What is socialism and how can i get my hands around it?
Socialism is like -
The Post Office
Free Medical Care for Veterans
Free Education for Enlistees
.... you know ... all the stuff that Tea Baggers use every day - - - but whine about paying for.
Why do cons quote one Hitler quote about socialism but ignore the countless others?
Wonderful gift of understatement.
Every authority on the planet, every single valid researcher clearly identified Hitler with the reactionary RIGHT, and they all point out that he came to power in coalition with other conservative and right wing parties. But their lie-spewing maggots of broadcasting have spread the monstrous lie that the "socialism" in their party title has gravitas, a point of which serious researchers make fun, and they decide to spew what quotations their neo-Nazi "thought leaders" pass on them as "approved". They're almost always from before the Strasser brothers were murdered for espousing a moderately left wing agenda, and putting some of it in old party literature.
Facts don't inhibit pathological liars.
They don't even acknowledge reality. If they did, well, then they might have to confront the fact that their "beliefs" aren't that far from Hitler.
They even try to claim Hitler enacted German NPH, when their State Medical Plan was made law in 1871, eighteen years before Hitler was born.
Their are no scams or lies too low and depraved for the truly corrupt and degenerate.
They even infer, also without checking the facts, that "big government" is inherently left wing. Wrong again. Not just in the U.S. The German government of those times was powerful and large only in terms of military aspects. Those services which did not aid big corporations or the militaries were very small. Not that it matters. Crackpot conservatives CLAIM small government, but the last so-called "conservative" administration to actually reduce overall government size was under Warren G. Harding.
They'll use any lie to further their sniveling propaganda ends. It's what they do!
Why would Socialism lead to Communism if and when the economy of socialism collapses ?
its not necessary dat socialism will end up into communism but for communism to occur socialism is a prerequisite..........
though both socialism and communism is based on d same production method but the division of output in case of former is based on deeds while the latter is dependent ova needs.
u can get better idea from the following website
Do conservatives understand the difference between communism, communist parties and socialism?
We know the difference between ideal communism (which would be the best form of government) and real communism (which is what actually happens).
In ideal communism, everyone is taken care of, there are no classes so everyone is equal. The country flourishes because all needs are met and no one has any reason to commit crime.
In real communism, one person takes charge and it usually becomes a totalitarian regime. The leaders become insanely rich and everyone else becomes dirt poor. The needs of the people are not met because since all the lower class people are equal, there is no ambition to innovate and advance. There are no reasons to take risks, just work the minimum to get you daily rations.
Anarchism is a lack of government, sounds ok until you realize that anyone can get away with anything.
Atheism has nothing to do with government. It literally means "against God," however, a lot of people who claim to be atheist are more agnostic, not thinking (or refusing to think) there is God.
Socialism is where the government provides basic things (water, electricity, healthcare, TV, internet, phone). Doesn't sound bad until you realize, the government controls all your basics. They get to say what you watch, what sites you go to, and the scariest one what health service you can get. Also, taxes have to be much higher to support all these things, and you know how inefficient the government you can be.
How do you reduce both fascism and socialism in society?
Republican looneynuts would say "remove socialism from the liberal agenda". I'm on the left politically and its been on my agenda for months, along with storm window installation and freezer upgrade. My agenda:
1) Ask that cute girl out to dinner
2) Reinvest my equities in a more balanced ETF portfolio instead of individual companies
3) Topple America in a Marxist/Fascist battle royale
4) Purchase a new fridge/freezer
5) Remove window AC and install storm windows (what a pain!).
What is the difference between capitalism and socialism?
Capitalism is all about capital, or money. Socialism is more the social idea, sort of like what Obama is doing with all the health care and welfare stuff. Capitalism is more of survival of the richest, while socialism is survival of all. Capitalists are against paying taxes that go to improving the standard of living and decreasing poverty rates. My history teacher, a capitalist, once put it this way: If I was rewarded an ice cream cone for answering a certain amount of questions my teacher asked and you're craving one, I'm not willing to share my prize.
Socialism considers adversity and all the unfortunate ones in life. It is against the whole classes idea. It supports taxes and other ideas that benefit society as a whole, not just one class.
I think based on all the above information, you can figure out an answer to your second question.
What's the difference between communism, socialism and a planned economy?
The difference between communism and socialism is the level of government involvement. In communism, the government controls everything, there is no private sector. In socialism the government controls some industries but not all, there is still a private sector.
What percentage of pro socialism liberals on YA even know what socialism is?
socialism is offered by our histroricaly capitalist govt to folks who cannot fend for themselves,the rest must work for their keep.
theorists/advocateseggheads,,especially if they are already employed by the state,,wish universal social support,
from the wealthy,till the wealth is largely consummed,,,,,then,,,,,find a new beehive to plunder
What is socialism and are there different forms of socialism?
"Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; or a political philosophy advocating such a system."
Here is a general definition on socialism. The history of socialist economics and politics is complex and difficult to explain in a general view. I have added a link for your reading pleasure. There are different views of forms of socialism. Socialism has been applied in different ways throughout history and from the link I included you will learn how different people have used socialism; what happened as a result; and the state of socialism.
How do the basic principles of socialism and capitalism differ? What are some of the advantages of each system?
Capitalism is a form of economic system in which companies, businesses, institutions, industries and so on are privately owned and the money that is made goes to owners. It can be bad if they exploit too much at the cost of others. But it's good because if a company profits, it grows, creating more jobs, and makes the economy grow. Without capitalism countries wouldn't have been able to develope. The competition in capitalism makes companies strive for better good. Not everyone can make it to the top of their game though, so it's a bit unequal.
Socialism is political philosophy that that believes that the state should have a grasp in the money made by production so that it can distribute wealth and services equally and own institutions so that equal public access is allowed. There are many types of socialist theories. Some are extreme in which the state controls all the production and institutions and avoids capitalism completely. Needless to say that's a harmful socialism and broke countries like Russia and Cuba. But there is also softer socialism, where the state allows capitalism and takes a portion of that wealth (taxes) and distributes it and owns just some institutions. Look up social democracy. Many developed European countries have a social democratic party or government.
Examples of institutions state owned with public access (yep, a socialist concept):
Post Office, military, police and fire departments, highways and roadways, bridges and tunnels, VA medical system, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, public schools and colleges, national parks, public libraries.
So the difference between capitalism and socialism is 4 percentage points?
Hey, you know what? If they want to define socialism (incorrectly) as "spreading the wealth," so be it - but by that definition they’re also calling Warren Buffett, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Sarah Palin socialists as well.
- Warren Buffett has come out publicly in support of Obama
- Ronald Reagan expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (the single most wealth-redistributive policy in the history of our tax code); also, the highest tax bracket under Reagan was 50% - the highest bracket in Obama’s proposed plan (as you mention) is 39.6%.
- John McCain has publicly supported the EXACT same tax policy that he is NOW calling "socialist." See for yourself:
- Sarah Palin imposed a windfall profits TAX on oil companies in Alaska, and cut a $1,200 check to every Alaskan with the proceeds. If that's not "SPREADING THE WEALTH," I don't know what is.
The McCain campaign is depending on the ignorance and intellectual laziness of the American people. Without it, he doesn't stand a chance.
So what's the difference between Socialism and these recent Government bailouts?
Absolutely no difference. All the people who come on this site and call Obama a socialist are blind as bats. Socialism is exactly what's happening. But I'm sure the Republicans have their own explanation, so they can continue to fool themselves.
Do you know the difference between socialism and communism?
socialism is more geared towards economy,and communism more geared towards politics..neither will work on a grand scale(such as the usa)..and no, liberals are not "socialist" nor "communist". neither is obama,it's all just hype.
What are the main THEORETICAL differences between Communism and Socialism?
Socialism is not a watered down version of communism.
In socialism, the means of production (farms, factories, etc.) and the commanding heights of the economy (banks, media) are owned by the workers, usually via the apparatus of both a workers' state and workers' councils. The workers' state is responsible for central planning for the economy.
Communism is an epoch that comes after socialism in which the means of production are so advanced and the people are so socially evolved that it no longer becomes necessary to have a state or money. Everyone does what needs to be done and takes what they need.
Communism is also the name of a movement started by Marx that differentiated themselves from other socialists because they used Marx philosophy of dialectical materialism in their efforts to organize the workers. Other socialists were just trying to set up socialist communes, but Marx came up with the theory that all things are driven forward by contradictions and that history moves forward as a result of driving forward those contradictions (that's actually Hegel). Marx's addition is that those contradictions are in material resources, not ideas.
A party called the "Communist Party" is usually a party politically aligned with the former U.S.S.R. There are exceptions, though. Also, if the party has "Marxist-Leninist" in parentheses after its name (e.g. "Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)"), those parties are aligned with Enver Hoxha.
What's the difference between socialism and communism?
Socialism is a mixed market economy which government has more role in the public goods,education,healthcare etc or where the market cannot function so well. But it depends on market economy and competition in the goods and services sector.Communism is a center commanded economy.It price is set by calculation, not demand and supply and the market.
What is the difference between socialism and communitarian anarchism?
Socialism is workers having direct control and ownership of the means of production. Like every worker having a piece of ownership of an auto maker.
