BLOG. Please post your blog contribution between 5 pm Friday, April 15 and 5 pm Saturday, April 16.
Blog.
Describe your understanding of Socialism and your opinion of it.
Then, Wikipedia “Socialism,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) and read the first five paragraphs (ending with the Table of Contents). Create a question about Socialism to which you would like an answer.
Use as many (or as few) words as you want.
[15] From my understanding, socialism is a political theory intertwined with an economic system (as are most modern political theories). It favors the middle class and advocates for economic equality among the masses within a state, thus rejecting a hierarchy or powerful upper/rich class. Because finance and land ownership has a direct reflection on political and social status, regulating wealth and the market is the most attainable way of achieving true equality. Socialism advocates for a strong government, one that has control of the states’ economic system. By implementing regulations and restricting wealth accumulation, a socialist economy keeps the wealth in circulation. Without such regulations wealth has a tendency of ‘bottle necking’, allowing the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer, thus eliminating or at least minimizing the middle class. Like Aristotle, I believe that a strong middle class is imperative for a nation to prosper. As a result I am in favor of some socialistic views. I believe that it is the governments’ responsibility to protect its people and provide the means to allow prosperity among the masses. That being said, like many Americans I am leery of putting too much power into the hands of a few. While some regulation is necessary for the middle class to prosper, too much regulation can be restricting and have its own negative consequences. Is there a modern society/country that has found the fine line between regulating without infringing?
ReplyDelete[19]: My understanding of socialism thus far has been skewed by the fact that it has been over stigmatized with relation to communism. I understand that socialism, on paper, is a desirable means to control the economic assets of a large population while promoting equality amongst the economic classes of a country. But for me the danger lies in the fact that: although people think socialism could work and that they themselves wish to play more of a role in how economic assets are controlled, who is to say whether or not the average citizen is qualified enough to make these kinds of decisions? Many people in a nation do not have the first clue as to how an economy should be run, let alone what the best decision is with regards to economic control.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading wikipedia: What would the United States economic policy be after making a socialistic reform, or is it even possible for a country with as much global economic power as the U.S. to make the change to a socialistic economy successfully?
[17] Socialism means common ownership. In my opinion, Socialism is an economic system that shares public ownership with the rest of the world in things such as major industries, bank and insurance companies, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. Socialism spreads the capital of the country to the community as a whole. To my understanding, if our country would turn to Socialism, that would mean that all people would be financially equal in some or all respects depending on how far they went with that matter. I completely disagree with this idea. If people are willing to work hard for their money, they should be punished by having to give their money away. In America, we have the freedom to be able to succeed, and the idea of Socialism takes the whole point of succeeding away. Also, this would mean that the government would have much more control than they do now. I do not feel this would be a good thing because as Americans, there would be less room for our voices to be heard.
ReplyDelete- If America would turn to Socialism, would we still have the right to vote or would the government take control of who would be president? Also, how much are the people’s voice heard in a Socialist system?
[7] Through prior knowledge and collaboration with the information on the website I believe socialism is much more complex then I once assumed. I perceive it to be a dynamic approach at economic and political control. The main heartbeat in the system seems to be the redistribution of wealth and goods in an economy. That is to say that there is a belief of common ownership for the resources attained or offered, and with those resources there generally is a common goal of production for profit, while individual income is allocated upon the merit of the individual. Also along with a centralized resource pool there is a centralized authoritative level, in which all members are on the same level and the hierarchical systems of democracy are done away with and autonomy and self rule are pervasive throughout the social structure, which leads to minimal dissension. Due to the lack of authority and redistribution of wealth I do not believe that socialism would be a sufficient form of government. I also believe that due to the lack of motivation to excel or better one’s self. Additionally I believe that it is necessary for order and authority to be implemented to sustain peace, but in socialism generally such peace is attained through force.
ReplyDeleteWhy would socialism want to place every person on the same level and support common ownership opposed to individual, and what is the benefit?
