Define Socialism

[Zephyr]

If people are going to throw the term around, we might as well have an understanding of what they mean.

Edit: On a similar note, how do you define Anarchism?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

From Wiki Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Come on, you knew someone was going to go there, I just wanted to get it over with.

 

[Neo-Logic]

If people are going to throw the term around, we might as well have an understanding of what they mean.

Edit: On a similar note, how do you define Anarchism?

I don't know why you're asking us. Socialism already has a well established definition amongst the political comparative realm that many accept. You look it up ...

 

[Zephyr]

I don't know why you're asking us. Socialism already has a well established definition amongst the political comparative realm that many accept. You look it up ...

Oh, I get that entirely. This is mostly directed at the many conservatives who throw the terms around at the drop of a hat.

 

[Rin]

Socialism: The group of people who don't want what I want.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

The one I see most often on right-wing sites is a sort of negative one.

It starts with this assertion: There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to take $ for one citizen and give it another. Any law or tax that has that effect is- on its face -unconstitutional.

Any law or policy that does not affect all citizens equally is - on its face-unconstitutional.

From this follows: Any law or policy that deviates from the above principals is socialist. Accordingly the US Federal government has been moving in an socialist direction since 1913.

The most effective cure for ALL our present ills is to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

To these folk the question is LESS what is socialism is (they have a good idea) than how do we stop being socialist.

 

[doppelganger]

Socialism: The group of people who don't want what I want.

See also "judicial activism."

 

[sandandfoam]

They have it and we want it.

 

[Mathematician]

The one I see most often on right-wing sites is a sort of negative one.

It starts with this assertion: There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to take $ for one citizen and give it another. Any law or tax that has that effect is- on its face -unconstitutional.

Any law or policy that does not affect all citizens equally is - on its face-unconstitutional.

From this follows: Any law or policy that deviates from the above principals is socialist. Accordingly the US Federal government has been moving in an socialist direction since 1913.

The most effective cure for ALL our present ills is to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

To these folk the question is LESS what is socialism is (they have a good idea) than how do we stop being socialist.

Heh, unfortunately for these same individuals, many of our founders were proto-socialist. Jefferson's vision of an American economy was a bunch of producers freely associating together, not hierarchical corporations. Thomas Paine would be called a socialist if he existed today.

 

[Rise Above]

The one I see most often on right-wing sites is a sort of negative one.

It starts with this assertion: There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to take $ for one citizen and give it another. Any law or tax that has that effect is- on its face -unconstitutional.

Any law or policy that does not affect all citizens equally is - on its face-unconstitutional.

From this follows: Any law or policy that deviates from the above principals is socialist. Accordingly the US Federal government has been moving in an socialist direction since 1913.

The most effective cure for ALL our present ills is to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

To these folk the question is LESS what is socialism is (they have a good idea) than how do we stop being socialist.

These people are utterly foolish and mislead. If there still exists private property, we are not speaking of socialism. Socialism is, in a word, Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat"; it is to be achieved only by way of the compulsorily violent overthrow of capitalism and entails the sweeping abolition of private ownership of the means of production.

 

[Shahzad]

An economic system in which the workers own and control the means of production.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Socialism
so⋅cial⋅ism  [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

 

[Faminedynasty]

The abolition of the exploitation of man by man.

 

[Arkholt]

Okay, so we've covered socialism pretty well, I think. Didn't the OP also ask about anarchism?

As I recall, it's a system of no government. Either it's meant to be a totally destructive, do-whatever-you-like nation filled with chaos, or it's supposed to be a utopia, where government isn't needed because all of the people are civilized enough to do what's right without being told.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know why you're asking us. Socialism already has a well established definition amongst the political comparative realm that many accept. You look it up ...

Well, I think Hannity is entirely clueless about what socialism.

Since socialism has been well covered, Anarchy is simply no government.

As I recall, it's a system of no government. Either it's meant to be a totally destructive, do-whatever-you-like nation filled with chaos, or it's supposed to be a utopia, where government isn't needed because all of the people are civilized enough to do what's right without being told.

What most people fail to realize, is that not only is Anarchy not an environment of total chaos and fear, is that yes, you can do whatever you want, but so can everybody else. Meaning, yes you can kill, rape, injure people, or whatever, but someone can extract revenge, and make your suffering much worse.
Another thing is, is most people do not realize that you can indeed have your own house under Anarchy. Like any other basic government theory and idea, anarchy has many aspects. Under some forms of anarchy, anybody could live in your house, but under some, you would have your own place.

 

[Valjean]

All societies are socialist, to varying degrees, Unless you live in a State of Nature.
In a State of Nature there is no co-operation between individuals; individuals are completely responsible for every aspect of survival and there are no laws or restrictions on behavior whatsoever. They are, basicaly, Ik, and their lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," per Hobbs.

Early in human history we formed a Social Contract, where individuals gave up varying degrees of absolute freedom for the advantages conferred by co-operation -- safety, security, social order &c.

Since then, many systems have arisen, and many have discovered ways to abuse the contract and usurp power and resources. But abusage by tyrants does not negate the advantages to be gained by honest co-operation.

The "right wing" socialists (and we're all socialists), such as the survivalists, would have us raising our own food, building our own shelters, educating ourselves, protecting ourselves -- and competing, win-loose, with every other individual.
On the far left, Hutterites, for example, there is no private property and one lives for one's community, and, as the community thrives, so do you.

In most cases, societies choose some middle ground.

Personally, I think the maximum individual freedom, security and prosperity would obtain when the commons -- those services and resources used by the entire population -- were managed communally, while individually desired goods and services were privatized. We'd obtain our needs wholesale and our desires retail, so to speak.