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.
Socialism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
I majored in Economics so I know what they said is correct.;Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
You may be correct, at least from a historical perspective.
However, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source / authority on anything.
Have you ever tried to join and edit / improve an article?
I have.
If you dare disagree with the bias / philosophy of the editors there, your edits will be quickly removed.
I majored in Economics so I know what they said is correct.;Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
You may be correct, at least from a historical perspective.
However, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source / authority on anything.
Have you ever tried to join and edit / improve an article?
I have.
If you dare disagree with the bias / philosophy of the editors there, your edits will be quickly removed.
Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
Group ownership of the means of distribution. Social Security and Medicare both fit under that.
It's control over distribution of resources.
"true socialism" has never existed, because it can't exist, because Socialism sucks.
Even in the USSR, a lot of people don't know that roughly 10% of the farms in the Soviet system, were actually private, for-profit farms. And ironically that tiny fraction of the farms, produced 1/3rd of all the food in the entire Soviet system... an outcome fully expected by free-market capitalists that know how badly socialism fails.
We also do in fact, understand that nearly all economies are mixed economies, that have free-market capitalist parts, and socialized parts.
This has to be true, because with zero socialism entirely, you would have a limited form of government, restricted to only defending the country, and enforcing the rule of law.
No government is like that these days.
Further, we knot it is true, because if it was entirely socialized, the country would cease to exist, because socialism has never worked in all human history, and has destroyed every country that has ever tried it.
What we on the right-wing understand, is that socialism always fails. How much it fails is only dependent on how much it is implemented.
Throughout our entire economy... list all the areas that have major systemic problems, and I will give you an identical list of areas where government has taken control of, or put in place restrictions to the free-market capitalist system.
Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
Group ownership of the means of distribution. Social Security and Medicare both fit under that.
It's control over distribution of resources.
"true socialism" has never existed, because it can't exist, because Socialism sucks.
Even in the USSR, a lot of people don't know that roughly 10% of the farms in the Soviet system, were actually private, for-profit farms. And ironically that tiny fraction of the farms, produced 1/3rd of all the food in the entire Soviet system... an outcome fully expected by free-market capitalists that know how badly socialism fails.
We also do in fact, understand that nearly all economies are mixed economies, that have free-market capitalist parts, and socialized parts.
This has to be true, because with zero socialism entirely, you would have a limited form of government, restricted to only defending the country, and enforcing the rule of law.
No government is like that these days.
Further, we knot it is true, because if it was entirely socialized, the country would cease to exist, because socialism has never worked in all human history, and has destroyed every country that has ever tried it.
What we on the right-wing understand, is that socialism always fails. How much it fails is only dependent on how much it is implemented.
Throughout our entire economy... list all the areas that have major systemic problems, and I will give you an identical list of areas where government has taken control of, or put in place restrictions to the free-market capitalist system.
I don't see any evidence to support you claims. They are absurd.
We sometimes have to get more specific and quibble a bit more. Government is socialism. For comparison and contrast, anarcho-Capitalism has no Government only free market arbitrage; it also doesn't exist since the fall of Mogadishu.Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
They would make great right wingers here with that modus operandi.Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
You may be correct, at least from a historical perspective.
However, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source / authority on anything.
Have you ever tried to join and edit / improve an article?
I have.
If you dare disagree with the bias / philosophy of the editors there, your edits will be quickly removed.
The dictionary definition is political jargon. I took political science.I majored in Economics so I know what they said is correct.;Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
You may be correct, at least from a historical perspective.
However, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source / authority on anything.
Have you ever tried to join and edit / improve an article?
I have.
If you dare disagree with the bias / philosophy of the editors there, your edits will be quickly removed.
They should have had their version of a War on Poverty.Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
Group ownership of the means of distribution. Social Security and Medicare both fit under that.
It's control over distribution of resources.
"true socialism" has never existed, because it can't exist, because Socialism sucks.
