So what exactly is Socialism?

Socialism at this point refers to a wide range of political and economic ideas.

The classic framing of the idea is around the idea that the people (instead of the very rich) would own/control the “means of production” in the economy. That is, people’s welfare and democracy over corporations and their political pawns. The basic idea being about how the people in general ought to have most of the political power, not a few very rich people and corporations that own and control everything.

I see it most often used by right-wing Americans in social media or politics trying to invoke Cold War prejudices that insist anything not right-wing capitalist can be associated with wanting to take away freedom and money like Soviet Russians, Communist Chinese, or even Nazis.

So it’s yet another case of complex topics being reduced to binary arguments which polarize and paralyze people into arguing with each other, so that no productive conversation can be had.

I always thought that socialism was sharing and teamwork over the individual.

There are more than 20 different types of socialism. What type are you asking about?

Socialism is a blanket term that can refer to a very wide spectrum of political/economic ideas. For a few examples there’s…

Democratic socialism: which basically refers to a state with strong social safety nets such as welfare. Universal health care is very often one of these safety nets. But these countries have generally capitalist economies. The most prominent example is the “Nordic model”, utilized in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. This, not Soviet-style, is the kind of model that Bernie Sanders advocates for.

Worker cooperatives, where the workers collectively own and operate the business, are another kind of socialist idea put into practice. These businesses can operate on either a for-profit or non-profit basis and and fit just as well as any business within a capitalist economy. By far the most prominent example of a worker cooperative in the world is the Spanish-based Mondragon Corporation.

Socialism could also refer to Soviet-style socialism, in which there is one political party and the state owns and controls the means of production. Relatively few socialists still advocate for Soviet socialism.

There’s also the Israeli kibbutz, in which the community as a whole controls production within that community for the benefit of the entire community. An American example of a similar model is the Amana Colonies, in Iowa. They founded the Amana Corporation, manufacturer of household appliances (although Amana Corporation was long ago sold to private industry and the brand is now owned by Whirlpool).

The main point to take home, with any of the definitions, is that socialism as an ideology always fails. Largely because of human nature.

Some flavors of socialism last longer than others. But they always fail, eventually.

One could say the same for capitalism.

Every conservatives worst nightmare!!

Margaret Thatcher once said that “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

In America, socialism is when you use taxes to pay for things like public education, first responders (firemen, police officers), parks, cemetery upkeep, teachers, city roads and bridges (did I miss anything?) But that doesn’t apply to Americans because we hate socialism.

Anything with the word public in front of it from hospitals to playgrounds, the post office, armed forces -that’s right, the AIR FORCE, your tax dollars at work.

Socialism is a system of economics in which there is collective ownership of the means of production. When the group that collectively owns the means of production is the government, that is state socialism. When there is no state at all and the group that collectively owns the means of production is the people themselves, that is libertarian socialism (aka anarchist socialism).

To understand what socialism is, we should also understand what it is not. Specifically, socialism is not communism. Communism involves the collective ownership of the means of production, but also the elimination of private property, the social class structure, and the state. It is both a system of economics and a system of government. So while all communists are socialists, not all socialists are communists.

It’s a good question, and people above have answered it, and of course you can google it.

I’m my opinion in America the thing to remember is politically the word socialism is going to terrify Republicans and trouble a portion of Independents and Democrats. Sounds like a loser right there, and yet a lot of Democrats think it’s something to brag about.

Part of the reason it is terrifying is because some people conflate it with communism, and communism means the government takes over ownership of businesses and controls your life, and historically makes practicing religion illegal and promotes atheism. That last part is also very important to our religious right in the Republican Party, but I’d say the majority of Americans who are religious or not don’t want the government promoting or forcing any religion or lack thereof.

I think the Democrats need to stop using the word socialism and just fight for the particular social systems we want. This is how we did it for the last 60 years, but now that’s changing. America traditionally is not referred to as a socialist country, and becoming socialist is a huge deal for America. Most people, me included, are wary of socialism going too far. It really sounds great on paper, but has it’s problems. Capitalism also is great, but in its extreme it isn’t good either, it needs to be reeled in through regulation and the power of the people (often dine by labor unions) when it gets out of control.

