I have been to many of those Eastern European countries that had histories of decades of communist politics and socialist economic policy. They are poorer than Western European countries , and its not hard to see why.
Trying to make people all the same does not work . People have different talents,skills and abilities. Socialism's attempts to stamp out individuality and create a cookie cutter mentality that everyone is alike is doomed to failure. For example: I will likely never be able to throw a football like Joe Montana. Notice too, that the dictators did not want to be "equal" to the peasants with their fancy houses, swiss bank accounts etc. Even Russia and its top satellite nation (Bulgaria) never did that. The former East Germany, even today, despite billions poured in is still not really on par with the western part of Germany in numerous ways. Ditto on several other former Soviet satellite countries as well like Moldova and Ukraine.
Makiing a doctor equal to a street sweeper because they want everyone to be alike, is not a great incentive to be industrious at all. Who wants to have your career mapped out by the state without getting a choice in what you spend your vocation doing? That is the reality in those countries.
People also have no incentive for research and development of products as you are forced to take it or leave it no matter how poor the quality of the product, if it's the only game in town you are forced to buy that product or do without.
Socialism in practice vs. Socialism in Theory, are two VERY different things. The U.S. news media loves to glamorize socialism, the reality is quite different to see it in practice.

Is there enough money in the government/treasuries/rich people's pockets to solve most of our financial problems???

With Mr. Obama throwing around ideas that smell of socialism, you have to wonder if it could actually happen here in the U.S.. Are we blind enough to actually fall for this ideology? Reading the Christian Science Monitor recently I found this:
"Norman Thomas, longtime Socialist Party of America candidate said: " The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare,Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal shows the prescience of Thomas's words."
Liberals dismiss the term socialism when it comes to their candidate because they don't understand what it means. They've been told that they are entitled to something (that doesn't belong to them) over and over again so many times that they are convinced that it is true. They've been told "it's fair."
We sadly have to blame ourselves for what is happening in our culture because of our lack of action. Socialism has been taught in our schools (not just college either!) by radical teachers who pass it off in various forms that are accepted by gullible masses. Free thinking has been replaced by collective resignation. And if you have an opposing opinion, God help you!
I shudder to think what might happen next week. The country that fought so hard for independence from tyranny is becoming nothing more than a memory. From the Revolutionary War to World War II, we fought and died for our own personal freedom, and now we are giving it back. God help us all!

It's as wide spread in current practice as is actual conservatism.  And its as likely to lead to communism as marijuana is to lead to heroin.

As a precursor to Communism, it is a dangerous path that we should be careful not to take.

I don't know that this term means much anymore. Probably "civilized statism" is the best approximation of how thinkers use the term today. The term "communism" is usually reserved for the idea of a society without private property, which is now the odd man out, the specter that nobody really wants around anymore. Meanwhile, most First World nations these days seem to have moved toward some version of socialism, though the American tendency to privatize keeps chipping away at socialism all over the world. But the desire to socialize remedies to human suffering is, fortunately, a characteristic of most advanced nations these days. Advanced nations recognize that universally desirable goods like health care and education are best addressed through economies of scale. Introducing competition into these areas benefits a few, but fails to address the systemic problems (for an example, see the failure of No Child Left Behind in the U.S.). For goods that are not universally desired, capitalism can get them to you efficiently; but needs that are universal and essentially human are best socialized. This seems to be the "weak" version of socialism, but it may be the best option we are now left with. This version of socialism is certainly compatible with corporate capitalism. Having just returned from a week abroad, I was impressed to see how well Western European socialism fosters late capitalism. The downtowns of even small European cities are flourishing, while American cities (I include my city of Boston) are dying. In practical terms, socialism for the average European nowadays means universal health care, free or near-free education, efficient public transportation, long vacations, and flourishing commercial centers in the cities. All of this is made possible by high taxes deducted automatically from your paycheck (and the fact that they don't file tax returns could be counted as another blessing). It's not paradise--the existence of powerful states and bureaucracies give cause to worry--but it's better than the mess we currently have in the U.S.

UPDATE: The difference between socialism and communism is more than just a matter of degree. Socialism isn't about equalizing property, as communism is. Socialism is just a matter of recognizing that some things shouldn't be property. The problem with capitalism is that it fails to see anything as not property. A capitalist who is honest with himself must see everything (even love) as a commodity.

If there is an equation between socialism and spreading the wealth around, I'm not clear on how this will work in the current economic fabric. For instance, Obama claims that he will not increase taxes on anyone earning less than $250k, which, of course, are most people, but he will raise taxes and mandate insurance on those above this line. The people above the line are the people who create jobs for the people below the line. This will put a tremedous strain on an already fragile system and, in my assumption, will wipe out a lot of jobs...and the repercusions of this can be profound. Someone want to help me to clarify the logic here?

