CDZ What is socialism?

[Tommy Tainant]

Fair based on experience of what capitalism has delivered to my community. In the main that is fuck all. The owners kept the wealth and the workers did the work. Capitalism in its purest form did nothing for the working class.

 

[sakinago]

Fair based on experience of what capitalism has delivered to my community. In the main that is fuck all. The owners kept the wealth and the workers did the work. Capitalism in its purest form did nothing for the working class.

When have we ever seen capitalism in it's purist form? Is there a difference between capitalism and cronyism ?

And so you believe fair based on outcomes?

 

[320 Years of History]

When have we ever seen capitalism in it's purist form? Is there a difference between capitalism and cronyism ?

And so you believe fair based on outcomes?

Red:
There are quite a few years from which one can choose. Prior the Gilded Age's early excesses and injustices , laissez faire capitalism had a free hand, and capitalists pursued profits with impunity -- controlling markets, exploiting workers, and just generally holding everyone and anyone they could under their thumb, profits serving as both the means and the end of their doing so.

• The 2nd Industrial Revolution, the Gilded Age, Laissez-Faire Capitalism & Social Darwinism
  
• The Dark Side of the Gilded Age

It's true that governments regulated businesses prior to the Gilded Age, but much of that regulation was more "window dressing" and/or the result of one or a few big firms obtaining offical nihil obstat and imprimatur from the government against a competitor than were they acts to constrain businesses' (and their owners') efforts to impose their will on, well, everything and anything they wanted to. It wasn't until between 1876 and 1890 that we saw the imposition of substantive regulatory constraints on the hand of capitalism.

• 1876 -- Munn v. Illinois -- SCOTUS determines that states can regulate private interests if doing so avails the public good.
• 1886 -- Wabash -- Declared that it was unconstitutional for states to regulate interstate commerce. Showed need for Federal regulation of interstate commerce.
• 1877 -- Interstate Commerce Commission -- Congress grants the federal and state governments express authority to regulate commerce.
• 1890 -- Sherman Antitrust Act -- Prohibits monopolies

Those are just a few examples. Obviously there are more. The point I'm making is that regardless of whether there ever was an era of 100% laissez faire capitalism, there does not need to have been one, for we can see the consequences of unbridled capitalism's by looking at times when the reigns on it were extant but but marginally so.

Blue:
Of course there is. One may often find the two in unison, but they certainly can exist apart. Consider the USSR or the PRC. Surely you don't think their political leaders rejected cronyism as a means for building and solidifying their authority? Yes, one can implement cronyism in selecting a firm's board members, but it can also be implemented to shore up one's political power.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Fair based on experience of what capitalism has delivered to my community. In the main that is fuck all. The owners kept the wealth and the workers did the work. Capitalism in its purest form did nothing for the working class.

When have we ever seen capitalism in it's purist form? Is there a difference between capitalism and cronyism ?

And so you believe fair based on outcomes?

Martin Shkreli is pure capitalism. The drug is his,he owns it so he can charge what he wants for it.
The free market is a jungle.
Its not about baking a better cake than your rival baker.
Its about using the profits from that cake to undercut his prices and drive him out of business. Then you can put your prices up and really screw the customer.
Its about buying out your rival baker and closing down his operation whilst keeping his route to the market.
Capitalism is not about competition , its about killing the competition.
The little guy needs his government to protect him from the excesses of the market.

The problem today is that, in the main, our politicians are bought and paid for by the corporations and our governments are fundamentally corrupt at local and national level. That is the UK experience anyway.

I cant think of any purely communist states in the current era.

 

[sakinago]

When have we ever seen capitalism in it's purist form? Is there a difference between capitalism and cronyism ?

And so you believe fair based on outcomes?

Red:
There are quite a few years from which one can choose. Prior the Gilded Age's early excesses and injustices , laissez faire capitalism had a free hand, and capitalists pursued profits with impunity -- controlling markets, exploiting workers, and just generally holding everyone and anyone they could under their thumb, profits serving as both the means and the end of their doing so.