Leaders like Chavez in Venezuela called himself a socialist (I say he was more like a communist) and that country fairly quickly has gone downhill. He’s no longer president, but the chaos continues. Then there is the example of the Nordic countries that seem to do ok with socialism. Here’s the thing, the Latín American voting block in the US is a big deal, and if they fled Venezuela or Cuba to come to America, or listen to Spanish TV where they hear about these countries on the news, the Latín American examples are way more real to them than Denmark.

I think the Nordic countries have more trust in their government, and American used to feel pride that our government was not corrupt like the “third world” but now in America everyone talks about not trusting politicians and government, and so putting more power and money into the hands of the government sounds illogical.

It’s all very tricky. The thing to remember is there are almost always unintended consequences of significant government policy shifts, so we need to research well, be honest, be aware, and be willing to constantly evaluate and change.

If predictions are right, automation and robotics will be putting a lot of people out of work, and then capitalism might cease to work as well as it has in history, if you agree that the best set up is when we have a large portion of the society living as middle class where people are able to afford all necessities and some extras, and save. This new world of technology and high unemployment is what some people are trying to get ahead of to reduce suffering.

Socialism strives to make sure everyone in the society does have basic needs met, but since we are still a monetary based society, that means the government has to redistribute the money in some way as the wealthy get more wealthy. In Socialism that’s often done through taxation. Other methods of redistributing and controlling wealth are capping profits, raising minimum wages, breaking up monopolies, and there are more.

What I would emphasize most is make sure you are really thinking through all the side effects of the policies that sound good to you, and look to see if the policies address underlying causes of the difficulties in society. An example is healthcare; is the only problem affording the care, or is part of the problem the cost of the care and the fraud and exponential profits in the system?

People on the right really fear state controlled socialism. They’re often fine with it when they do it themselves like with medi-share as an example. The difference is they fear authoritarian control by the state and it’s a valid concern. Proponents of socialism on the left also fear authoritarian control but from what they see as capitalist oligarchs. I fear both to be honest. I think some things need to be handled by gov’t and others need to be liberated from gov’t.

Socialism may fail and may have failed in the past but only because the type that would work hasn’t been devised yet.

“so-cial-ism… (1837) 1: any of a various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done ”
-from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.

@lucillelucillelucille “Margaret Thatcher once said that “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.””

Of course Thatcher’s policies also shredded British social safety nets, crushed worker’s unions and doubled the UK’s poverty rate. So there’s that…

The basic premise of Socialism is that the people own the means of production and share equally in the fruits of their labor. That is the CEO and the Janitor share the same compensation. We’ve heard a lot about the Nordic version of socialism but there is nothing new there other than how much is socialized.

We in the US, have our own version of it right now but not as much has been socialized. The big talking point now is ‘Socialized Medicine’. Frankly a huge portion of our economy. But you see constant references to Housing, food, clothes, etc. How much should be a human right. Each step is a small one but it doesn’t take long to move everything into government control if you do it one step at a time. Should the government control energy? Housing? Farming? Some where between housing and farming, you’ve lost your property rights. With no incentive to work, you’ve lost your innovation. Socialism will destroy the upper income but at what point do you also destroy the middle income? Where’s the tipping point?

Socialism is a sliding scale that will eventually bring poverty to all. That’s how it works.

That’s not ALWAYS how it works. That certainly is NOT how it must work. Now let’s look at how capitalism works for- US HERE. This is the reality. What is described as capitalism in this country is actually nothing of the sort. That creeping socialism that Jaxk describes is the only possible hope for it, and this is why: The truth is that ours is a system where predatory capitalism is shielded through the application of socialist remedies, but ONLY to facilitate the dictum that the rich get richer. This is achieved by privatizing the profits but socializing debt. As the capital and assets concentrate at the top, the bulk of the population finds life increasingly unaffordable. The rich squirrel away the money they should pay in taxes, while the others grow ever less able to keep up and must fall back on the growing social safety net to survive. The scheme is financed through debt. Thus the rich not only get richer through not paying their share, they compound their profits through financing the debt they generate through not paying taxes, then profit on the resulting interest.

Can someone explain Denmark and Venezuela, both have high forms of socialism one is crumbling the other is doing great, it’s citizens doing great and prospering.
When asked here most right wingers go instantly to Venezuela and point out all it’s problems,but totally ignore Denmark and how well it’s doing.

