Are you asking concerning the theory of total Socialism, or enacting a few Socialist policies?
The dictionary defines socialism as:
Quote:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
|
So, briefly, from the definition we can surmise that socialism nationalizes the idea of production and property. There is no individual production, no individual property (this is the key point). An individual does not bear the fruit of his or her labor, but, rather, the community does. An individual is not entitled to property rights, but, rather, the community is entitled to property rights. The nationalized economy, also, controls all aspects of production within the country, ie. a centrally planned economy. Historically, all centrally planned economies have failed to meet the demand of its citizens, and have collapsed within when confronted with capitalist economic policies. Socialism, as a philosophy, denies the inherent inequalities within humanity, and tries to economically equalize them. Capitalism, on the other hand, accepts the inherent inequalities within humanity, and tries to progress individuals positively.
The above was my breakdown of a pure socialist state. Enacting a few socialist policies in an otherwise capitalist country is quite different and more complex, similar to what one would find in Western and Eastern Europe.
"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."
"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
- Ayn Rand
What do you think, Typhoid?