• Socialism isn't Communism

    While I'll agree it takes a lot of effort to make it work, and that there are pluses and minuses to both Socialism and Capitalism, there are plenty of examples of successful Socialism.....So long as people allow it to work. The problem lies in the fact that so many times people have (successfully) corrupted it and turned it into something that Socialism isn't and given it a bad name (USSR, East Germany, Vietnam, etc.) But if you look at the following modern day countries, these are all perfect examples of differing extents of success: China
    New Zealand

  • Yes, but only in theory.

    Socialism and communism are the perfect societies. Everyone shares, no one is greedy, and human nature is basically ignored with other people's interests taking precedence over one person's needs. However, this will never be the case as human nature is one heck of a hurdle to get over, and perfect harmony is impossible to achieve.

  • Socialism Can Work

    I think that socialism can indeed work. Its basic concept has been working around the world for years now. China is one of the most progressive and successful countries in the world and they are socialists. Socialism can definitely work, its just a matter of the people within the country believing and buying into the concept of socialism.

  • It must because Capitalism does not work and there is no other viable option.

    When an economy is based on the idea of incentive or profit, eventually that economy's middle class will become ruined due to employers lowering wages or, as we see here in this country today, the production, formally conducted by that same middle class, being sought from by outside sources. After a period of time, those middle class consumers that at one time purchased those products, can no longer afford to purchase them. There are a million fish in the ocean, true, but only a million. The end result will always be unequallity and thus stagnation

  • China Prospers Under Socialism

    Although not perfect, China's socialism has worked for 60 years. The country is prosperous and growing. There are the human rights violations, rampant pollution, abject corruption and tons of problems with the Chinese system. However, for the time being, socialism has worked in China for decades. Socialism works in Europe as well--even though countries are parliamentary, many institutions are owned by the government.

  • Yay! It will work!

    In fact, it is working right now. I am aware a person before me said what I am about to say, but it is so important that I will say it again. Socialism does not mean sacrificing the free market, or taking away the wealth of the rich. Socialism just means that people can put in more taxes, such that the government can provide important things to the people at more affordable costs, or no costs at all (ie. Roads, Fire Stations, Day Care, etc.).

    It is important to not confuse Socialism with Marxism. Marxism is pure communism, in which everybody works and only gets what they need. That goal is very much to eliminate the need of a government. Socialism, however, tries to make the government purer. Take the American government, for example. We are not a pure government, but we do provide roads and police using the people's tax dollars. And, as a citizen, you have an obligation to your country, and by paying those tax dollars you are benefiting everybody who would drive on the road in front of your house. Socialism is just that for more things, such that basic needs can be provided.

    Some forms of Socialism are more like Marxism, and it is important to recognize how much Socialist ideals can change. The Socialism I am debating is different from that of a Socialism quite a few know. And although one human cannot be trusted to rule a country, a democratic socialism eliminates that problem. Socialism is the middle ground between a utopia and freedom. Who wouldn't want that?

  • A lot of people don't know the difference.

    All you have to do is look at a lot of European countries.A lot of people are against this kind of gov,t because a lot of those same people think communism is the same as socialism, many people do not know the difference and that is why this question is mis-leading

  • All you need is balance

    In Finland we have several socialistic parties and even though we haven't got a socialist state, we have en equal taxing system so that the rich pay more than the poor. This means that we have free healthcare, education etc. We even get free food in our schools ( though not very tasty ) and you can go to a university for free, all thanks to the state having listened to it's workers.

  • Economics of socialism

    My argument is not for all types of socialism, but a mix of various versions of it. I must point out it is a straw man to say socialism is all about central planning or force.

    Workers can voluntarily participate in a cooperative firm. How can this not be democratic? Workers to manage the production process through kaizen and discussions, which is the best management method as they know how best to improve production than a manager in a corporate structure or even a small private firm manager. Furthermore, they become more motivated and as it is voluntary, cooperation will naturally follow. Wages are not forcefully made equal- it was never the case that socialism wanted to make everyone receive equal pay from the government (ironically, it is the classical labour market diagram, as studied in A2 economics, that suggests that workers are homogenous), wages are determined democratically- as the workers who freely associate know each other well and psychological research have demonstrated that humans are capable of treating others 'fairly' there is little doubt in the capability that the cooperative can come up with a suitable pay arrangement for the worker who is hard working.