Communism means everyone working together for the common good of the community. The purest form of communism would be like American Indian tribes. Everyone shares in the work and everyone shares in the goods based on need and ability.
Anarchism means no government, everyone for themselves. It is basically the opposite of communism.
Can democracy and socialism exist together, or does one ultimately have to give way to the other?
They are like sun and moon. A certain level of one or the other will drive off the other. Only in twilight where it's neither a Democracy or a Socialist system can you have a mix as seen in parts of Europe and the US today.
Democracy isn't about equality. Equality itself sounds kind of noble until you think about it. Since you cannot make a person more than they are, then equality means lowering everybody too the lowest common denominator. Democracy is the opposite. Democracy combined with free enterprise capitalism is the combination of an economic and governing system in which the doors of opportunity are opened. The only equality involved is everybody has an equal chance to make it. After that it's up to you.
Socialist equality is really equally miserable. It is about creating chokepoints in the distribution of goods, robbing people of incentive and changing advancement from a system of merit too a system of who you know. So no matter how hard you work or don't work your chances of advancement depend solely on how well you can kiss the right behind.
Democracy in the American form is about being a maverick. About striking off on your own path. The more controlled resources are, the less ability one has to do so. Thus the more Socialist a nation the less innovation, entrepreneurship and wildcatting is possible.
Socialism is a static system. It seeks to freeze everybody in place and keep them in a nice orderly anthill. Democracy is about chaos. It's about each of us rooting around for what we can find in the world and keeping it once we find it. It's a voice for each of us while Socialism is a voice constrained by the good of the collective. As such an individuals voice is stifled and so is individualism. The collective is the ultimate ant hill. It is that overriding principle that crushes the individual for the Socialist goals. Thus income and other resources may be redistributed. Resources are allocated as directed by the elites who formulate the will of the collective. Democracy is about a million ideas vying for the love of the majority. Some call it mob rule and it can be that way. Nobody said the will of the people was always right. The only thing Democracy can assure is that there is not tyranny. If each of us has a voice and we the people rule ourselves then punishment is self inflicted. However in Democracy you can CHANGE. You can see the error of your way. In a Socialist system the collective will is very difficult to sway much less correct when it errors. Making mistakes is human and it's going to happen and real Democracy gives us the fastest and easiest way to correct for mistakes yet devised. Socialism is layer of layer of bureaucracy designed specifically to battle change. Errors become quickly institutionalized along with everything else.
What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
Socialism is nothing more than a centralized, forced form of redistribution of wealth.
Communism is supposed to be the final, evolutionary step from capitalism, to socialism to communism.
Under the Marxist Communist Manifesto, the proof of the form of government is the actual decentralization of government where wealth is voluntarily shared by all people, and no government is necessary to keep order. Under socialism, the transitional phase, a strong centralized government is necessary to control the masses and to redistribute and equalize the wealth.
In the 20th Century, the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cubans and a number of other nations have attempted "communism" and failed miserably. The Chinese have gone to a market economy which runs on principles known to us as controlled capitalism, the North Koreans are suffering in extreme poverty and starvation. The Soviet Union under the Russians collapsed.
Well ... you get the picture.
I consider communism and socialism to be failed examples of government.
Explains why the French, of all people, have voted in a conservative.
What is the difference between socialism and communism?
The greatest difference between Communism and Socialism is the different perspectives they hold on the so called "free market economy"
Socialism, contrary to the rhetoric being espoused now, actually ENDORSES capitalism. However, it is different than absolute free market ideology in that a Socialist believes that in a completely free market society, wealth will be grotesquely imbalanced and that it will be concentrated in the hands of a few. So, a few government safeguards and interactions with the market are necessary so that this inequality is less obvious.
A Communist on the other hand rejects the compatibility of capitalism with Communism.
Adhering to this strict definition, most "free market economies" in the world are technically socialist. While the ones we define as are socialist are actually communist.
Why do people still advocate socialism, after seeing the mess in the USA and EU?
Because they don't want to work - we have created a NANNY State and they want more - more and more and don't care who is paying for it. They think it is government money and don't think that someone gave part of their life in time and work to pay for this bs - programs and benefits.
What is the different between Socialism and Communism land Facism ?
Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems in myriad forms, and many ideologues with different agendas have defined both systems in biased terms. Some main differences, however, can still be identified.
One difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is mainly an economic system, while communism is both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism.
Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. However, socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals’ production efforts, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals’ needs.
Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.
Finally, another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount.