Rgarding Loerke's review: The biggest lie involved with the clever fiction called socialism is that someone gets something for "free". Nothing is free- someone pays for it. Penalizing success (as Obama wants to do) stifles success. I have never understood the entitlement mentality. So people are entitled to "free" healthcare? People are entitled to a "free" education? Then why the hell do we have to pay for water? How about food? How about clothing? How about shleter? Are these needs less important than health insurance/ healthcare? I have asked this before and never seem to get an answer. I wonder why.

the ONLY way it works is if the WHOLE world does it.

A bad system of government.

It just assures everyone is equally miserable.

Too close to communism in too many ways.

It sounds great, in theory, but it never works when it comes down to real human beings and their social interactions.

I think we could use a little socialism

A very little bit of socialism is tolerable to me, but I like to get my share of the pie that I work so hard for. Moving fortunes from the more capable to the less capable is by no mean fair to anyone. This may not be as extreme as communism, but to me it looks a bit like communism sans the dictatorship or the super-corrupted governing body.

I think if socialism was in place, Greed would go up even more.

I think it could be a little better

This is the norm in a lot of places but I prefer the way things are here in the States.

In theory, some aspects of socialism aren't so bad. If all politicians were trustworthy, government ownership of all corporations and medical facilities would have the benefit of them being properly regulated. However, everyone knows that many politicians are anything but trustworthy. Another problem is taxes. If the government controls that much, taxes would have to go through the roof to cover it. So while there are some interesting ideas contained in socialism, the implementation just isn't that practical.

Can someone remind me where this Ideology has had any real success.

 All of the most livable nations enjoy a reasonable mix of state socialism and capitalism.

Misery occurs when  socialist and/or capitalist governments make free enterprise difficult or impossible for the common man.

I think in order to recognize merit there has to be an example of something actually working. This hasn't worked anywhere in the world it has been tried. True, some have lasted longer than others for various reasons, but they all eventually meet the same fate. While they are active it has proved to be a dreadful way of life for the majority.

  socialism is an excellent idea if humans were robots

the only type of government that works is capitalism only the strong survive the weak perish you can't change human natue, greed and corruption willl always be around, because every human gets greedy at times, and just wants more than someone else, it is inevitable!

  Tell the average American that Tony Blair is a self-proclaimed, proud and honest socialist and they'll laugh in your face. Tell the average American that US troops fought on the same side as the Russians in WWII and they'll call you an idiot and a liar. Tell an American that the Russians bore the brunt of the losses fighting the Nazis and they'll call you un-American and unpatriotic.

 Factual reality and access to real non-subjective propaganda-free information is only available to ONE SIDE of our false binary political divide. Our problem here is one of intentionally eroneous education and disinformation. The facts are quite alarming, a staggeringly large overwhelming majority of Americans couldn't tell you the differences between a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a phrenologist, a fascist and a cryptofascist.

  If we learn and teach our children what fascists really are, what they really want and the tired old political tactics they always use to get it and we'll probably be able to save ourselves and get our country back on track.

  If we fail to learn this most important and most easily accessed of facts, we'll keep-on listening to endless empty speeches by an endless string of empty minds, in empty suits, who are stealth wannabe dictator cryptofascists - pretending to be populist-socialist republican democrats.

  Ask any citizen of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Ecuador, Guatamala, even Cuba or Mexico if they'd prefer another faux "democratically elected" puppet of the White House - over their newly elected socialist and liberal democratic governments. The Mexicans would have AT LEAST a very liberal Democratic form of government now too, if it weren't for Karl Rove's connivances with the Calderon campaign to deny Obrador his rightful presidency.

  Surprise, America! Some of the poorest citizens in the world  just four or five years ago - are now on their way up - rapidly - they now have totally free and immediate access to way better medical care than you could ever DREAM about being able to purchase for your children - or they for their children.

We used to have fedral budget surpluses as far as the eye could see and functional space program too.

..

Now this has been a really BIG success, hasn't it? Har, Har, HAR!


Just imagine everything designed by and run by, let's say, the post office!

Socialism is very misunderstood and maligned by many Americans. Democratic Socialism, as is what most of Western Europe is based on is a mix of some free enterprise, which is monitored by the government, so as not to create vast inequities in the greater society. Socialized medicine for citizens is guaranteed, as are other social and education programs. This creates a high quality of life for all, and the gap between the haves and have nots is less extreme. Of course any political/economic system is not without flaws, but this system seems to be the most humane.

Much better to protect the weak from the strong.