    Of course, the government has a role in socialism as well. Planning is not necessarily flawed just because CPE has failed. As case studies in China, Singapore, Finland, and even the supposedly socialist Nazi Germany, large government investment strategies in socialist, socialistic or state capitalist economies encouraged growth by building up infrastructure (as the Five Year Plan had achieved), develop domestic industries' strengths as well as providing a secure framework for economic activities. Free market economists may argue that 'institution' is important, the role of institution is vaguely defined once it is beyond the realm of enforcing contracts, prevent crimes, thus open to special pleading where 'good' policies are 'institution' whereas 'bad' ones are 'socialism'.

    Many, though not all socialists have long proposed progressive taxation, universal health care, universal education, welfare state and transportation. They are not just there for 'social justice', but have economic implications as well. Progressive taxation is to increase utility of the poor and hence demand. Universal health care and education is to build a productive workforce as well as 'better' citizens. Welfare state allows individuals to take risks, which in turn makes our economy diverse.

    Contrary to common belief, public funded projects have created many of our technologies, such as radio and the internet. Einstein (who happens to be a socialist) would not come up with E=mc^2 faster just because he gets paid £1m more.

    Of course, it is an assertion that socialism hates the market. The market may be used as a mean to provide economic dynamism, just as many feudal institutions are still important under capitalism.

    But has it worked? Yes and somewhat. Socialistic measures such as the NHS, social housing in Singapore, Autobahn construction and mass communication were successful, as was the east German NES and workers cooperatives (which are in general more productive).

  • Not as an entire system, but socialized SECTORS support a capitalist system.

    I wish there was a middle section because I am a critic of full-bore socialism. However socialized institutions like public schools, public roads departments, even publicly owned utilities, are important institutions creating stability that make the chaos of private enterprise more successful. The Internet is based on work started entirely by the government.
    This binary idea that we have total socialism or no socialized institutions is one of our most dangerous myths.

  • All successful examples of socialism are supported by capitalism.

    The successful socialist examples all have elements of capitalism working in their economies. Many of the European countries that practice some socialism in their economies negate the inefficiencies socialism introduces by not spending enough to adequately defend themselves. They divert defense money to social programs. These countries rely on the U.S. to supplement their defense, and in return, give the U.S. access to their markets, a great economic advantage to the U.S. The partnership works, but it gives the illusion that European socialism works, which it really doesn't.

  • Socialism and Communism are dream worlds

    I know purists will say that no true form of socialism or communism has ever been tried, so how do we know they don't work. Socialism and Communism fail to understand human nature. Human beings are selfish, self-centered beings. When put in positions of great power, they will very likely abuse that power. This is where socialism and communism fail, someone always wants the power and they end up run by a dictator or totalitarian government.

    One could also say that America doesn't have a true free-market capitalism system either. If you go to a local farmer's market that is in a small degree what a true free-market would look like. The free-market would look like a calm lake. Then comes a stone thrown in, which represents government intervention. The ripples don't go in just one direction, they go in multiple directions. Intervention just causes more and more problems. Economics is more or less just theories thought up by human beings. They all center around the attempt to predict what human beings will do. But they can't because what one person does, and why, isn't what or why someone else does.

    The Founders of America studied history, they understood that every empire before America was formed, fell apart because the government got to powerful. Thus, they put as many road blocks as possible in the way to prevent that from happening here too. The Federal gov't is split into three branches, each with specific powers. The power is spread out even more between the state governments and the federal government. Ultimately the most power stays with the people, to self-govern their own lives. The whole point is to spread out the power, to decentralize it.

    Private property is a vital part of freedom. Private property is your body and mind and everything you create or do with it. A small business, a corporation, your paycheck all add up to a type of private property. Without private property, no freedom exists.

    Our Declaration of Independence declares that the nation is free and independent and so is each individual American. It declares that human beings don't have rulers. We don't have a direct democracy either. The U.S. Constitution seeks to protect the individual from the government and majority rule.