• The 2nd Industrial Revolution, the Gilded Age, Laissez-Faire Capitalism & Social Darwinism
  
• The Dark Side of the Gilded Age

It's true that governments regulated businesses prior to the Gilded Age, but much of that regulation was more "window dressing" and/or the result of one or a few big firms obtaining offical nihil obstat and imprimatur from the government against a competitor than were they acts to constrain businesses' (and their owners') efforts to impose their will on, well, everything and anything they wanted to. It wasn't until between 1876 and 1890 that we saw the imposition of substantive regulatory constraints on the hand of capitalism.

• 1876 -- Munn v. Illinois -- SCOTUS determines that states can regulate private interests if doing so avails the public good.
• 1886 -- Wabash -- Declared that it was unconstitutional for states to regulate interstate commerce. Showed need for Federal regulation of interstate commerce.
• 1877 -- Interstate Commerce Commission -- Congress grants the federal and state governments express authority to regulate commerce.
• 1890 -- Sherman Antitrust Act -- Prohibits monopolies

Those are just a few examples. Obviously there are more. The point I'm making is that regardless of whether there ever was an era of 100% laissez faire capitalism, there does not need to have been one, for we can see the consequences of unbridled capitalism's by looking at times when the reigns on it were extant but but marginally so.

Blue:
Of course there is. One may often find the two in unison, but they certainly can exist apart. Consider the USSR or the PRC. Surely you don't think their political leaders rejected cronyism as a means for building and solidifying their authority? Yes, one can implement cronyism in selecting a firm's board members, but it can also be implemented to shore up one's political power.

Again not calling for unbridled capitalism. The guilded age was wrought with cronyism. And you can point out all the bad you want when looking at our transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, there was a lot of bad in hind sight, don't get me wrong. But there was a lot of good. Especially when considering we were transitioning from agrarian, where you and your entire family (kids as soon as able) worked from dawn to dusk, 6 days a week farming. Farms then slowly shifted to factory jobs (for a reason, bc there was money to be made), where you worked dusk till dawn, 6 days a week. Let's not forget that there wasn't much of a middle class until capitalism came into the picture. Not only did it bring a larger middle class but it brought affordable luxuries from the upper class to the middle class. In other words it raised the standard of living. There are so many tangible and intangible positives that the industrial era brought, and the proof is in the population explosion around the world and the increase standard of living for the majority of people.

If you want more socialism in this country like there is in Europe, ok, but you have to take in account the standard of living. Most in Europe are living in 900 sq ft apartments. As a worker your giving on average 2.5 days pay to the government (obviously depending on the country, some less, some more). At the end of the month, w near half your paycheck gone, you can only afford so much (which is why you rent a 900 sq ft apartment). I love my single family, 1.6 k sq ft, 200 year old farmhouse on 1.1 acres. As a nurse, the only reason I can comfortably afford to OWN that and all the repairs it needs (in the north east mind you), is thanks to capitalism, and the constant competition it brings.

If you want to look to country to learn lessons from...China is probably the last one to look at. Not only are they on the verge of collapse, their standard of living is chicken sh*t compared to ours. China is the prime example of modern day slavery. One country to look up too however, a country we're largely based off of, is probably the longest standing government in existence, consistently has the highest standard of living, overall citizen happiness, highest education scores, extremely safe place, and tops probably any other category you can think of... Is Switzerland. They've obviously been doing something right over there, and have kept it up for the past 500 years. All thanks to William Tell shooting the apple off his sons head, and no thanks to socialism since comparatively they are the least socialistic Western European country. You'll probably try to attribute their success on them holding everybody's gold...but we have held the oil backed USD standard of currency for some time, and we're not doing too hot. And also I should point out, not everyone in Switzerland is a rich banker, so to say it's because they charge everyone for holding their gold, isn't the total truth.

 

[320 Years of History]

When have we ever seen capitalism in it's purist form? Is there a difference between capitalism and cronyism ?

And so you believe fair based on outcomes?

Red:
There are quite a few years from which one can choose. Prior the Gilded Age's early excesses and injustices , laissez faire capitalism had a free hand, and capitalists pursued profits with impunity -- controlling markets, exploiting workers, and just generally holding everyone and anyone they could under their thumb, profits serving as both the means and the end of their doing so.