(I will be out of town at 5pm so i needed to post my assignment before hand.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[3]My understanding of socialism encompasses the ideas of public equality and limited bureaucratic power. Socialism is a government system appealing to the working or poor classes in a society. From the literature I have read thus far in my education, I have found socialism to arise in countries or territories where the distribution of wealth is uneven and the working conditions are extremely undesirable. I also understand socialism to be supported by the working class who are angry at their governments for supporting the elite, and demeaning the poor. My question about socialism that I would like answered is “Where is the balance of fair wealth distribution and the freedom to make as much or as little money desired?” In other words, many would agree that laws should be established to ensure proper wealth distribution, but shouldn’t people also have the freedom to work as hard as they want for the reward of more income? I believe that the wealth distribution should be ‘fair’ by all means, but not necessarily ‘equal’. So, where is the correct balance that would allow for both fairness and opportunity?
ReplyDelete[21] To be honest, I know little about Socialism. I have never learned about it or have been introduced to it in any way; therefore, I know very little about the topic. The only bit of information I was aware of consisted of the economy. To my knowledge, items produced are made to be used because an overabundance of goods does not exist. In other terms, items are only produced if there is a guarantee they will be utilized. Also, the workers are ultimately in charge of what is done. It is a type of government that the people have the freedom to control the production and distribution in an economy. Due to the fact that individuals are not in control, wealth is allocated as evenly as possible to all of the people. Hence, a single person is not in power of all the wealth.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Wikipedia, a question became clear to me. Since production is in direct correlation to what will be utilized, what happens if an item is needed and there were not enough produced? How would a person plan for how much of one item is needed?
[4]My understanding of socialism is twofold, the first thoughts I have are of a centrally planned economy directed by the state that owns the model. And then I always think of a commune style living arrangement where everyone is self sustaining and sharing with each other equally-leaving the capitalist lifestyle behind.
ReplyDeleteI read that support for socialism today has grown since the financial crisis of 2007-2010, that adults under 30 are almost evenly divided with their preference between socialism (33%) and capitalism (37%) and 30% are undecided. Do you think this is due to confusing socialism with a form of regulated capitalism and as they age how will this viewpoint affect our political parties and their decisions?
[11]My understanding of socialism is common ownership. The aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist and give them to the workers. It is very normal for a socialist to want common ownership. What I was getting from it was that if there was common ownership competition would be replaced by support, eliminating conflict and war. And because no one person or group would own the means of producing wealth, everyone would stand equal to the powers of production. There would be no employers and employed, and therefore, no classes. So, should the people control the means of production more than a government? Would this be beneficial in the long run?
ReplyDelete[23] My very basic understanding of Socialism is that the government owns everything. Every aspect of life spanning from business to healthcare, has the officials looming in the background overseeing every action. A business for example cannot be run by private ownership, it has to partially belong to the state, as well as part of the profits. This also means that there is no private property where a Socialist government reigns. It states in many of the articles I found that it is most often a transitional stage between capitalism and communisms. I understand it involves a centrally planned economy, which means that the production and distribution of goods is strictly regulated by the government as well as being planned in advance by the government officials. I do not have great feelings towards this way of life. Living in a country where we have our freedoms and the opportunity to make decisions for ourselves, I feel like socialism is the total opposite. I realize that it may create more opportunities for the working class, but I also feel that it is a little too close to communism for comfort. It makes me nervous thinking about taking away so much power from the people themselves and putting it in the hands of a unit such as government, which has always had a reputation of being corrupt. My question about this topic is this: Is it possible to have a society that practices Socialism without it eventually evolving into Communism?
ReplyDelete[12] I don't know much about socialism other than it has a common ownership over resources and production. I confuse the idea of communism and socialism with each other as I have never really had them compared to each other before and I have the common misconception that when I hear "socialism" it means "communism".
ReplyDeleteIn the last paragraph it has Chinese communist government instituted market socialism. Since I don't really understand the differences between communism and socialism, how exactly does that work?
In my understanding, Socialism is a political ideology that is based on the idea of creating a socio-economic system that allows the community to distribute wealth. There would be little to no separation between social classes, which would have a huge negative impact in my opinion on the health of the economy mentally. As much as I would love to just have money handed to me if I were poor, I take great pride in my accomplishments, accomplishments that can only be measured and rewarded by comparing them to those of the accomplishments other classes. If we were all equal financially, there would be no motivation for one to better themselves, educate themselves, work harder, etc. etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteMy question is:
Based on the negative history of socialism, why would anyone ever support the idea?