How come it can work in one country and not another?

@SQUEEKY2 Because one turned authoritarian with incompetent leadership. It’s exactly what the right wing fears and it’s not without cause. Exhibit A: Venezuela.

@SQUEEKY2 So if it works in Denmark, a smaller country, how will we make it work on a larger scale?

I guess I get confused when people bring up other countries like “Oh this country has free healthcare and it’s working fine!!!” and it’s like yeah, but they are way smaller than us and another country of a similar size failed.

Venezuela’s government sucked but they also have 31million people compared to Denmarks 5 million.

Is there a population limit in which these things would work or is it only a government issue? Like how the leader runs things?

I don’t know that is why I brought it up.
Maybe it can only work on smaller scales?
Problem with the states is you bring up affordable health care for all classes, and the fright wingers instantly cry that’s full blown communism .
Guess they want poor people to just go and die,
You know the number one cause for bankruptcy in your country is health care debt.
Believe me I don’t want full scale socialism but I don’t think affordable health care for all classes is it.

@ARE_you_kidding_me OK, but what about exhibit B;Denmark?

Hnmmmmm. Could something like this happen on a state to state basis? Gets voted on then implemented? Or no because federal govt.

Affordable health care shouldnt be so controversial… Definitely not full blown socialism like you said.

Probably wouldn’t work on a state to state now that I think about it.

Are people in Denmark actually okay with Socialism? I’m going to do some searching and come back. This is interesting!!!

From videos and things I have seen it’s one of the happiest countries to live in on earth.

^^^ Yep, Was just about to post this Why Danish people are so happy

This article states they pay half their income in taxes, and that they pay up to a 150% on new cars. Despite that, they are still happy.

They consistently rank in the top 3 for the worlds happiest countries.

This link shows each U.S states population. 1–19 on the list have over 6 million.
20–52 (including Puerto Rico and D.C) have less that 5 million.

The total population of the United states is 327 million.
This link Says the average tax percentage for the “1 percent” is 26.27% as of Oct 2019. The rest is 11.4 percent.

Denmark has 5 million people, as stated in my above answer.
This link Says what the other link says, the average person in Denmark pays 45%.

@SQUEEKY2 Denmark did not turn authoritarian. They are also not really “socialist” like Venezuela was moving toward. Denmark is still capitalist with a lot of social programs.

And that is a good thing right^^^?

Denmark suicide rate vs USA
Denmark’s suicide rate is higher than USA
@SQUEEKY2 From videos and things I have seen it’s one of the happiest countries to live in on Earth. Not if you count the suicide rate.

@SQUEEKY2 Do you want the government owning and controlling everything while Trump is at the helm? And, if the Republican Party gains power in Congress do you want them controlling it all? I know Democrats aren’t currently talking about all businesses being taken over by the government, but there is some irony in wanting government to administer and control so much when we don’t like who is in our government. If we have socialized medicine truly run solely by the government will a woman be able to get an abortion with if a pro-life government is in place? Will Roe v Wade matter?

Of course not again all I think is affordable health care shouldn’t be considered all out socialism,the working slob should have some good safety nets .

@Jaxk “The basic premise of Socialism is that the people own the means of production”

This part is correct.

“and share equally in the fruits of their labor. That is the CEO and the Janitor share the same compensation.”

And this part is incorrect. No one actually endorses this sort of radical equality of income. I’m not sure if it’s a widespread misunderstanding of the concept of economic egalitarianism or a deliberate straw man that has been so successfully propagated that most people don’t even realize that it’s a complete fabrication, but it should be obvious that socialism is not premised on this idea considering that the founding slogan of Marxism was “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (which is incompatible with strict equality of income).

“We’ve heard a lot about the Nordic version of socialism”

Technically speaking, we haven’t heard anything about the Nordic version of socialism because the Nordic model is not socialist (as @ARE_you_kidding_me has also pointed out). But it’s true that a lot of so-called socialists like to talk about the Nordic model.

“The big talking point now is ‘Socialized Medicine’.”