• The 2nd Industrial Revolution, the Gilded Age, Laissez-Faire Capitalism & Social Darwinism
  
• The Dark Side of the Gilded Age

It's true that governments regulated businesses prior to the Gilded Age, but much of that regulation was more "window dressing" and/or the result of one or a few big firms obtaining offical nihil obstat and imprimatur from the government against a competitor than were they acts to constrain businesses' (and their owners') efforts to impose their will on, well, everything and anything they wanted to. It wasn't until between 1876 and 1890 that we saw the imposition of substantive regulatory constraints on the hand of capitalism.

• 1876 -- Munn v. Illinois -- SCOTUS determines that states can regulate private interests if doing so avails the public good.
• 1886 -- Wabash -- Declared that it was unconstitutional for states to regulate interstate commerce. Showed need for Federal regulation of interstate commerce.
• 1877 -- Interstate Commerce Commission -- Congress grants the federal and state governments express authority to regulate commerce.
• 1890 -- Sherman Antitrust Act -- Prohibits monopolies

Those are just a few examples. Obviously there are more. The point I'm making is that regardless of whether there ever was an era of 100% laissez faire capitalism, there does not need to have been one, for we can see the consequences of unbridled capitalism's by looking at times when the reigns on it were extant but but marginally so.

Blue:
Of course there is. One may often find the two in unison, but they certainly can exist apart. Consider the USSR or the PRC. Surely you don't think their political leaders rejected cronyism as a means for building and solidifying their authority? Yes, one can implement cronyism in selecting a firm's board members, but it can also be implemented to shore up one's political power.

Again not calling for unbridled capitalism. The guilded age was wrought with cronyism. And you can point out all the bad you want when looking at our transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, there was a lot of bad in hind sight, don't get me wrong. But there was a lot of good. Especially when considering we were transitioning from agrarian, where you and your entire family (kids as soon as able) worked from dawn to dusk, 6 days a week farming. Farms then slowly shifted to factory jobs (for a reason, bc there was money to be made), where you worked dusk till dawn, 6 days a week. Let's not forget that there wasn't much of a middle class until capitalism came into the picture. Not only did it bring a larger middle class but it brought affordable luxuries from the upper class to the middle class. In other words it raised the standard of living. There are so many tangible and intangible positives that the industrial era brought, and the proof is in the population explosion around the world and the increase standard of living for the majority of people.

If you want more socialism in this country like there is in Europe, ok, but you have to take in account the standard of living. Most in Europe are living in 900 sq ft apartments. As a worker your giving on average 2.5 days pay to the government (obviously depending on the country, some less, some more). At the end of the month, w near half your paycheck gone, you can only afford so much (which is why you rent a 900 sq ft apartment). I love my single family, 1.6 k sq ft, 200 year old farmhouse on 1.1 acres. As a nurse, the only reason I can comfortably afford to OWN that and all the repairs it needs (in the north east mind you), is thanks to capitalism, and the constant competition it brings.

If you want to look to country to learn lessons from...China is probably the last one to look at. Not only are they on the verge of collapse, their standard of living is chicken sh*t compared to ours. China is the prime example of modern day slavery. One country to look up too however, a country we're largely based off of, is probably the longest standing government in existence, consistently has the highest standard of living, overall citizen happiness, highest education scores, extremely safe place, and tops probably any other category you can think of... Is Switzerland. They've obviously been doing something right over there, and have kept it up for the past 500 years. All thanks to William Tell shooting the apple off his sons head, and no thanks to socialism since competitively they are the least socialistic Eastern European country. You'll probably try to attribute their success on them holding everybody's gold...but we have held the oil backed USD standard of currency for some time, and we're not doing too hot. And also I should point out, not everyone in Switzerland is a rich banker, so to say it's because they charge everyone for holding their gold, isn't the total truth.

Pressed for time just now, but I'll get back to you.

Red:
I think the Chinese have many very useful lessons that the rest of the world could learn from. It's worth noting that in saying that, I mean "the Chinese" as a culture that has learned how to manage human interaction -- politics -- over the course or 5000 years. I don't specifically mean the current and specific policies they've implemented for doing so in the modern era. Hypocrisy, greed, etc. are not things to which Chinese people are any less vulnerable than are non-Chinese.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

When have we ever seen capitalism in it's purist form? Is there a difference between capitalism and cronyism ?

