You believe in a society where wealth and resources are distributed equitably among all citizens, ensuring everyone's basic needs are met and reducing economic disparities.
Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for the collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It emphasizes the principle that wealth and income should be shared more equally among the people. Socialists argue that the distribution of wealth and power in a society should be controlled by the whole community rather than by individuals or private corporations.
The roots of socialism as a political ideology can be traced back to the French Revolution in the late 18th century, but it was not until the 19th century…
Read moreThese active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Winston Churchill was an *** and don't even get me started on the long list of faults capitalism still holds.
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
Winston Churchill was one of the greatest men who ever lived! He saved not only his nation and Empire but also the Christian Civilisation! I have read Andrew Robert's 1100-page biography of him and clearly this man was not the deranged racist you leftists love to paint him as. He had indomitable courage, unshakable conviction, and dogged tenacity. His magnetic leadership skills, inspiration of his people, and oratorical brilliant have scare been paralleled in human history! He led Britain through the horrors of the Blitz, stood equally firm against the two evil socialist dictators of Hit… Read more
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
I was also referring to Churchill as a person, not in the war effort.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Did you SERIOUSLY just call Hitler a socialist? Honestly, it’s insulting you put him in the same category. He was a fascist, which is an inherently far-right ideology. He was a social conservative, and openly described his revolution as both Christian at heart, and anti-capitalist. Not pro-socialist, anti-capitalist. What he got was Corporatism, a crooked and destructive form of capitalism that lies on the spectrum of fascism. Please, continue arguing about Hitler, I’d love to educate.
@GloopdevIndependent8mos8MO
National Socialism is an ideology which wishes for the nation to sieze the means of production rather than the proletariat. The underlying concept in which one must gain control over production is shared between nazis and socialists. Some classical Fascists believed that a fascist revolution is actually a socialist revolution because they believed certain societies to be proletarian in nature. Regardless, your characterization of corporatism is very volatile, why? What is so evil about corporatism and fascism as a whole that makes you so enraged against it? Lastly, National socialism is not the same as fascism, there are foundational differences regarding the nature of the state and the nation which puts them in different categories.
@@1876-Elbert3mos3MO
You'll find that many terrible people have called themselves 'Christians' Look at the crusades!
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican3 days3D
facism is authoritarian, not necessarily right
@B2NZQXK3wks3W
He was a huge believer in big government—the opposite of conservatism.
@9RYWTRQ7mos7MO
Winston churchill was not the righteous virtuos man you think him to be no matter how well he didfighting the axis in world war two nothing can excuse his advocation for chemical weapon use in afghanistan on the khurdish people as well as the engineered famine in bengal that caused the deaths of 4 million bengali people, he may have done good things but nothing excuse mass death and the advocation of chemical weapons.
@@1876-Elbert3mos3MO
Don't tell me you actually believe in that entire 'true socialism has never been tried!' nonsense. Yes, it has. It works for one generation and one generation only.
@9RYWTRQ7mos7MO
you cant just quote someone who said something wrong and then act like you said the right thing because someone else said it, socialism does not donote shared misery and this quote is hogwash.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Should people who can't or don't want to work receive the same benefits as those who contribute to society?
@9HFMWP21yr1Y
No, People who are more willing to work with their community and to make more efficient communities should have help instead of the people who don't help whats so ever.
@9HCNSNP1yr1Y
No, Because the people who do work and contribute the society work hard for that and the ones who do nothing to help shouldn't get anything because they are waste of space that this country doesn't need.
@9H4QSGS1yr1Y
No if they are disabled then yes but if they don't want to then they are not a useful part of society
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
If all your basic needs were met by the government, what would motivate you to work or achieve?
@9H4Z8DD1yr1Y
Under a Socialist government the workers have no need to improve or develop anything better besides for personal enjoyment, thus leaving the nation cripplingly bankrupt for ideas. Nothing would ever get better and their would be no motivation.
@CommonManAmerican Solidarity 5mos5MO
Socialism basically means socialization of the means of production. In other words, workers become owners of their means of production. (Unlike Marxism-Leninism, a distorted form of bureaucracy, this is real socialism.) In this society, workers are the owners of their companies, so they will have a sense of ownership and work more creatively than before, when they were simply salaried workers.
@9H4Z6VH1yr1Y
If my basic needs were met, my motivation for doing work is because I want to work and have have my needs fulfilled, so working would be easier to handle.
@9H4YYKVIndependence1yr1Y
free healthcare for once and student loans being forgiven
@9H4YQGX1yr1Y
Getting my family food and water, giving them a nice house, being able to make people happy would help motivate me.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Can you envision a society where people work solely for communal benefit and not personal gain?
