Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]
A socialist economic system is based on the organizational precept of production for use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and production for profit.[5] In the traditional conception of a socialist economy, coordination, accounting and valuation would be performed in kind (using physical quantities), a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution of output is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution. The exact methods of resource allocation and valuation are the subject of debate within the broader socialist calculation debate.
In the Marxist theory of historical materialism, it is predicted that further advances in technology and the productive forces will give rise to a more advanced stage of development referred to as communism, a society in which classes and the state are no longer present, and there is access abundance to final goods, and thus distribution is based on to each according to his need.
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, some of which are in opposition. These include reformism and revolutionary socialism; state socialism and libertarian socialism, the former of which calls for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; and the latter of which opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership.[8] Democratic socialism highlights a central role for democratic processes and a democratic political system.
Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. The revival of republicanism in the American Revolution of 1776 and the egalitarian values introduced by the French Revolution of 1789 gave rise to socialism as a distinct political movement. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership.[9] During this time, German philosopher Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels published works criticizing the utopian aspects of contemporary socialist trends and applied a new scientific understanding of socialism as an historically inevitable phase of development which will come about through social revolution to resolve the conflicting class relationships of capitalism.[10]
More, enough to turn your brain into oatmeal even, at the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
IMHO:
Some things are just better done by government without discrimination against any group from a philosophy of what benefits the whole society. And that equality of opportunity will lead to prosperity for all. Division and inequality lead to economic costs that are in the long run not sustainable and threaten peace.
Also, socialist mechanisms such as community owned utilites are more efficient as far as actual work getting done or services provided, as there is no artificial skimming from the mission of providing the goods or services to squeeze out a profit. A corporation is based on a narrow focus of producing profit for the owners, heedless by nature of the effects on consumers, its workers, the community and environment as it was not created for those benefits.
When a necessity such as water or power is run by a city, for example, all efforts go to directly benefit the 'owners' which is the public. Thus it is cheaper and provides the public with more opportunity to start up and run private businesses through that advantage, instead of having the them compete for dollars with the provider of the services.
The opposite of this philosophy is privatization, which lead to a cruel form of economic apartheid, in which those connected to some businesses will make a profit by denying the basics to others. This is our problem now, brought to us by the memes of Nixon and Reagan.
Their mantra was that business will always do a job better and with more efficiency. The question to be asked which media will not ask, is who is profiting from efficiency of the type being espoused, with a profit and loss sheet. The functions of government are not to make money for the few, but to equal the field and increase the good for all citizens. A corporation is not evil, it is just not designed for that. The vaunted efficiencies of conservatives lead to social oppression and chaos, which also benefits some business.
Taxes are part of the floor of the system of a service or goods, but a fair and efficient utility pays for itself by increasing economic growth. In all cases it is a partnership of the private (individual) operating with the public (state) for mutual gain. And its shareholders are the citizens who get an input into what they want that utility to do. If they want green energy to produce their power then they say so. If they want to help those who are poor with their utility bill, they can contribute. They make long term plans to prevent economic disruption from known hazards as the benefit is for people.
A corporation goes against that every day, as it's not about giving a benefit to any of the people paying except the investors and owners, and every other social or ecological consequence is ignored.
Best I can do, gotta run.
= new reply since forum marked as read