Again, false. No major US politician supports socialized medicine (i.e., the government owning the hospitals and employing the health care workers), and it is not a mainstream idea in any major political party. What the Democrats support is universal coverage, and they are divided over whether the best way to achieve this is through a single payer system or a public option.

“But you see constant references to Housing, food, clothes, etc. How much should be a human right. Each step is a small one but it doesn’t take long to move everything into government control if you do it one step at a time. Should the government control energy? Housing? Farming?”

Making something a human right does not necessarily put it under the control of the government—at least not in the sense of state ownership of the means of production. Many human rights are defined in terms of what others—including the government—cannot do. Others are defined in terms of things that the government has a duty to protect or things that it must ensure access to. Only some human rights are conceived of as things that some entity (such as a government) has a duty to actually provide.

And even if one thinks that certain human rights require the government to provide a certain good, it does not necessarily follow that the government has to control the means of production for that good. A universal right to clothing, for example, could be achieved by the government buying everyone clothes from the Gap or giving everyone gift cards that can only be redeemed at clothing stores. Similar arrangements could be made for providing food, energy, or housing if it were decided that everyone had a right not just to access these goods but to have them provided—and all without eliminating private property.

None of this is to say that we ought to adopt any of these measures, of course, and many socialists stop short of endorsing such policies. Indeed, it is entirely possible to be a socialist and believe that what we need is a right to access these goods (however, that access must be substantive and not merely de jure).

“Socialism is a sliding scale that will eventually bring poverty to all. That’s how it works.”

State socialism? For sure. It has an undeniable track record of universal failure. State socialism does not work, will not work, and probably cannot work. On the other hand, there have been and still are successful socialist collectives that operate within non-socialist states (and could conceivably succeed in the absence of the state). There’s a collective in my city that runs a farm, a grocery store, and a bakery. Their products are amazing, membership is entirely voluntary (anyone can leave at any time and take some predetermined proportion of the business and the profits with them), and everyone involved seems happy. Seems entirely unobjectionable to me.

@SaviorFaire

Well said.

@SQUEEKY2 I know not all, I wrote it! My point is the irony. My other point is I’m trying to explain to you partly what republicans worry about and even some Democrats. You know I have always been in favor of socialized medicine—this is going back since the topic first came up on fluther many years ago. I grew up in it in military health, my parents are still in it using both military and veterans (VA) services, and all of us are in favor of socialized medicine. Even my hard right uncle, who is a retired doctor, who for years was against, he finally started using the VA about ten years ago and completely changed his tune, and even he is for socialized medicine now after experiencing it.

I’m just trying to say no system is perfect, the Republicans focus on where the socialized medicine can have some problems, they completely ignore the problems in the current system and the Democrats tend to do the same about socialized medicine and no one gives a shit about hearing each other or discussing the WHOLE truth.

Remember when Trump wanted to dismantle ACA? Democrats talked about it like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread with nothing bad. There’s a bunch of problems with it. More recently, finally, they say it needs to be tweaked, but I have yet to hear them say what I heard Trump say when he was running for president, he basically said the insurance companies and other parts of medical care are thieves. He was right! ACA helps rob the tax payer. I don’t mean we are paying for people who can’t afford it, although that is true, but I’m liberal enough I’m ok with that, I mean we pay too much, because the government funds crazy profits for the insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and corporate hospitals via the ACA.

@JLeslie

The problem with Trump wanting to dismantle the ACA is that he wants to toss the baby out with the bath water. That and the Republicans have yet, after more than a decade, to come up with anything workable to replace it. Their thinking at times seems to be “why don’t sick people just die, then they won’t be sick anymore”.

By all means, replace the ACA if you can, but actually have something to replace it with.

@SavoirFaire super excellent answer wish I could give you a million GA’s for it.
And @Darth_Algar exactly!

@Darth_Algar I completely agree. I’m not defending what Trump wanted to do, but I’m annoyed Democrats made it sound like ACA was wonderful. It has a lot of flaws. You can have a million dollars in the banks and get a huge subsidy from the government for premiums for marketplace insurance.

All sorts of fraud is happening in healthcare whether it’s self pay, insurance, or the government issuing. The Republicans will only talk about the fraud and waste if the government is paying, that’s total bullshit. The Democrats want it to sound like the government will have better controls, I don’t see that so far with ACA. Not in any significant way anyway.