And so you believe fair based on outcomes?

Red:
There are quite a few years from which one can choose. Prior the Gilded Age's early excesses and injustices , laissez faire capitalism had a free hand, and capitalists pursued profits with impunity -- controlling markets, exploiting workers, and just generally holding everyone and anyone they could under their thumb, profits serving as both the means and the end of their doing so.

• The 2nd Industrial Revolution, the Gilded Age, Laissez-Faire Capitalism & Social Darwinism
  
• The Dark Side of the Gilded Age

It's true that governments regulated businesses prior to the Gilded Age, but much of that regulation was more "window dressing" and/or the result of one or a few big firms obtaining offical nihil obstat and imprimatur from the government against a competitor than were they acts to constrain businesses' (and their owners') efforts to impose their will on, well, everything and anything they wanted to. It wasn't until between 1876 and 1890 that we saw the imposition of substantive regulatory constraints on the hand of capitalism.

• 1876 -- Munn v. Illinois -- SCOTUS determines that states can regulate private interests if doing so avails the public good.
• 1886 -- Wabash -- Declared that it was unconstitutional for states to regulate interstate commerce. Showed need for Federal regulation of interstate commerce.
• 1877 -- Interstate Commerce Commission -- Congress grants the federal and state governments express authority to regulate commerce.
• 1890 -- Sherman Antitrust Act -- Prohibits monopolies

Those are just a few examples. Obviously there are more. The point I'm making is that regardless of whether there ever was an era of 100% laissez faire capitalism, there does not need to have been one, for we can see the consequences of unbridled capitalism's by looking at times when the reigns on it were extant but but marginally so.

Blue:
Of course there is. One may often find the two in unison, but they certainly can exist apart. Consider the USSR or the PRC. Surely you don't think their political leaders rejected cronyism as a means for building and solidifying their authority? Yes, one can implement cronyism in selecting a firm's board members, but it can also be implemented to shore up one's political power.

Again not calling for unbridled capitalism. The guilded age was wrought with cronyism. And you can point out all the bad you want when looking at our transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, there was a lot of bad in hind sight, don't get me wrong. But there was a lot of good. Especially when considering we were transitioning from agrarian, where you and your entire family (kids as soon as able) worked from dawn to dusk, 6 days a week farming. Farms then slowly shifted to factory jobs (for a reason, bc there was money to be made), where you worked dusk till dawn, 6 days a week. Let's not forget that there wasn't much of a middle class until capitalism came into the picture. Not only did it bring a larger middle class but it brought affordable luxuries from the upper class to the middle class. In other words it raised the standard of living. There are so many tangible and intangible positives that the industrial era brought, and the proof is in the population explosion around the world and the increase standard of living for the majority of people.

If you want more socialism in this country like there is in Europe, ok, but you have to take in account the standard of living. Most in Europe are living in 900 sq ft apartments. As a worker your giving on average 2.5 days pay to the government (obviously depending on the country, some less, some more). At the end of the month, w near half your paycheck gone, you can only afford so much (which is why you rent a 900 sq ft apartment). I love my single family, 1.6 k sq ft, 200 year old farmhouse on 1.1 acres. As a nurse, the only reason I can comfortably afford to OWN that and all the repairs it needs (in the north east mind you), is thanks to capitalism, and the constant competition it brings.

If you want to look to country to learn lessons from...China is probably the last one to look at. Not only are they on the verge of collapse, their standard of living is chicken sh*t compared to ours. China is the prime example of modern day slavery. One country to look up too however, a country we're largely based off of, is probably the longest standing government in existence, consistently has the highest standard of living, overall citizen happiness, highest education scores, extremely safe place, and tops probably any other category you can think of... Is Switzerland. They've obviously been doing something right over there, and have kept it up for the past 500 years. All thanks to William Tell shooting the apple off his sons head, and no thanks to socialism since comparatively they are the least socialistic Western European country. You'll probably try to attribute their success on them holding everybody's gold...but we have held the oil backed USD standard of currency for some time, and we're not doing too hot. And also I should point out, not everyone in Switzerland is a rich banker, so to say it's because they charge everyone for holding their gold, isn't the total truth.

