What is socialism?

[Violet]

It seems I've been taking myself to be a socialist for granted... the last two political alignment quizzes I took told me I was a libertarian. Is there something wrong with me, am I thinking libertarians are something they aren't, are socialists something other than what I think?

Tell me what you think defines socialism, and a resident socialist might well not be a socialist any longer 0.o Not that I want you anti-socialists to color your responses because of that last line

Edit: maybe i'm just sleepy or my brain can't run in english after such a russian scouring (Isvinietya, oo mnya odeen voprose. Kak po rooskee walk?)... but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism isn't doing anything for my poor aching brain ^_^

[ib.me.ub]

I would be very surprised if anyone could be aligned to any one specific category. Peoples beliefs are broad, and there are many topics.

[Rev. Rye]

Fundamentally, the way I have tended to understand socialism is that if you believe that people should at least try to maintain their equality, and that if you believe that the means of production should be given to those who actually work, and if you fundamentally believe that we really should give the people power, and not just in a token "vote every other year between two or three people whose ideologies may be either unsatisfying (like in America), indistinguishable (like in Britain), or both," way, you are a socialist.

[Violet]

I don't believe in equality, but fairness. And we really should give people non-miliitary power (and the "right" to weapons). I believe that the best hands should recieve the tools.

More important than all these though, is that nobody starves or thirsts, and everyone has at least shelter.

[Autumnlicious]

I don't believe in equality, but fairness. And we really should give people non-miliitary power (and the "right" to weapons). I believe that the best hands should recieve the tools.

In all my time dealing with people in the working world, I think this is positively the absolute worst thing you could do - give power to the verifiably moronic twits who'd vote for the likes of Sarah Palin et al.

You'd probably still support the Iranian Revolution, where people were given the power to choose their "democratic" government. They chose a theocratic route and we see how they've oh so done very well in the competitive, modern world.

Never forget that freedom entails the right to make the wrong choice. And people make the wrong choice all the time.

Are you prepared to deal with the inevitable fall out and possible suicidal/ideological/puritanical purges of a culture given power to their more unintelligent masses?

Democracy is a sword that cuts both ways, for good or ill. One needs to merely look at democracy in the Middle East and see what a deeply conflicted people think they desire and what they actually want.

It's not pretty.

More important than all these though, is that nobody starves or thirsts, and everyone has at least shelter.

What if a large band of people need to raid an individual of their property to feed everyone? Would they not be a form of government, control over at least some of us?

Who triumphs, the will of the individual or the will of the masses?

[fr0d0]

that nobody starves or thirsts, and everyone has at least shelter.

^^ This ...is all I* think socialism is about. (*me, myself, I)

[bozo]

Dictionary definition ( Chambers ):-
" the theory, principle, or scheme of social organisation which places means of production and distribution in the hands of the community "....as opposed to capitalism, which is defined as:-

" the condition of possessing capital; the economic system which generates and gives power to capitalists "

Me Socialist.

[Minimalist]

" the condition of possessing capital; the economic system which generates and gives power to capitalists "

And we've seen only too well what those cocksuckers do with it!

[Violet]

In all my time dealing with people in the working world, I think this is positively the absolute worst thing you could do - give power to the verifiably moronic twits who'd vote for the likes of Sarah Palin et al.

You'd probably still support the Iranian Revolution, where people were given the power to choose their "democratic" government. They chose a theocratic route and we see how they've oh so done very well in the competitive, modern world.

Never forget that freedom entails the right to make the wrong choice. And people make the wrong choice all the time.

Are you prepared to deal with the inevitable fall out and possible suicidal/ideological/puritanical purges of a culture given power to their more unintelligent masses?

Democracy is a sword that cuts both ways, for good or ill. One needs to merely look at democracy in the Middle East and see what a deeply conflicted people think they desire and what they actually want.

It's not pretty.

I don't disagree... it's why they most certainly should have no power (in any way) over the military.

I didn't mean to suggest a democracy when I said that... infact the people *electing* their officials into government is really quite stupid. I'd rather have people compete for a high priority connection to the government's ear.

What if a large band of people need to raid an individual of their property to feed everyone? Would they not be a form of government, control over at least some of us?

Who triumphs, the will of the individual or the will of the masses?

If a large band of people need to raid an individual's property just so that everyone can eat: there is a serious problem with the system, and I agree with the masses that need food.

[Ashendant]

Apparently i'm a social liberal