This may not be the official definition, but to me a country is socialist to the extent that tax payer money is used to pay for goods and services. Whether or not the government has outright ownership of an industry does not seem very relevant. By this definition, there are not currently any purely socialist or capitalist countries.

Government funding works best for those things that people collectively benefit from. Everyone benefits from having an educated workforce, so it makes sense to have public funding for education. We also all benefit from having a healthy workforce, so it also makes sense to have the government to kick in money for hospitals and insurance. Similarly, it makes sense for the government to pay for the construction of highways, allowing people to get to work and for goods to be delivered.

@RedDeerGuy1 , I have also seen comments that Nordic countries have high suicide rates. I did a Web search and found this article in Psychology Today that says that this is not true. It does show that Swedish women have a higher rate than American women, although Swedish men have a lower rate than American men. Otherwise, the Scandinavian countries have lower rates than the U.S. for both men and women.

@JLeslie

The ACA isn’t really government healthcare, however. It’s just a different set of regulations over a private industry.

Certainly I don’t think the ACA is that great of a system, but I haven’t seen any Republicans propose anything better, in spite of all their talk.

^^I know it’s not government healthcare, but the government is subsidizing a big portion of it, and like I said the Democrats talk about it like it’s awesome. They talk about more people being insured, but it’s just insured in the same crap system overall and it’s paying super high premiums so insurers get rich. My husband did not want me to buy insurance when we were small business owners the premium was so high. I spent thousands on it. It’s criminal.

Right, but high premiums have been the case long before the ACA. The pro of the ACA is that so many more people are actually able to obtain insurance under it. It’s far from idea, but it is a little better than what we had before.

We can do a lot better than the A.C.A. It still feeds the insurance monsters on the backs of the rate payers and tax payers.

@Darth_Algar High premiums have been a problem a long time, and fake medical charges have been a problem, and all sorts of problem existed before the ACÁ and still do, but I’m telling you that 3 years ago my ACA premium was about $750, 2 years ago $950, and a year ago $1150, and I wasn’t stung much more if I had the same income, the government paid the increases. That’s all bullshit. The government should not be paying those increases to fund huger profits. I looked it up, BCBS made big profits. That was my insurance company through the ACA.

Just like the lie that insurance companies bring costs down for services the government didn’t do it either. It just handed over our tax money, or allowed us to be robbed if we paid the premium. It actually caused higher premiums in my opinion. Since the government forked over our tax money premiums went higher, and then if you wound up stuck paying the whole premium yourself it was worse. That’s what happened to me.

Do you use the ACA? Only accountants and people who earn around $65k AGI or higher and use the ACA really understand. if you earn between $60k and $70k AGI it’s work to try to make sure you don’t make too much money. One penny too much and you’re screwed. Your $500 premium turns into $1150 for the 12 months in back pay. You pay the government back $7800 at tax time in that situation. That’s a lot of money on top of the $6000 you already paid at an income of $70,000. Plus, having paid for any medical care you had throughout the year. That’s a PPO plan I’m talking about with a deductible.

I went to the doctor the other day and they would not tell me the self pay price. Why is that legal? I thought Trump was passing some law for transparency in billing.

@JLeslie

You argue as if I’ve spoken in favor of the ACA. I haven’t.

^^No no. I’m just pointing out the “Democrats” argued for it. Instead of talking about the reality of it.

There’s been a lot said about what socialism is and isn’t. What I think is important to understand is how words and meanings can change over time. Many people in this debate are simply approaching the term “socialism” like it has a single definition, and it doesn’t. History, perspective and biases all shape what we mean when we speak the word.

It is noteworthy that younger people have, for years shown a growing acceptance and desire for “socialism” Much hand wringing is done, but it is rarely asked “what do YOU mean by socialism?” It turns out, that their ideas focus more on issues like universal health care, the environment, education and infrastructure. Can you blame them? Since the “genius” of the Reagan revolution, people have been told that these issues were less important than growth and low taxes, and the situation on the ground has metastasized from neglect. Arguments for things people care about have been shot down for years by both sides as “socialist.” As a new generation tries to assert its political power, a mindset has begun to develop that says if everything I want and everything the people in power hate is “socialist” then I must be too.