This is a strange take on the development of society.

Houses in Europe are smaller as a rule because there is less land. It has nothing to do with socialism. As America filled up you just headed west and killed a few more of the locals.
In Europe the majority of land ownership was held by Princes and other trash who operated a feudal society.We had nowhere to move to.

Socialism helped many to move out of this state as Unions helped people fight for better pay and conditions.

Pensions,health,education and housing were all fought for against strong opposition from the capitalists who told us we could not afford a decent standard of living.

There would still be infants going up chimneys if capitalism was not checked.

 

[saveliberty]

Martin Shkreli is pure capitalism. The drug is his,he owns it so he can charge what he wants for it.
The free market is a jungle.
Its not about baking a better cake than your rival baker.
Its about using the profits from that cake to undercut his prices and drive him out of business. Then you can put your prices up and really screw the customer.
Its about buying out your rival baker and closing down his operation whilst keeping his route to the market.
Capitalism is not about competition , its about killing the competition.
The little guy needs his government to protect him from the excesses of the market.

The problem today is that, in the main, our politicians are bought and paid for by the corporations and our governments are fundamentally corrupt at local and national level. That is the UK experience anyway.

I cant think of any purely communist states in the current era.

It certainly maybe about baking a better cake, product improvement happens frequently, why do you ignore a plain fact?

It may be about a better process, which can be bought with profits. It may be to under cut prices, the poor consumer suffers terribly huh? Do you actually think about these insane answers for just shoot from the hip?

Of course when you rise prices you can encourage new competition correct? You conveniently left out that part. Rather dishonest in my opinion.

Consolidation is also a possibility, but why would a profitable baker sell? Perhaps he cannot compete? The new owner assumes risks with an unfamiliar customer, capitalism rewards that risk.

Capitalism encourages competition, at times a competitor loses or fails. That happens because he/she is too costly or inferior in product or has some other shortcoming. Maybe government made an unfair competitive situation. The government does not care about the little guy, many many instances where that was a complete failure. It seems you fear competition and hide behind the veil of others in authority. That is clearly evident to me.

 

[saveliberty]

I understand the lure of socialism. You have to put out minimal effort to gain basic goods and services. You have protection under the authority of others. As a scared rabbit you can trade opportunity for safety. It helps you feel more intelligent, because real measurements of success are removed. Participation yields rewards. As a weak member of society you appear strong. That is why under capitalism you are a low wage earner, unskilled and powerless.

 

[Holos]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Agree.

Whatever we do and whatever we call it, all people have the same needs; therefore, as needs are progressively and equally met for all people (that is, needs of one people cannot be maintained satisfied if all other people do not also have the same needs met in equal maintained satisfaction) the many become increasingly more political over the few. In other words, the political organization expands from a few capable politics practicing citizens to many capable practicing citizens. Politics cannot be efficiently practiced by people in need, so people who have already needs met (and that can be either few or many) have to satisfy the same needs they already have satisfied for themselves to other needing people (either few or many) if they are to continue being provided with.

I don't think those words you used to describe socialism are few. I think those words are many and need (a few or many) more words to make it into an actual efficient brief description of socialism. Anyway, I think I did a pretty good job in extracting your brisk file compression. Any feedback is welcome.

I could also disagree if you had provided a more detailed and perhaps also more accurate description. But you know how it goes when the word is mentioned and not much is said about it...you go with it, recognize what was unsaid about it and then say it in the same brief way the first mention was made. Sometimes the mentioning is so brief there is really no way of replying with what was unsaid and at the same averaging lenght of the first debriefing attempt, so it may also come back unsaid. Just a few thoughts still on socialism.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Martin Shkreli is pure capitalism. The drug is his,he owns it so he can charge what he wants for it.
The free market is a jungle.
Its not about baking a better cake than your rival baker.
Its about using the profits from that cake to undercut his prices and drive him out of business. Then you can put your prices up and really screw the customer.
Its about buying out your rival baker and closing down his operation whilst keeping his route to the market.
Capitalism is not about competition , its about killing the competition.
The little guy needs his government to protect him from the excesses of the market.

