what led to the emergence of socialism?
436946
I'm not an economist or a political historian, but my understanding of its emergence in my country (the UK) is from a growing awareness of the injustice of what came to be called 'capitalism' where only those with capital (i.e. already with money) can actually make more money; and their doing this by virtue of other people's labour - people who had nothing else to trade.\n\nThis awareness gave rise to the movement we call socialism (or in our case the Labour Movement) which called for a fairer distribution of wealth and claimed that the best way to measure a nation's success was by the living standards of all its people, including workers, not just the rich employers. In short, that is is society that matters, not individuals.\n\nAlthough later seen as a secular concept it was given impetus by many Christian groups and leaders because of its relevance to much of Jesus' thinking (and words) in the New Testament.
176814
If you believe that "communism is as communism does," and you use those shoddy tyrannies as the only possible socialist models, than the answer is no. On the other hand, if you consider the basic proposals of communism (actually socialism), then it gets more interesting. \n\nFirst let's get rid of the sillyness that equates socialism with tyranny. That's a little like saying that because Pinochet was dictatorial and pro-capitalist, then capitalism is dictatorial. And even though it's true that the democratic socialist movements were invariably short-lived, it's also true that their lives were most often cut short by their opponents - e.g., from Allende to Pinochet,  from Arbenz to a succesion of military dictators, etc. In short, there is nothing in socialist theory that prohibits democracy - in fact, many of its proponents have made the case that democracy is necessary in order to have the deliberation necessary to create a productive society. And capitalism, the real opposition to socialism, has done very well under a plethora of dictatorial forms, thank you very much.  \n\nThat being said, I do agree with the writer who implies that perhaps our species is not ready to deliberate on its own economic future. As a whole, we may not be intellectually or ethically equipped to get much past our present dismal state of quasi-anarchy. There's the "rub." Just as the population of the Soviet Union was told, "don't worry about the economy ... the party will look after it," capitalist regimes say, "don't worry about the economy, the 'invisible hand' and the captains of industry will look after it."
558687
Socialism is about sharing out wealth and resources between everyone, the rich and the poor.  This is how we get the most good out of the resources we have.  There are different types of socialism - some people mean communism when they say socialism (everyone getting the same wage for every job) but some just mean people having a fair start in life, everyone being born with the chance to become rich if they are talented enough, and the welfare state.
742920
Money, the corporate institutions that acquire it, and the political/social means of how it's distributed, are the Gods housed in the Pantheon of Socialism.\n\nThis is the belief structure of most libs;  their God, and the doxology by which they worship.
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
644227
Write a note! you must be joking??\nThe Russian revolution brought about a massive change in the way the country was run politically, the Royals were 'Done way with' (quite rightly)!and the people took over, this caused a lot of dissent between various groups of 'People Leaders' these little problems were  'democratically' resolved by the leaders bumping each other off, they then had a USSR! A United  Soviet Socialist Republic! Not Communist, socialist!\nMany Socialist believe Communism will really arrive when all Socialist countries unite under one banner and all adhere to the same form of Socialism, it's not all over yet by a long chalk!\nThat's your note! \nIf you would like to offer me a commission to write a book on the subject I'm open to offers(business is a bit slack at the moment!
160380
The socialist economy was a complete failure in Vietnam. \n\nAlmost the whole population of the country was living in poverty shortly after the war ended. The state run companies were completely impractical to be able to maintain the country's economy let alone expand to accomodate the new generation that started to enter the workforce in the late 80's. \n\nThree economic reforms has turned the country from a socialist into a capitalist economy.  In turn, the country is now booming with more jobs and opportunities than Vietnam has ever seen in it's long and incredible history. \n\nLong story short.. Sovietn style socialism does not work. It didn't work in Russia, and was never going to work in Vietnam.