You the americans have minimal problems.I live in Bulgaria do you know how miserable is everything here in Bulgaria ? In Bulgaria if you kill somebody you can pay to the judge and you will be free ! The wage of one normal worker per month is not greater than 100 $ !!!! WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ??????????? Bulgaria is part of the USSR from 1945-1989.Now Bulgaria is republic close to the democracy.But the change from socialistic to democratic society had bad effect.The freedom has turned into anarchy.I think the only way to prosperity one society is disciplined regime.This problems that i listed are problems of the capitalism in Bulgaria.

Damn it, Volksman, you had me in your corner until I read your final sentence. There is no such thing as a "disciplined" regime, only a "diciplined" citizenry. I'm sad you have a hard life, but I also believe it will always get better under democracy...certainly not under an Idi Amin or a Nicolae Ceausescu

UPDATE: I think that's sad, Volksman. Is there a socialistic government in place in Bulgaria? Here in the states, it isn't a story that gets any coverage, sadly. ORIGINAL COMMENT 7/21/04: Not an economic ideology with any chance of success. How do I know, look how many times it has been attempted without even a modicum of success. Human nature is not going to change. Not in 10 years, not in 10,000 years. Heck, we're not sure modified capitalism will work, it's only been in existence 225 years. Empires and monarchies have been given their chance to pass the test of time, and the American Revolution paved the way for the great experiment, rule by the people. Other countries have followed suit with their own customized version of democracy, nearly all with some success. But socialism will never be successful on a large scale because human nature is such that corruption and greed are inevitable.

Socialism is excellent. Truly inspiring. Can you imagine, if there were no wealth classes, there would be no poverty, no famine, no homelessness. Everyone would get a good education. And it works, it has worked in France, and it's now working in Spain. They go to the doctor and they DO NOT PAY! In the US there are so many people who can't even afford the copay at a doctors office, let alone health insurance. People walk around half blind because they can't afford to get glasses, they die of easily cured diseases. Another thing, big business. Who can support capitalism? It's really really stupid is all I can say, basically whoever's father had the most money gets the most money, it's a monarchy of power. Because money=power in our beloved America. People say "Ohh but if you work hard you can get the American dream!" Paris Hilton sure works hard. Mr. T wants you to think of the children. I do.

Where in the world did they get ideology? Socialism is just another word for Democrat, isn't it? Anyway let's make a list here of successful socialist countries... you go first.

Great, as long as its not confused with liberalism.

Socialism kills independence, creativity, ambition and innovation. It, like communism, has a built-in flaw that guarantees its own collapse -always. It is an historically failed system -always will bel, no matter how many times some think surely THIS time we can make it work. It will never work, once you turn to it, you have guaranteed it will fail. Just take a good, hard look at the socialist leaning countries of Europe. They are in their decline with stagnant economies and routine double digit unemployment -while some in this country are pretending that 5.0% is "unacceptable". Any system that, instead of offering equal opportunity, tries to guarantee equal outcome -is already a doomed system. Socialism, like communism can only offer equal misery in the end.

Socialism, in all it's degrees, stinks! If you want to get an idea of what living in a socialist system is like, join the military, then imagine it with little money.

Socialism, aka the forced redistribution of wealth, is an entirely worthless idea. I wouldn't even refer to it as nice in theory, as I so often hear. It's not a nice theory. It is pure government control over people. Socialism is the opposite of freedom. The problem with socialism is that it can only work in an intellectual vaacuum where everyone agrees. If socialism were such a Utopia, why have so many fought it, fled from it, and done everything to stop it? Go ask the tens of millions of people Stalin sent to Siberia... Well, scratch that, you can't because they are dead. If you don't subscribe to the socialist vision of utopia you're sent through re-education... which is usually resolved through death. Death just because I disagree? Death just because I have my own ideas about what can make life great? Death often times just for believing in a god? No thank you, I'll take a republic or a constitutional monarchy any day.

This system simply takes away the fundamental right to free enterprise, and sacrifices the chance at a truly strong economy. Besides the government is tupid when it comes to running an economy, and never mind having everybody run it, we would never get anything done along the lines of innovation etc.

being of the criminal and inept persuasion, i'm willing to do my share. all i ask is that we: managers, workers, etc all split the money. why can't we all have a piece? Socialists aren't lazy. if you think that, you miss the point. they just want a bigger stake in the work they do.

Nice in theory. In the real world it means that the lazy, the criminal and the inept live off the efforts of the rest of us. The welfare state is a massive burden that undermines self-motivation and a sense of responsibility.

Every government in the world uses some degree of socialism. You know when you pay taxes? That's socialism: the government collects money, and distributes it as it sees fit. Welfare is socialism. Unemployment is socialism. The government paying for your protection and defense (ie, military, police, intelligence agencies, firefighters, etc) is socialism. Government-funded schools and hospitals are socialism at work. So for anyone saying 'socialism can't work', look around you. A socialist-based economic system in conjunction with a referendum-based government would be the ideal system for everyone.