The problem today is that, in the main, our politicians are bought and paid for by the corporations and our governments are fundamentally corrupt at local and national level. That is the UK experience anyway.

I cant think of any purely communist states in the current era.

It certainly maybe about baking a better cake, product improvement happens frequently, why do you ignore a plain fact?

It may be about a better process, which can be bought with profits. It may be to under cut prices, the poor consumer suffers terribly huh? Do you actually think about these insane answers for just shoot from the hip?

Of course when you rise prices you can encourage new competition correct? You conveniently left out that part. Rather dishonest in my opinion.

Consolidation is also a possibility, but why would a profitable baker sell? Perhaps he cannot compete? The new owner assumes risks with an unfamiliar customer, capitalism rewards that risk.

Capitalism encourages competition, at times a competitor loses or fails. That happens because he/she is too costly or inferior in product or has some other shortcoming. Maybe government made an unfair competitive situation. The government does not care about the little guy, many many instances where that was a complete failure. It seems you fear competition and hide behind the veil of others in authority. That is clearly evident to me.

What you describe is an idealised vision of what capitalism should be. Unfortunately the greed factor always leads to Shkreli.

Its the logical outcome of the free market.

Capitalism without restraint is the jungle and people need to be protected from its excesses.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I understand the lure of socialism. You have to put out minimal effort to gain basic goods and services. You have protection under the authority of others. As a scared rabbit you can trade opportunity for safety. It helps you feel more intelligent, because real measurements of success are removed. Participation yields rewards. As a weak member of society you appear strong. That is why under capitalism you are a low wage earner, unskilled and powerless.

I dont understand any of this. Are you saying that people dont have to work as hard under socialism as they do under capitalism ?

 

[Militants]

Think socialism are democracy or are little bit of communism ....

 

[pestilentz]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

 

[saveliberty]

I understand the lure of socialism. You have to put out minimal effort to gain basic goods and services. You have protection under the authority of others. As a scared rabbit you can trade opportunity for safety. It helps you feel more intelligent, because real measurements of success are removed. Participation yields rewards. As a weak member of society you appear strong. That is why under capitalism you are a low wage earner, unskilled and powerless.

I dont understand any of this. Are you saying that people dont have to work as hard under socialism as they do under capitalism ?

It is quite straightforward. Maybe break it down sentence by sentence and think about it?

 

[saveliberty]

What you describe is an idealised vision of what capitalism should be. Unfortunately the greed factor always leads to Shkreli.

Its the logical outcome of the free market.

Capitalism without restraint is the jungle and people need to be protected from its excesses.

No, I described capitalism as it exists today. I understand you have to ignore that in order for socialism to make more sense. Capitalism is restrained, so it begs the question why are you pursuing MORE controls?

 

[DonaldFG]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I absolutely agree with you, given that government (however organized) must function to help provide the needs of the many. However, no person's needs should be ignored - ever. So, government should function for everyone, and some need more help than others because we are not all equal in ability. There is strength in numbers though. When everyone does well, we all do better as a whole.

 

[saveliberty]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I absolutely agree with you, given that government (however organized) must function to help provide the needs of the many. However, no person's needs should be ignored - ever. So, government should function for everyone, and some need more help than others because we are not all equal in ability. There is strength in numbers though. When everyone does well, we all do better as a whole.

You cannot run a government that is all things to all people ever. No government can ever deliver a system that does well for all. Socialism is the power of nations in decline.

 

[Flopper]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

View attachment 66988

Socialism needs to be balance by capitalism. Without free markets, and the freedom to attain economic success, there can be no incentive to succeed. Without that incentive, working harder to produce more, taking risks to bring new products to market, and pursuing impossible dreams aren't going to happen.

We need to keep the forces of capitalism and socialism balanced.

 

[DonaldFG]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

No, socialism is where the means of production, distribution and exchange are held in common cause, usually through the agency of the state.

Actually, we can define socialism in other ways - yes, it really is up to us. My definition of socialism is a society organized along with its government to work for the common good. That organization can be whatever works to our collective satisfaction. Old definitions don't satisfy today's needs. And I have to say, it historically didn't back then either.