[10] If I understand the definition correctly, to me socialism seems to be about everyone is equal. That there are no social classes and there are no leaders, that all should have an equal say and contribution. In reading the definition it almost gives to me a sense that nothing should be based on money, but ones overall physical or mental contribution put forth. It seems to want to strive for more unity for everyone, in a sense that you get what you put forth. Could socialism end distinction of socioeconomic classes?
ReplyDeleteBasically socialism is a way of making complete equality for all people. It is a way of everyone having the same things, the same wealth, in a sense - restricting the upper/lower social classes. By eliminating the different social classes, it allow for another class to become apparent and viewed as the best way of eliminating a sense of entitlement between people. Although it seems like an easy task to complete, it would require an extremely strong government that can monitor all of things that would create an equal society. The government would have to make sure that nobody has more than the other. As a citizen of the United States, I would look at socialism as a way of eliminating individuality in favor of the government. By regulating wealth and having control of a society for solely the benefit that it has towards equality - it restricts people from a true freedom. As a society, we have freedom of speech, and by eliminating our government for a Socialist one - it would complicate everything.
ReplyDeleteIf the United States were to be the government of choice in the United States, would it restrict us more than ever? With all of the differences, would a society like ours be able to make it through such reforms?
Heather Remaley said Socialism is a diverse form of government that most commonly advocates public ownership. it also allocates equal allocation of resources among all. Beneath that general umbrella of Socialism there are many different philosophies. The first one is reformism which relates to general democratic change instead of complete public ownership. The second is revolutionary socialism that promotes change through revolution. The newer types of Socialism are state socialism and nationalism. State socialism has limited socialist traits. It is not as public but more state owned. Nationalisation takes industry owned by public and is now owned by the state.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese system as well as the Communist system have been inspired by the Socialist footprint.
Please provide an example of when nationalization has occurred.
[8]To be completely honest, I knew very little about Socialism before doing this blog assignment. I am sure I have learned about it in previous classes, but I just couldn't remember any specific impact that it made on me, if it even did. From reading the page on Socialism on Wikipedia, I took from it that Socialism is something that tries to make people equal in some way. Although equality can be a good thing when it comes to eliminating social classes, I think it would take away from who we are as a people. Having different social classes makes us who we are and I know I would not be happy knowing that Socialism took away from having that as something that makes every one unique.
ReplyDeleteWould you rather be under the control of Socialism than have different Social Classes?
[5] From what I understand, Socialism is everyone of a society getting paid the same amount of money whether they are doctors or construction workers. Socialism, I believe wipes out classes and in so doing wipes out competition for a society to try to become something because you know you will be paid the same as the next person, despite differing education levels and skills. For this reason, I do not like Socialism. I feel it is plain and doesn’t give individualism, but rather conforms you into a people rather then a person.
ReplyDeleteCould Socialism work in the United States of America?
My understanding of socialism is quite vague. For the most part, I understand that socialism makes everyone equal, to the point where everyone shares and takes part in one thing, rather than anyone being more advanced or more on top of another. I also know that the foundations of the socialist movement began whenever the Industrial Revolution was first taking form. I, as others have mentioned, have a hard time distinguishing the difference between socialism and communism, except in the fact that communism usually leads to more violence or sadistic rulers than socialism does. I feel like the general public is kept in the dark about exactly what socialism is, and it leads to confusion when socialism is being studied.
ReplyDeleteMy question is why socialism gains such a stigma for being so terrible. My understanding is that equality is what is most important, and it should help people benefit from their state and government.
[18] socialism, from my understanding of the system, is based in equality. The policies are implicated to establish a fair system of production, and an equal distribution of wealth. Everyone is taught to work towards a greater good for the nation, and every job is regarded as important. I think that socialism is an ideal form of government which is extremely difficult to execute correctly because it requires complete national unity. I would much prefer to live in a democracy because I wouldn't want to nation to control every aspect of my life. I like having options of healthcare and privatize industry.
ReplyDeleteMy question about socialism is is it possible to run a nation truly under socialist rule? Or does true socialism not exist?