    A civil society was always the goal of the founders too. But no civil society will ever be formed through force. A civil society has individuals cooperating and looking out for each other, but it still expects each individual to be largely responsible for themselves. Because successful individuals are in a position to help other. The institutions that worked were family, churches, charities, and communities, not government.

    Socialism and Communism all look and sound nice, but add up to a totalitarian, tyrannical government, not the utopia they promise.

  • Human Nature's effect

    Socialism will always fail because of human nature. There are two types of people in the "real" not the "ideal" world..Producers and non producers, this is the reason that Socialism has never worked and will never work...Not difficult to understand...Simple, really. Give me freeedom, liberty and boot a hypocrite by the name of Marx!

  • Socialism can not work

    Here is why, greed. Humans have the ability to work and should work for what they need want and desire, however when we make it easy for them to just sit on their butts and collect money you take away the humans reason to want to work and provide which means they will settle on a lesser money as expect it from others and that gives the government the power to play their mind games and steal their freedoms

  • Of course not

    Why would we promote something that promotes laziness and devalues self promotion through hard work. If people can make the same amount of money as sitting on their butts, or working those butts off, why would anyone choose the latter. Welfare should be a helping hand, not a lifestyle, and look at European countries or Canada to see if it works.

  • Please Refer to the Left Green Column for Examples of Why It Doesn't Work

    Communism is evil. Millions have died under these regimes, including in China and, to me, the difference between Socialism and Communism is the difference between drinking and being drunk. Even China is starting to adopt free market principles by lowering taxes while Socialist European countries are going broke. It's a pretty safe bet that we can build our own roads-definitely more efficiently. Look at Fed Ex and UPS. The govt. created rules to stomp out competition, the people found a better way. Now Fed Ex & UPS are successes and the USPS is bankrupt. But this only works in a free society with limited govt. meant to protect us from force/fraud. Socialism does work for some people - the leaders at the top "redistributing" the wealth. But not for individuals who value freedom.

  • Socialists are naive

    To believe that the government will be a better steward of your money, the money it didn't earn, but requires of you, is foolish. We have over 17 Trillion dollars in debt, because government cannot learn to spend only what it has, Yet you would like to convince me I need to give more to them? 20 percent of my paycheck is taken out, and depending on where I spend the rest of that paycheck I will be taxed on average 8 more percent just to buy what I need. I already pay 28% in taxes. How will sacrificing more of my money make this a better country? Socialistic ideas are for those foolish to believe everyone will buy into the same idea they have. We are a free market country driven by the incentive to be more than what we were yesterday.

  • Uniform High Taxation Rate Bad

    Socialism has to enforce a high percentage tax rate in order to fund things like universal health care. People in countries like England and Sweden pay 90% of their income in taxes. It doesn't leave much left in the paycheck for savings and investment or for any discretionary spending or charitable giving. Also, businesses, especially small businesses, cannot operate successfully with high tax rates.

  • Absolute Socialism, no. Partial Socialism, yes.

    The problem with absolute socialism is that it requires most all involved to hold most the same beliefs in order for it to be a satisfactory way of life. This, in my opinion is impossible given the vast differences from one individual to another.
    A religious organization could be likened to a socialist group, with the church representing the state. Now, can we put all the religions together and agree on where the resources are distributed?
    It is a great concept in theory, but is highly susceptible to totalitarianism. Capitalism, in contrast, is no better for the masses.

  • Where has socialism worked?

    Socialism in its most basic form has all people sharing in the goods that all produce. This does not work and will never work. People who are looking at this as a free ride will work less and those who want to be productive will limit their production when they clearly see that there work gives more to aid others than to aid their own families.
    Anyone who has ever worked in a community volunteer sports program {i.E. Coaching little league baseball or football, etc.) will tell you that there are few who are willing to "share the burden" but all are willing to share the rewards of seeing their children play a team sport. "I am too busy to help out with anything" is what one hears. But these same people will show for the games, banquets, etc. They have tie to reap the rewards but no time to do ANY work.
    I also feel sorry for the people with the bumper sticker that says "tax the rich" . Obviously they have no ambition to succeed.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.