Often mistakenly equated with Communism by Americans, which by the same Americans is often mistakenly equated with 'Totalitarian Soviet Style Dictatorship.' Socialism is in the US little but an ideal that isn't even properly understood by many of its adherents. But socialism outside the US, particularly in Europe has been quite succesful. And is in fact partially responsible for great improvements in the lives of the common people. Socialistic movements had a strong influence in the waning of the power of the wealthy oligarchy in favour of the common man, and it provided in many European countries a safetynet, so that those hit by illness or other misfortune did not spiral into misery. Socialism at its core is about the equality of human beings. And socialists believe that the luck of having been born into a wealthy family does not entitle one to superiority over others. It is also a humane philosophy as it helps out those in need. Socialism by its true definition is a philosophy that should have its place in every truly civilised government. Ideally as a strong opposition party to temper the larger more mainstream center-right and center-left parties.

It works in theory. But what good is that?

Winston Churchill made a number of comments on Socialism which are worth remembering. Among them: Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual, Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, Socialism is contrary to human nature, Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state. This state is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the arch-administrator and ruler, and the arch-caucus boss, 'All men are created equal' says the American Declaration of Independence. 'All men shall be kept equal' say the Socialists.

As a socialist, u gotta pay more taxes and the government wants more attention from the citizins. It just doesn't work.

A proven failure. Theft is theft, no matter whether it is a mugger who steals your money or a government that takes it (taxes you). No government has the moral right to tax my income or property. When there is no reward for hard work, no one will do it, and the leeches will always be there to take the handouts.

i mostly agree with NarNarNarNar when it comes to socialism... i just wanted to say in response to Eschew Obfuscation's response with a couple things, one -- he makes it sound like democracy and socialism are opposites. they arent. capitalism and socialism are, and it is possible if not necessary to have a democratic socialist state. as a matter of fact a lot of Europe is this way. second, our founding fathers in no way shape or form came up with the idea of democracy. true democracy was invented by the ancient greeks, and that ideology was altered by the roman empire into what is known as a republic, the form of government we use today.

It seems that people these days see socialism as a proverbial boogeyman, creeping out of the shadows to snatch their gold, women, and way of life. In fact, socialism is much gentler ideal. One crucial point is that socialism has degrees. Far to the right end of the spectrum is dictatorial communism. It has been proven that dictatorial communism doesn't work both in Russia and China. Okay. No more of that then. If we look at the left end of the spectrum, we find that socialism is indistinguishable from enlightened capitalism. What I mean by enlightened is a system of employment where the people working don't get screwed, and the rich bosses on top don't feel the need to become even richer. A balanced tax structure (not the one that Americans have today, which shifts the burden to those who can afford it least) would pay for universal health care and wide-ranging scholarships to colleges for those who felt they needed them. Due to strong unions and labor laws, employers would choose to have more employees instead of having fewer workers work longer hours. Some of the surplus created by economic growth resulting from the high employment and productivity would be funneled back into low-interest loan funds for business ventures trying to get on their feet, thus encouraging a cycle of slightly-subsidized, but thoroughly independent, businesses working together with the government for the good of the people. According to the New York Times, the average CEO of a major company made $9.2 million in 2003. If an incredibly high tax of 1 million dollars were applied to every average CEO, they would still make more than EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS per year. This would create absolutely no change in excessive lifestyle for either the CEO or any of his descendants for many generations. It would make no difference to him, except the number on the paper is an eight not a nine. This is just an extreme example; in reality the tax wouldnt be anywhere near a whole million, but still it would make no real difference to the millionaire. Theres really no reason why not to accept this idea of enlightened capitalism. In conclusion, I have a few more points to make. Firstly, the gung-ho cowboy attitude of every man for himself (that some die-hard socialist-haters take) is not only an outdated doctrine, but its just plain stupid when applied to the governance of a country. Secondly, I want every member of the opposition to take notice that these socialist views, if you choose to call them that, are nothing like the politics of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, or any other dictatorial communist/fascist ruler. Dont compare this thesis to their socialist politics. That line is tired and just wrong. One final note of advice, dont be too quick to condemn ideas which you dont fully understand.

I don't know what a true socialism system would be, but coming from Cuba where Castro and his regime call themselves socialists is enough for me to hate this kind of ideology and government system.

True socialism has yet to be enacted on our planet. All the so-called socialisms have been communist or fascist scams(for the most part). The only place to see a true socialism in practice is science fiction. Socialsim is humanity's manifest destiny. If someone knows of a place to informedly discuss the pros and cons of socialism, please post. Judgeing by many of the previous ill-informed posts, this obviously isn't that place.