what are the pros and cons of socialism?
92434
socialism is the step before communism per lenin. under this paradise-utopia there is no incentive to better yourself or work hard as the govt sets what you earn, work hard/no more pay...try to make a little $ under the table and go to the nice forced labor-reeducation camp! don't get sick there! the govt sets all prices, what is made, where it goes. therefore shortages and low quality, ever see a commie block car? ever see trabants and lada's for sale here?\nthe lucky ones at the top live like fat pigs, have their own stores with imported luxury goods, you get to stand in line for hours for lousy bread and potatoes. i  KNOW as my wife is bulgarian and lived under the wonder of socialism until she was 18 yrs old. she (and her father, mother, sister) was also forced to share a cruddy small 2 bedroom concrete apartment with another family of 4 strangers. like to use newspaper for toilet paper? want to spend a months pay for a pair of vinyl chinese shoes or a new nylon coat?. the upside is you do not need to plan your future, it is done for you, and enjoy your free 3rd world medical care.
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
335672
History has proven pure communism or socialism doesn’t work. Humans are free thinkers and eventually demand access to individual freedoms and rights. History has also proven pure democracy and capitalism doesn’t work either.\n\nThe answer is a balance between the two. In a perfect society there would be enough social programs to support the poor, sick, and needy while providing opportunity for those “go getters” who wish to pursues wealth and success.
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)
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 :)
917424
Thats kind of the basics of socialism. It sounds good on paper, but without reward for outstanding work, people figure why bother, and slack off.
937006
the libral agenda grew faster their.  socialism takes root in republics. the avg time throughout history is 200 years.  how we have lasted this long is amazing to me.
323158
Everyone.  Socialism or the redisribution of wealth takes away any incentive to work.  If you work hard and make money, it will only be taken away from you.  If you don't work hard, don't sweat it because the gov. will give you everything you need.  Think of it this way - you have spent the last four years of college working your butt off to graduate with a 4.0 GPA, but one of your friends at the same school has spent those years partying and goofing off.  Right before graduation, you are called to the Dean's office and that in order the make things "fair" for everyone at the school, they have decided to redistribute the grade points of everyone on campus.  This means that you, who have worked so hard, will end up with a 3.0 instead of a 4.0 and your friend who did almost nothing will also get a 3.0 instead of a 2.0.  Fair?  I don't think so.  \n\nGranted, socialism works in a few contexts - a church for example - but EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS TO BE A WILLING PARTICIPANT. But it doesn't work if a government if the people are going to be truely free. Converting to a socialist system (which we have already to some extent, i.e. welfare, social security, medicare) would completely trample the ideals our government was founded on.  Some people might say, "but things are different now."  The fact is, they are right, things are different - too many people today don't understand the meaning of real work and sacrificing oneself for the good of your country, that is why they want a socialist government.
1186657
Pro:Large profits for corporations\nCon:Sets a lower pay standards throughout the world. \nTakes middle paying jobs.\nLeaves us with low paying service jobs.\nWrong Pro: I`ll stuff will be cheaper. Maybe we should have the wages to pay for the US made stuff and turn these billionaires into millionaires again.
800427
Welcome to the world of political philosophy vs political propoganda.  Okay a couple of things socialism means that the government has more control over business.  MAking sure there is money for healthcare, welfare, education, etc.  There are many socailistic countries in Europe that are democratic and doing fine.  Communism is further left.  Communism is an economic model and not a political one.  You could have a democratic communism.  What has happenned is a lot of solcialistic dictatorships.  There is yet to be a true communist country.  Unfortunately human greed always ruins communism as it will do with capitalism (according to marx) and there is examples of it starting to happen now (outsourcing jobs for penny wages).  Captilism will expand until it cannot expand any further and then collapse upon itself (basically once the rich have starved the poor whats left?).  It is a very confusing issue.   Anarchy is a political model and I would say is the opposite of socialism...which is no governemnt at all.  However I have been an anarchist for awhile, not because of punk, but because I have no faith in the politcal process today.  Too much business influence and lobbyists to really help most individuals.  But the pistols do rock.
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.
877078
Yes it's only a slight difference... In Asia communism is the chief underlying political movement... In the US, socialism is the primary force guiding the leftist - moving government we have had now for over 12 years.
960572
Pros = advantages, benefits, positive aspects of....\n\nCons = negatives, disadvantages, problems resulting from..
947062
democratic socialism at it's best! what a great place to live.infanticide!
435734
This is a pretty broad question.\n\nFirst, a basic review of the political spectrum:\n\nIn theory, you have communism on the far left and fascism on the far right. The distribution from left to right goes something like this:\n\ncommunism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism\n\nwith other steps in between of course.\n\nSince socialism is associated with the left side of the political spectrum, many people confuse it with communism. Opponents of socialism tend to use both words interchangeably in order to imply that the failures of communism are present with socialism as well; in other words, to confuse people and make socialism sound bad.\n\nIn general, the farther you move to either extreme (either communism or fascism), the more centralized the government tends to become.\n\nDemocracy is represented by the central portion: liberalism and conservatism.\n\nMost European nations practice socialism to some degree or another. Some are very successful at it (e.g. Sweden), others are having more problems with it (e.g. France). In general, however, in socialist nations like France where there are social problems, the problems stem not from socialism itself but from other factors (e.g. very high numbers of immigrants, etc...).\n\nSince socialism tends to back a system where there is a back-up plan to assist those who are not flourishing in society due to lack of employment, low pay rates, etc..., then any government program that attempts to help those who are not flourishing could theoretically be called socialist. In this sense, socialism is being constrasted with a laissez-faire system in which the market is allowed to operate with complete independence. However, even those who vehemently oppose socialism have to agree that a completely free market would result in juvenile sweat shops, endentured servitude, and a lot of other activities that are not good for one segment of society or another unless there were laws in place to prevent these things.\n\nIn other words, a completely free market with no legal intervention would be a pretty ugly place. Certain laws and social programs have to be developed to keep society equitable for all. Where to draw the line is the major question. \n\nFor example: Is public education, child care, etc... something each parent should be responsible for, or should society pitch in as well? Personally, I think it's obvious that society as a whole benefits from educated children, so society as a whole should help pay for education. Think of it this way: if education was only available to the wealthy, then those who grew up uneducated would become a drain on society and crime rates would sky rocket. So you can either pay for education or pay for increased police forces; take your pick. Likewise, society benefits from assisting families with child care so parents can work. If people can't find affordable health care, they'll just stay home with their kid(s) and collect unemployment. Which is worse?
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?
643163
The pros are: We know we have a huge problem in America.\nThe cons are: We know we have a huge problem in America.