Is socialism a destructive form of government? Why/why not?

Asked by: Adam2
  • No responses have been submitted.
  • Socialism revolves around social ownership.

    This means that public ownership (i.E. State ownership) is only one out of three types of ownership in socialism. The other two types of social ownership are collective ownership and common ownership. So even though public ownership may be destructive, collective and common ownership (i.E. 2/3s of socialism) could still be efficient forms of social ownership. Socialism could still be an efficient system overall.

    Posted by: NPd
  • It all depends...

    Socialism by definition is is the collective ownership by all the people, including production and distribution. This means he resources, the factories, the distribution, the infrastructure, the stores, etc. Most modern countries have some form of socialism, whether governmental or economic. People collectively contribute money or other goods for the benefit of the entire community, called social democracy. Socialism itself is not destructive, but the people involved in socialism can make it destructive.

  • Socialism is actually a better choice of government now than our corrupt birocratic capitalism.

    Socialism is seen in a bad light by the majority of the people because of the governments that used it to promote it's ideas in the past and present. But the so called socialist republics that have existed (eg. USSR) and still exist just used the socialist regime to instate a tyranny. In USSR's case, it lasted a little longer than the life on Stalin. It was a tyranny masked as socialism.

    Now, back to the concerns of today, the capitalism that we all promote as the "good guy" has created a huge gap between the poor and the rich, with the dwindling middle class to support everything. It's idiotic that in a country of let's say 100 people, 1 is rich and is helped by the government to stay that way, 60-70 people are poor and can barely pay their taxes, let alone live a good life, and 29-39 people must practically support the rest of them.
    Socialism came with a good answer but it was applied extremely bad. It came to level the society, to help the poor and press the rich into contributing also. The middle class stand to gain a lot from a regime like that. Socialism was supposed make everything available for everyone, so that healthcare and education could be universal as opposed to what the actual government does, and that is to create private healthcare and education systems that benefit only to a certain class of people.

    In conclusion, I believe that Socialism is not a destructive form of government, and even more, if applied correctly it should be more fair than our actual governments.

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