@9HJ68741yr1Y
Yes, but only to some degree. I only believe that wealthy companies should be taxed in order to prevent them from monopolizing certain businesses.
@9HJ6CJP1yr1Y
No, I think people will be selfish and find ways to help themselves over other people.
@9HJ6M6T1yr1Y
I think that there is no way there could be a society focused on communal benefit because people are self absorbed.
@9HJ64GF1yr1Y
I think people should work for personal gain and not communal benefit because then people will stop working
@ISIDEWITH11mos11MO
If the guarantee of financial security was universal, how might that shape your relationships with others?
@9LCDCZGLibertarian11mos11MO
I wouldn't feel like others were only around me because of my financial situation
@9LFKWTR11mos11MO
People would feel more equal to the people around them, and it would make some feel less pitied. It would also make some people more humble.
@9LFB46T11mos11MO
I feel it would reduce the sort of wealth bubbles where people don't experience different walks of life that are throughout the U.S.
It could make relationships more pure as everyone is technically on the same social standing.
@9LCDBQT11mos11MO
I feel like it could be a positive thing, get okay with other countries but if one side doesn't agree with a trade it could go wrong
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Should healthcare, education, and basic necessities be free for everyone, and why do you think so?
yes because everybody gets injured no matter your circumstances making it a neccecity
@9H36NHX1yr1Y
Only education and basic necessities should be free for everyone, they will still have to pay for healthcare
@9H3LGZT1yr1Y
Absolutely not It makes a country poor and causes starvation and serfdom.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
100% because these things are literally the most basic and foundational needs for a healthy and fulfilling society.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How would the education system change if the job market did not value certain degrees over others financially?
@9HVGBDJ1yr1Y
Incomes would be more fair and skewed toward education and experience, not chosen field.
@9HW56ZZ1yr1Y
It would be more inclusive so people do what they want to do instead of what they need to do.
@9HVG5Q21yr1Y
We would be closer financially but the amount of work would not be the same
@GloopdevIndependent8mos8MO
Liberal arts would be respected and academia would be intelligent
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
If you were sure of a comfortable life without wealth, what dreams would you pursue?
Repealing the BS laws that created such a horrible society as you described.
@The-UtilitarianSocialist 3mos3MO
Becoming a writer or artist. If i had grander dreams I'd want to go into the sciences to help develop space travel
@9HJKXXL1yr1Y
working for apple computers , work for the boston celtics, work for the kennedy center.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How do you perceive the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility in a society that prioritizes equal distribution of wealth?
@9H3J8DF1yr1Y
Individual freedom outweighs social responsability, because we cannot rely on a blind trust upon completely different communities, with different values to uphold their end of the bargain
@9H3J65D1yr1Y
I don’t like socialism at all. I believe in individualism, free markets and respect to the private property
@9H3JB7R1yr1Y
Businesses have the right to keep the earning of their hard work. If one businesses does most of the hard work compared to other businesses, then why should they be forced to share their earnings.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
"Equal distribution of wealth" means the shared democratic ownership over our own means of production, which is already the most equal combo of individual freedom and social responsibility.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Not to mention that it’s not a reduction, but an expansion of democracy, the very ideal that so many Americans love.
Democracy is BS
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
For all practical considerations, we are a democracy. A republic is a FORM of democracy, with a constitution attached to state the rights and powers of people. Unitary Executive Theory was only really interpreted to a go so far, the way it’s going to be under Trump’s administration is a MAXIMALIST interpretation. You claim to love talking about Natural Rights, and the Enumerated Powers, yet support a candidate who would try to remove 2 Enlightenment ideals in the same term: Separation of Powers, Separation of Church and State
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Should individual success be limited or taxed heavily to support those who have less, creating a more balanced society?
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
The issue is that capitalists' success is not their own to begin with. Capitalists unjustly steal the fruits of other people's (the workers) labor for their own personal gain, so eliminating this exploitative practice would be correcting an injustice
Without the capitalists, the workers wouldn't be employed at all, they'd be languishing in some forsaken slum without an income. Take away the profits of the rich, and the rich can't create employment for your beloved "workers" any more. Both suffer.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
That’s why the workers should rule the companies the rich employ them with, since the bigger businesses never cease to fail to provide the pay and resources the workers need. Every penny of excess wealth used to continue the process of this employment that pays poorly is stealing of the highest order, and that’s why the workers must run it, so the stealing disappears and the workers can choose how best to work things.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution8mos8MO
Don't tell me you still believe in the long-disproven labor theory of value. Surely you can't be serious.
I believe that there should be some equality but each individual has different unique abilities to succeed.
