Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Could someone please dumb what socialism is down for me?
There's investments, there's returns, and then yet there are individuals whose practices don't seem to represent such being labeled as socialists.OMGorsh! Really?
No not at all, they are just there to manage and Administrate, and control the will of the Masses. It is only right that they should be.... uh... compensated... for their sacrifice... right?
Well, what I mean is that "socialism" as a term includes anarcho-socialism, libertarian socialism, and countless other ideas that fit within the realm of "socialism", and yet believe in a tiny or non-existant government, and no "managers" at all. You know, in theory. Like the theory of a self-correcting free market.
You mean a Market with no Monopolies and no Subsidies??? Really Where??? We be chasing wind mills and Unicorns again???
None of those things are examples of socialism.
In fact, socialism has nothing to do with government at all.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Could someone please dumb what socialism is down for me?
There's investments, there's returns, and then yet there are individuals whose practices don't seem to represent such being labeled as socialists.
I'll try, but remember that this is real basic. Socialism is when government owns all or parts of some businesses and, or industries.
The US is a socialist nation now. Public schools, police, and the fire department are some examples of socialism.
Dear 'theDoctorisIn' I was already advised against wikipedia because anyone can post most anything. However, thank you for your reply. Spectrumc01 posted a much more understandable answer by which would help me to better connect the dots than googling through wikipedia....
So... For an individual to be called a 'Socialist', it is not necessarily a bad thing though there are some obvious issues in the interpretation of even the 'most basic' words.
It almost seems to me that any society, any community would benefit from having socialistic influences. It has been more than proven regardless of how controversial what levels of socialism into any given system be accepted by mainstream.
The same could/should be said about certain levels of a great many other 'influences'. As a nation we are increasing the levels of diversity and that means we as a United Nation have to be more strategic in dealing with the individuals in which represent the more controversial changes. Not all things may be 'good' in and of themselves but the 'ultimate good' and individual potentials must be understood by the majority rather than a mere select. Otherwise it seems that divisions will only continue to further disconnect 'US' from one another.
This has all been said before, obviously.
That does give it all more sense, for sure.
That does give it all more sense, for sure.
The US military is a prime example of Socialism. So is TARP. And government contracts.
It that be the case then so is:That does give it all more sense, for sure.
The US military is a prime example of Socialism. So is TARP. And government contracts.
Socialism essentially is when all the producers of a product are the owners.
In pure socialism you don't have the right to private property either-society as a whole would decide what resources each person needs on an individual basis-as to what benefits the society the most overall.
There's not a lot of people in the US who really understand what Socialism is-and that includes people who claim they support it, and those who claim they hate it.
If you really want to understand Socialism more-read Marx, Lennon, etc. I have, and while I don't agree with what they were saying were good ideas, it's still interesting to read a little bit about.
Lennon?
You mean Lenin, right?
Here is a list of the 100 largest companies that are owned by the employees. Are they socialist enterprises?Socialism essentially is when all the producers of a product are the owners.
In pure socialism you don't have the right to private property either-society as a whole would decide what resources each person needs on an individual basis-as to what benefits the society the most overall.
There's not a lot of people in the US who really understand what Socialism is-and that includes people who claim they support it, and those who claim they hate it.
If you really want to understand Socialism more-read Marx, Lennon, etc. I have, and while I don't agree with what they were saying were good ideas, it's still interesting to read a little bit about.
Lennon?
You mean Lenin, right?
been listening to The Beatles too much lately.
So... For an individual to be called a 'Socialist', it is not necessarily a bad thing though there are some obvious issues in the interpretation of even the 'most basic' words.
It almost seems to me that any society, any community would benefit from having socialistic influences. It has been more than proven regardless of how controversial what levels of socialism into any given system be accepted by mainstream.
The same could/should be said about certain levels of a great many other 'influences'. As a nation we are increasing the levels of diversity and that means we as a United Nation have to be more strategic in dealing with the individuals in which represent the more controversial changes. Not all things may be 'good' in and of themselves but the 'ultimate good' and individual potentials must be understood by the majority rather than a mere select. Otherwise it seems that divisions will only continue to further disconnect 'US' from one another.
This has all been said before, obviously.
Here is a list of the 100 largest companies that are owned by the employees. Are they socialist enterprises?Lennon?
You mean Lenin, right?
been listening to The Beatles too much lately.
Publix Super Markets
Hy-Vee
Daymon Worldwide
CH2M Hill, Inc.
Lifetouch
Nypro
Houchens Industries
Penmac
WinCo Foods
Parsons
Black & Veatch
Amsted Industries
W.L. Gore & Associates
Graybar Electric
HDR
Alliance Holdings
Burnett Staffing
Davey Tree Expert
Austin Industries
Brookshire Brothers
EmpRes Healthcare
Schreiber Foods
Piggly Wiggly Carolina
Blue Tee
McCarthy Building Company
Tharaldson Motels
EOD Technology
General Growth Management
Columbia Forest Products
Guckenheimer Enterprises
Hanson Pipe & Precast
Sammons Enterprises
HNTB
Herff Jones
Harp's Food Stores
Alion Science and Technology
Lewis Tree Service
Appleton
American Cast Iron Pipe
Terracon
Scheels All Sport
MWH Americas
Miller's Health Systems
KI
Gensler
Food Giant
Bi-Mart
Recology
Hensel-Phelps Construction
KeHe Distributors
S&C Electric
Cianbro
Schweitzer Engineering
Round Table Pizza
Acadian Ambulance
Medicalodges
Reasors
Omaha World Herald
Kleinfelder
Kinney Drugs
TRAX International
Rosendin Electric
CentiMark
Burns & McDonnell Engineering
Abt Associates
The Weitz Company
Weston Solutions
Osmose Holdings, Inc.
John Henry Company
The Sundt Companies.
Ebby Halliday Realtors
STV Group
Bureau of National Affairs Inc.
Roberts Hawaii
Woodman's Food Market
TD Industries
Cooperative Home Care Assocs
Kelly Moore Paint Co.
Dunn-Edwards Paints
Dahls Foods
JASPER Engines & Transmissions
Remke biggs Markets
Pinnacle Builders
MMC
Martin & Bayley
Brown and Caldwell
American Systems Corp.
HDOS Enterprises
Okonite
Barton Malow
Applied Research Associates
Swinerton
Charles Machine Works
Border States Electric
Zandex Health Care
Cobham Analytic Solutions
Riesbeck Food Markets
SecTec
Challenge Manufacturing
Scitor
