Its one of those ideas that sounds good on paper and doesn't work in real life. It really hasn't worked anywhere and in many instances, it led to genocide. Why? Because it gives too much power to the leaders and too little to the people. In any system that gives too much power to the leaders, corruption is inevitable. It is just human nature. It isn't just the Soviet Union, it is Cuba and China and Cambodia and Greece and scores of other countries where it has been tried. The law may say that you have certain rights, but when you depend on the government for you food, shelter and clothing, then petty bureaucrats have the power of life and death over you. There is no real recourse under the law. They can force you to jump through any hoop with the threat of starvation dangling over your head and there is no "opt out clause." You can't tell them you'll go and work for someone else because there is no one else. You either do what they say, or they take something vital away from you, like your job, your home, school for you and your child, your food, or whatever else they can think of. It also puts unknowledgable bureaucrats in positions where they are totally out of their depths, and therefore things don't run efficiently. The person running the farm is not a farmer, he is a friend of the bureaucrat in charge of farming. He may never have been on a farm before, and so the farm produces poorly. The person in charge of the factory may be a farmer who is friends with the person in charge of factories, and so the factory produces poorly. You don't have the option to just fire them or vote them out. The individual freedoms in a capitalist system means that you always have the right to opt out and quit your job and try your chances elsewhere. It may not be better there, but you have the option to try. Your employer also has the option to fire you if you don't produce or you aren't honest. There are checks and balances at every level which make it uncomfortable to keep doing the wrong thing. Companies that treat their employees poorly and have a lot of turnover do eventually learn that their business is only as good as their employees, although sometimes only as they go bankrupt.

It goes back to the McCarthy era when Americans were brain washed into believing that Communism was evil, a bad word and the all around Boogie Man with which to control the masses much like Ossama bin Ladden and terrorism are today. In theory, Communism is the perfect political/social system but then again so is Capitalism. The realities, however, are the same in both situations, the people are brain washed into believing how wonderful and perfect it is while the ruling class robs, rapes and ridicules them. If you visit a Communist country, the word Capitalism has the same identical effect there as Communism does here. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of power-hungry eliticists pushing whatever agenda is convenient to them at the time on the rest of the suckers they wish to control and oppress. Nothing more, nothing less

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the ideas behind Socialism, as it is all about equality for everyone, social justice (where the dispossed and needy are supported and helped), and enpowerment of the working classes (which inevitable make up the vast majority of any country). Almost everyone, with any glimmer of humanity within them, can see how unfair a system is that relies purely on the pursuit of profits and lack of support for those that need it. Even within America (the great supposed model for pure capitalism and the place where Socialism is most hated as an idea), many "Socialist" ideas are adopted in order to help the poor and needy. Without policies of this kind, that give help to those that need it and give hope to the poorer members of society that they won't be simply left to fend for themselves and starve to death or die from lack of healthcare while others live in confort and security, then there is bound, at some point, to be a popular uprising of those who feel the need to "take back" the fruits of their labour from those that don't deserve it so much, yet treat everyone else with such comtempt. (No, this is not me making a call to revolution for anyone, merely pointing out that when the vast majority in any country starts to feel completely neglected and misued while a small minority flaunt their wealth over them at the same time, then it is practically inevitable that majority will start to feel the desire to forcibly take that wealth for themselves). So, most "Capitalist" countries DO take on some socialist policies for their own survival (to stop the "poor" from uprising and taking it by force). The point is that an extreme of either (or any other for that matter) political system is bad for any country and the sensible politician, that truly cares for the good of the country and for the people within it, takes the good parts from each system and removes the bad parts from each. The reason that I left the US, after living there for a number of years and being married to an American woman, is because I could not stand the policy of leaving peopel to die of illness simply because they could not afford to pay for medical treatment. I feel that EVERY country in the world should implement a form of social welfare, especially social medical care (similar to the British NHS, but NOT identical, as the NHS has it's problems itself, so, once again, take the bast parts of every sytem and develop a fairer and better form of National Health Service that gives the best medial care to EVERYONE, regardless of persoanl wealth, without many of the problems that the British NHS faces). I also feel that the all countries should develop a system of social elfare in terms of continuing to look after its poor, unemployed and ill, indefinately, for its own good. I also believe that every country should provide free education to all its citizens, AT AN EQUAL LEVEL to all (no having better educational advantages because you can afford it, but for everyone to be given the very best education available, no matter of their financial situation). And that this free education should be at EVERY level, from elemetary level, all the way up to Doctorate level, because the better educated the population, the better able they are to provide a better society for everyone. (Also, not just an emphasis on any one area of study, such as business, Economics, or areas that would be of benefit to businesses, as the political right would prefer, but in ALL areas of study, as the arts, literature, philosophy, music, and all those other areas of study that the political right deem to be a waste of time and money, all contribute to the society as a whole to make it more rounded and cultured). Think about it selfishly for a moment? Imagine how many people are lost due to being too poor, or too ill, or died early due to being too poor to afford medical treatment, that may have realy made great contributions to your society and possibly improved the lives of everyone, just by the policy of not letting anyone be "thrown away" just because of poverty or illness. The political right will always complain about and oppose these types of policies, where the "lazy" are taken care of and looked after, due to the costs involved and how they shouldn't be expected to sacrifice their own money in order to support those that don't deserve it, but if you are ever to truly be able to claim to be a country of true democracy, where everyone is equal and free then you MUST demonstrate this by allowing everyone within that country the basic right to a decent standard of life, no matter how poor, ill, "lazy", addicted, or any other reason. From those very people that the right wing would ignore and choose to disposses of basic human rights could easily come great advances that could make life better for everyone.

