what is the salient features of socialism?
450539
the government contolls all market; the wealth is evenly distibuted between all the people; taxes are very high (80%ish) but everything is very cheap or free (e.g. free school, medical treatment, the gov't gives you money to go on vacation).
947062
democratic socialism at it's best! what a great place to live.infanticide!
102146
Representational democracy.  More or less -- they're actually quite socialist, much like Britain.
648011
Well... one of the key features of Marxist Commnism (referring to German writer Karl Marx who published Communist Manifesto in 1848 to rally Socialists under a Communist banner), social classes were eliminated.  This happened to a lower degree under Lenin and Stalin in 20th cent. USSR
46057
World Peace\nEradication of poverty\nLiteracy for all people
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?
811792
socialist\n\n:> peace\n.
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.)
756118
These definitions mean different things to different people.Like liberals in America are left leaning people while in Europe some of the most right wing leaning parties used the name liberal,see Jorg Haider.\nFor me a democratic socialist means a politician who is for the free market with social corrections.He believes the free market should not control things like public transport or health care and that workers should be protected.\nNo competition with low wage countries because you'll never win that fight and every person who goes out to work all day should be able to afford a decent living.\nBut note the term is also used by full blown Stalinist communists so what's in a name i guess
970171
i am just writing the main points-\n1) liberty,equality,fraternity\n2) bridging the gulf between rich and poor\n3) great need of socialism\n4) economic inequality should be uprooted\n5) everyone should have enough to satisfy his needs but none should have more  to meet his greeds\n\n " think less of money;\n          use less machinery;\n   depend less upon govt;\n          produce fewer children;\n    follow religion more."
575623
Yes. A lot of people fail to make this distinction, but socialism is a type of economy, whereas democracy is a type of government.\n\nFrance and Mexico both have Republican democracies, both very similar to the U.S.'s form of government.
682723
In theory, an economy, or economic system, that is a transition between capitalism and communism and is based on: (1) government, rather than individual, ownership of resources, (2) worker control of the government, such that workers, rather than capitalist, control capital and other productive resources, (3) income allocated on need rather than on resource ownership or contribution to production. In practice, socialism is a type of economy based on--(1) government ownership and control of the most crucial resources, like those for energy production, communication, transportation, and health care and (2) a heavy dose of central planning by government. \nAlthough socialism represents the theoretical transition from capitalism to communism, the primary goals of modern real world socialism are: (1) to correct the inefficiencies of market failures, (2) to obtain more equal wealth and income distributions, and (3) to equalize economic opportunities. To accomplish these goals, government exerts a significant amount of government control, while less than communism, more than capitalism.\nPerhaps more so than other economic systems, socialism comes in many different varieties. Some nations practice a form of socialism that comes very close to communism, with extensive government control. Socialism found in other nations has a distinctive capitalistic flavor, with a great deal of market activity.\n\nGovernment Ownership and Control\nA distinguishing characteristic of socialism is government ownership and control over key industries and resources. Government ownership and control generally begins with transportation, energy, and communication. Socialist governments generally view these industries and their associated resources as the ones most likely abused by private ownership.\nMore active socialist governments tend to exert greater control over other industries, such as health care, heavy manufacturing (such as steel production), and agricultural production. In the extreme, everything is owned and controlled by government, resulting in communism.\n\nCentral Planning\nGovernment ownership of resources and control of industries under socialism necessitates control of allocation decisions. This is often accomplished through central planning. While less extensive than found in communism, detailed plans are needed to allocate resources in the absence of market exchanges. And while such planning generally lacks the efficiency incentives found in markets, it can improve the efficiency if the markets would otherwise fall victim to failures.\nFor example, transportation systems are usually owned and controlled by governments under socialism due to the possible market failure of market control, especially the emergence of natural monopoly. \n\nA Mixed Economy\nSocialism occupies a large section of the spectrum of economic systems, bounded by a pure market economy on one end and a pure command economy on the other. Socialism tends to lay closer to the pure command economy of the spectrum, but it can also edge toward the pure market economy side dominated by capitalism.\nSocialism, like all other real world economic systems, is thus a mixed economy. Allocation decisions are undertaken by both governments and markets. Some socialistic nations rely more on governments and less on markets, while others rely a little more on markets and a little less on governments. But all rely on both to some degree.\n\nThe Politics of Socialism\nThe concept of socialism dates back almost to the beginnings of philosophical thought into the human prospect. Socialistic principles, for example, can be found in the works of Plato and the New Testament of the Christian Bible.\nOver the centuries socialism has been as closely aligned with political thinking as with economic analysis. It has formed the foundation of numerous political parties and helped inspire scores of revolutions. On the spectrum of political thinking, socialism is more likely embraced by liberals and
568559
The Socialist system, like what the UK has, is one of the best.  It mixes with democracy providing freedoms, yet, the government cares for you.  \nI like Socialism as i think that the Government is more responsive to you.
857855
From each according to his ability and to each according to his work--is socialism.\n\nFrom each according to his ability and to each according to his needs-- is Communism.\n\nIn Socialism, there will a dictatorship of the preliterate and the means of the production will be owned by the government run by the representative of the workers. Communism is an ideal state in which there will be absolutely no scope for private ownership. The State, which was there in the Socialistic set up, as a means for controlling the production, will wither away.
290798
High taxes & pure socialism.\n\nPat Summit is better looking than Hillary.
793572
Socialists are all about control. Charity is bad in their eyes b/c it isn't pre-set and socialists can't control it. In their mind they are delivering equal 'justice' to all ppl, but conveniently taking money from others and giving it to the poor with THEIR OWN NAMES ON IT.
170037
Communism:\nPROs:  Proclaims equal distribution of goods amongst all men\nCONs:  Humanity---men will become lazy if they do not have to work for things and the redistribution of goods is pu in the hand of a governemnt that will inevitably become corrupt.\n\nFascism:\nPros:  An absolute authority with far-sweeping powers and control of most major arenas of commerce can bring a nation back to its feet and keep an economy rolling along smoothly.\nCons:  Humanity--as George Orwell said:  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.\nCapitalism:\nPros:  Minimal governemnt intrusion into the public arena.  Businesses can operate freely and, theoretically, people are more mobile in the social hierarchy.\nCons:  Humanity---in the above two instances it was the corruption of the governemnt, but now it is the corruption and possible cold-heartedness of the capitalists.  It basically becomes a second feudalism where fieifs are granted based on money and the serfs can do little to escape their status.