938752
First to clarify Marx invented communism as an operationally defined philosophical ideology.\nWhile I cannot tell you who the first communist was it wasn't Jesus. The Essenes (a sect of Judaism) were in existence before Jesus. They lived a communal life in the wilderness of Israel. SOme scholars have suggested that John the Baptist was an Essene. Regardless John seems to have lived in a communist settlement in the desert when Jesus came to be baptized by him. Thus, John is an earlier communist than Jesus.
152778
moved from large centrally planned economies to self-determined market-oriented ones. Basically they became capitalist.\n\nSmith moved to London in 1776, where he published "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," which examined in detail the consequences of economic freedom. It covered such concepts as the role of self-interest, the division of labor, the function of markets, and the international implications of a laissez-faire economy. "Wealth of Nations" established economics as an autonomous subject and launched the economic doctrine of free enterprise.
906267
Communism is an economic system and Socialism is a political system (a form of government)  that can be adopted under a capitalist system (Examples: Spain, France).\n\nCommunism is opposed to Capitalism.\nIn Capitalism businesses are owned by private businessmen. This is a system of free enterprise, where anyone can start their own business and sell what they want to whom ever they want. \n\nCommunism is a "command economy." This economic system has only public ownership of businesses, where the national government has complete control of all industries. People are told what to produce, how much is needed and the price to sell it at. \n\nWhile there is wide variation between socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they opperate according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, that would serve the broad populace rather than a favored few.
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
208570
The Real Social Impact of Stalin’s Rule over Russia.\n\nThe First Five Year Plan:\n\nBy squeezing profits out of the agricultural sector, heavy industrial production increased from 300-600 percent. \n\nBelieved rapid industrialization was the only way to preserve socialism. \n\nIndustrial labor force was created overnight as men and women were put at work.\n\nThe number of women in the industrial work force tripled in the decade after 1929.\n\nIndustrial production also increased between the years 1929-1932.\n\nStalin forced collectivization and confiscated land. By 1938, private land was almost eliminated. \n\nThe Second Five Year Plan:\n\nSucceeded in reducing the Soviet Union’s dependence on foreign imports (heavy industry, machinery, metal works)\n\nThe industrial development and collectivization brought growing urbanization to the country. \n\nComintern(Communist International):\n\nStalin wanted it to promote the unity of working classes everywhere and cooperate with existing worker organizations. \n\nIt must seek to sever the ties between Communist parties and social democratic parties. \n\nAs a result, socialism in Europe was badly split between communists and democratic socialists. (ruined the triumph of fascists movements; Germany.\n\nThe New Soviet Estate:\n\nStalin was committed to the liberation of women.\n\nTheir double burden became heavier during his reign. \n\nThey held full time jobs while doing household chores and taking care of the children.\n\nThe family was glorified as the mainstay of the socialist order.\n\nThe independence of women was challenged as a threat to Soviet productivity. \n\nMassive Loss of Human Life\n\nBecause of the collectivization, 25 million peasants suffered. At least 5 million peasants died between 1929 and 1932. Collectivization ripped apart village life, ruined families, and sent homeless peasants into exile. \n\nAbout 300,000 people were put to death. (engineers, managers, officers of the navy, etc.)\n\n7 million people were placed in labor camps. \n\nThey dealt a severe blow to the command of the army.\n\nIt also resulted in the shortage of qualified industrial personnel, therefore, slowing growth of industry.
310950
Believe me, you could go to some of the Socialist-Communist websites and watch them debate this. But you would probably kill yourself before your figured out the answer.\n\nSince it involves a complex economic and political philosophy, there is no simple answer. But the following is a pretty good examination of the central themes of Marxism:\nhttp://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html\n\nStalinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism\n\nHere is a lengthy article on Stalinism vs. Leninism:\nhttp://www.marxist.com/Theory/celia_hart_controversy.html
403729
go to\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
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.
877174
post office, public hospital, public transportation, public school, fire station\n\nThese institutions do not have to do much with socialism itself, but I guess this was your question.
121970
socialism from tax money taken by force.