Seeing as there appears to be some confusion as to the differing definitions of political terms, here are the dictionary definitons of three of the main political schools of thought: Capitalism cap·i·tal·ism (kp-tl-zm) n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. capitalism Noun an economic system based on the private ownership of industry capitalism a system of economics under which ownership of and investment in the means of production and distribution depends chiefly upon corporations and private individuals. — capitalist, n. — capitalistic, adj. See also: Economics a theory or system in which property and investment in busines; are owned and controlled by individuals directly or through ownership of shares in companies. Cf. communism. — capitalist, n., adj. — capitalistic, adj. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capitalism Socialism so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm) n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. socialism Noun a political and economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state socialist nadj socialism 1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism. 2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory. 3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj. See also: Politics a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism Communism com·mu·nism (kmy-nzm) n. 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communism a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. [French communisme, from commun, common, from Old French, from Latin commnis; see commune2.] communism Noun the belief that private ownership should be abolished and all work and property should be shared by the community [French communisme] communist nadj Communism Noun 1. a political movement based upon the writings of Karl Marx that advocates communism 2. the political and social system established in countries with a ruling Communist Party Communist nadj http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communism I hope that this clears up the continued confusion as to what each political school of thought is and what it stands for. I feel that I MUST point out that these definitions come from an American site giving normal dictionary definitions, rather than the Dictionary of Political terms that I wanted to find in order to give a more unbiased definiton.

A lot of political systems are hated that look good on paper. It's just that once certain elements come into play, mainly greed and corruption, these systems tend to turn into something that's not so bright and cheery. I've asked a question before on this site and pretty much got a resounding 'no' answer, although it's been a while since I checked the answers out. The question had to do with the willingness of people in the US to give up 60% of their income in taxes to fund a universal health care system, free college education system etc...much in the way that they have done in Denmark. Greed stepped in and told me 'no'. Besides that, once USAer's start hearing about the word democracy being challanged and possibly not being the system we would be using anymore, they tend to get defensive and jump down others throats. Mind you, I'm not saying democracy is any better of a system...corruption and greed have also played a large part in ruining this system.

who says it did nt work,china is the richest country in the world

It requires excessive meddling in people's lives by the almighty state. Nice idea, but people who value freedom are always gonna have issues with it.

'Socialism' as it is currently used in our current political dialog is a nearly meaningless word, with essentially no connection to its actual definition. In effect, 'socialism' has become a catch-all phrase for 'bad things', however the speaker chooses to define them. Perhaps we should revise Goodwin's Law... . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law . ...to include 'socialism' as one of the 'you lose' words...:-D...

Because no matter how hard you work you make very little money, just barely enough for living. People are not motivated to work hard. And if people don't work hard and well it results in poor quality of all the products. At least it was when we lived there, 28 years ago. I lived under the socialism most of my life. I know it first hand.

The government does just fine at running some free services such as the mail system. Socializing one thing or a couple things does not mean that the entire country is a socialist nation. Countries with socialized heatlh care like Canada have it much better than us and its free. But some people dont understand that and automatically equate it with communism.

Because Socialism has no inherent checks or balances to combat the corruption of the people.

Socialism leads to corruption in all its forms because the Government and its realitives are rewarded while working people are stolen from.