Even in the USSR, a lot of people don't know that roughly 10% of the farms in the Soviet system, were actually private, for-profit farms. And ironically that tiny fraction of the farms, produced 1/3rd of all the food in the entire Soviet system... an outcome fully expected by free-market capitalists that know how badly socialism fails.
We also do in fact, understand that nearly all economies are mixed economies, that have free-market capitalist parts, and socialized parts.
This has to be true, because with zero socialism entirely, you would have a limited form of government, restricted to only defending the country, and enforcing the rule of law.
No government is like that these days.
Further, we knot it is true, because if it was entirely socialized, the country would cease to exist, because socialism has never worked in all human history, and has destroyed every country that has ever tried it.
What we on the right-wing understand, is that socialism always fails. How much it fails is only dependent on how much it is implemented.
Throughout our entire economy... list all the areas that have major systemic problems, and I will give you an identical list of areas where government has taken control of, or put in place restrictions to the free-market capitalist system.
Right wingers usually have no valid arguments only Hoax and expected to taken seriously as if they were Right simply because they are on the right wing.Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
Group ownership of the means of distribution. Social Security and Medicare both fit under that.
It's control over distribution of resources.
"true socialism" has never existed, because it can't exist, because Socialism sucks.
Even in the USSR, a lot of people don't know that roughly 10% of the farms in the Soviet system, were actually private, for-profit farms. And ironically that tiny fraction of the farms, produced 1/3rd of all the food in the entire Soviet system... an outcome fully expected by free-market capitalists that know how badly socialism fails.
We also do in fact, understand that nearly all economies are mixed economies, that have free-market capitalist parts, and socialized parts.
This has to be true, because with zero socialism entirely, you would have a limited form of government, restricted to only defending the country, and enforcing the rule of law.
No government is like that these days.
Further, we knot it is true, because if it was entirely socialized, the country would cease to exist, because socialism has never worked in all human history, and has destroyed every country that has ever tried it.
What we on the right-wing understand, is that socialism always fails. How much it fails is only dependent on how much it is implemented.
Throughout our entire economy... list all the areas that have major systemic problems, and I will give you an identical list of areas where government has taken control of, or put in place restrictions to the free-market capitalist system.
I don't see any evidence to support you claims. They are absurd.
The US under the Articles also failed with that limited Government and free market capitalism.Socialism - Wikipedia
The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.
Group ownership of the means of distribution. Social Security and Medicare both fit under that.
It's control over distribution of resources.
"true socialism" has never existed, because it can't exist, because Socialism sucks.
Even in the USSR, a lot of people don't know that roughly 10% of the farms in the Soviet system, were actually private, for-profit farms. And ironically that tiny fraction of the farms, produced 1/3rd of all the food in the entire Soviet system... an outcome fully expected by free-market capitalists that know how badly socialism fails.
We also do in fact, understand that nearly all economies are mixed economies, that have free-market capitalist parts, and socialized parts.
This has to be true, because with zero socialism entirely, you would have a limited form of government, restricted to only defending the country, and enforcing the rule of law.
No government is like that these days.
Further, we knot it is true, because if it was entirely socialized, the country would cease to exist, because socialism has never worked in all human history, and has destroyed every country that has ever tried it.
What we on the right-wing understand, is that socialism always fails. How much it fails is only dependent on how much it is implemented.
Throughout our entire economy... list all the areas that have major systemic problems, and I will give you an identical list of areas where government has taken control of, or put in place restrictions to the free-market capitalist system.
I don't see any evidence to support you claims. They are absurd.
Which claim would you like evidence of? All of them?
Group ownership of the means of distribution, is in your own link. Are you suggesting that Social Security does not distribute wealth? Then what is that tax I pay, and why are people getting money from the government?
Are you saying Socialism hasn't failed in every country that has tried to adopt it wide spread? Then why is North Korea poor, and South Korea rich? Why are people paying thousands to help people escape from the North, to the South? Why did East Berlin have to build a wall... not to keep West Berliners out, but to keep East Berliners in?
Be more specific, which claims do you have a problem with?
Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.
Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.
I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it percieved in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.
Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.
Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.
