-the-less, someone without a work ethic is perfectly happy to accept the largess of government that is taken through taxes and given to them. Britain has suffered as a result of substantial immigration of peoples from other, diverse cultures. Socialist policies that may have once worked to some extent no longer work at all.

Several of the Norther European nations have Socialist societies that in fact work quite well, as long as those nations remain culturally homogeneous. The Scandinavian nations are great examples of this and are often used by leftists in the US as the shining example of why we should convert to socialism. They totally miss the cultural homogeneity that enables socialism to work there and the cultural heterogeneity that exists in the US. The US may be the most culturally diverse nation in human history. Socialism would be a total disaster here.