Socialists typically single out certain moral political valuess
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How would you prioritize your time and energy if all jobs had the same societal value and compensation?
Organising a revolt against the regime of legal plunder that made possible such a nightmare
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
But if it worked, if the government remained in the hands of the people and it was OUR apparatus, where poverty actually decreased, would you revolt then?
Yes, revolt against any government that directly taxes its citizens for whatever reason is justified because it's immoral legalised plunder.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
The government is literally the creator and manager of the market that gave you the money in the first place. You never had a full legal or moral right to pre-taxes income, because you did not create that, that was the reward from the market, the market created by the government, which can not exist without the government either. Anarcho-capitalism literally doesn’t exist, not at a national level such as this, it is merely a reduced government pseudo-laissez faire system, which we have PROVEN doesn’t work, hence the industrial revolution’s atrocities and lack of fair treatme… Read more
@9HXHXMR1yr1Y
I would be happy and very impressed because I think all people should work just as hard as everyone else and get the same paycheck dependent on hours
@9HXK7MB1yr1Y
This question shows a misunderstanding of what socialism is.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How do you define 'hard work' if the outcomes, like salary or status, were the same for everyone?
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
That’s more of a communism type of thing rather than socialism. Status and wealth difference exists, but it’s massive disparities shouldn’t.
Communism = an anarchist, stateless, classless society with no private property where (in theory) all the worlds problems disappear, the sun is always shining, and we gather in a field with rainbows and puppies to hold hands and sing koom-bye-yaa. Has never happened in world history.
Socialism = A vast regulatory state that progressively taxes income and redistributes wealth, yielding enormous powers over life, liberty, and property, with minimal freedom for businesses and individuals to run their own lives. Has happened, with deadly consequences, to dozens of countries, resulting in mass starvation, slave-labour work camps known as gulags, and the extermination of one hundred million souls under Stalin.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Bit of an exaggerated view of Communism, but mostly, yes. Socialism also isn’t inherently meant to be a heavily governmental system either, it can be as that’s one of the easier ways to get things done (every government that actually tries it fails because they lacked the funds and regulation BY THE PEOPLE to make it work). The liberty of business also isn’t necessarily gone either, but the product is shared among the workers and the actually sold goods go to the people rather than just one person. It’s the workers running themselves without a big man with a tux taking 99% of the profits. The whole system of socialism isn’t even inherently authoritarian. History even shows that most socialists of the past were actually some of the staunchest advocates for democracy.
@9HVGJ7V1yr1Y
What I define as hard work is to keep working even when you don't have motivation.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Would hobbies and passions become more or less important if they were not seen as potential income sources?
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Would you support a guaranteed basic income if it meant limiting the possibility of becoming extremely wealthy?
No, because if you work for it then you deserve wealth.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Extremely wealthy is the phrase used. You can still be semi-upper class, but no billionaires, no yachts the size of a football field, and no buying up neighborhoods.
Throughout history those luxury products that only the mega-rich have had have gradually come down to the middle class. For example, in colonial days, at the dawn of the free market in America, houses were on averaged 200 square foot blocks of logs with no windows. Now having a 1500 sq foot house with windows, air-conditioning, heating, and two cars is considered pretty normal for middle class Americans. What was once a luxury reserved for the rich has become normal. That's what happens in a truly free market.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
And I’m not against a market, I just think it needs regulation and a move away from capitalism. I think that in order to fix the problems in this system, we need to move away from it and towards one where our Democratic-republic is expanded into both government and business, not by dictatorial control of business, but by individual businesses electing their leaders and working on collaborating with themselves rather than being managed and manipulated into submission. I think that the extremely wealthy (those upwards of about 10 million dollars) need higher taxation, and that the reward… Read more
@9HGP3FK1yr1Y
Yes, I am a socialist myself so this is generally a net positive, so long as it is economically viable.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Would the concept of ‘celebrity’ change if society valued contribution over wealth, and how?
@9J6F6R41yr1Y
Yeah, it would be more widely acceptable and manageable to show how they can change the world towards a good goal.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Celebrities wouldn’t be rich pansies, but people that provide to the world, like famous scientists or good people.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution8mos8MO
I thought you didn't believe in miracles
@9J6FG7F1yr1Y
I think more everyday people would be considered celebrities due to the context of their work instead of how well they entertained people.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
How would you justify a professional athlete and a teacher earning substantially different salaries?
@9H3VYWX1yr1Y
Teachers should be paid more if not the same because they do a lot more than professional athletes
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
@9H46SBW1yr1Y
I think a teacher deserves more because they are working their butts of to provide for their family
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.