Both communism and fascism are types of authoritarian rule, where the interests and freedoms of the individual are subordinated to those of the state, and quite frequently a powerful leader. Secondly, in many cases both fascist and communist rule are bolstered by a highly powerful military apparatus, as a way to stifle opposition. Thirdly, both types of government are statist, in that the central government has some degree of control over the economic means of production (as opposed to, say a free market, or laissez-faire economy as in the US), and also oftentimes social policy.
Is Socialism scary to Conservatives because of the theory, or because of practice?
At its very heart socialism is nothing more than absolute slavery. Those who love freedom know that it starts with you owning yourself, that is to say that your body is your own private property. But as Marx said, communism (and its precursor, socialism) can be summed up as the abolition of private property. Hence, according to socialists, you cannot own yourself. The collective society owns you, which makes you a slave. Socialism puts need above ability, and in doing so makes a virtue out of not being able to provide for yourself. Well guess what? Somebody must always provide, and by glorifying need while demonizing ability Marx managed to call for the enslavement of the capable. Socialism takes everything good and noble about the human spirit and attempts to subordinate it to everything that is dark and undesirable. Socialism is scary because it's evil. There is simply no other word for it.
And in practice it's an abject failure.
How would you describe the difference between Socialism and Communism?
the stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated
a hypothetical stage of socialism, as formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others, to be characterized by a classless and stateless society and the equal distribution of economic goods, and to be achieved by revolutionary and dictatorial, rather than gradualistic, means
As you see, they're both part of the Marxist hypothetically utopic society. You can also tell by the definition that most economies that claim to be Communist are really just socialist that wish they mimiced Marx' Communist Utopia but have fallen short. Venezuela is a very Socialist country and some countries have target specific sectors for Socialism, like education and medicine.
What is the difference between communism and socialism?
Socialism leads to communism.
Here is why.
Communism is a classless society. Everyone is treated 100% the same.
In socialism only certain industry's you socialize everyone is treated 100% the same. Like how Canada and Cuba both have free health care. It's because Canada socialized it, and in Cuba it's free since it's classless and everyone automatically gets it.
If Canada keeps socializing things. Eventually they will be so parallel to cuba that they are communist.
How is Obamacare "Socialism" given the premiums have to be paid to private health insurance companies?
It's a step. That's the trick, start incrementally working with the ultimate goal down the road a piece. He, Pelosi and Reid knew full well that a nationalized healthcare plan would be tossed out in a heartbeat, so they came up with this travesty of a plan as the first step.
What is a differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism?
Communism first. As described by Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto", the idea is to have a revolution that overthrows rich capitalists who exploit the workers and replace it with a society where everyone owns everything in common and everyone shares everything. In the ideal communist society, even money is abolished as it isn't needed. Read Acts 2 in the bible - the early Christian community did exactly that.
BUT it never works. It can do in a small community like a kibbutz where everyone "buys into the idea", but try it in a whole country and it doesn't. Human nature means we like to be rewarded for our work, and if you are going to get paid whether you work or not, why do you feel you should work? That's why communist countries always end up with a shortage of food. The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did because there was so much bribery and corruption that it was capitalist "behind the scenes". The other thing is that communism leaves it so wide open for power-mad people to become a dictatorship, and that's what always happens in practice. So you end up with a country with shortages of everything, the people find out it's better in another country, so they want to leave - and to stop them, the government forbids them to leave the country and tries to stop them listening to foreign radio and TV. To be honest, Karl Marx would have been totally horrified if he had lived to see what the Soviet Union, China and North Korea were like. My favourite quote on this is from Frank Zappa - "communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff". I really couldn't say it any better. Nor can I think of any benefits - all this gave rise to the Berlin Wall, and the most emotional experience of my life was visiting the Checkpoint Charlie museum in Berlin and the memorial in Berlin to Peter Fechter. He was an East German boy aged 18 who tried to escape across the wall and was shot to death for it. The memorial says "... er wollte nur die Freiheit", which means, "...he only wanted freedom". If you have the chance to go to Germany one day, do. I love the place and can only have total respect for a people who have lived through two World Wars, been defeated in both, then communism in the eastern part, and somehow still manage to be the strongest country in Europe.
Capitalism is the complete opposite - we all work for ourselves and to make money. Do well, and you get promoted. Do really well and you could have a successful company of your own. OK it means some are a lot richer than others but that's just life.
Socialism is somewhere in the middle. The real definition of socialism is "social ownership of major industries for the good of the people". Some people confuse this with a "welfare state" but that is misleading, though it is true that the two often go together. I'm British and I remember when we were socialist - basically capitalist, but oil, gas, electricity, telephones, the national airline, the steel industry, the shipbuilding industry, the railways, and many more were owned by the government. Socialists argue amongst themselves as to how far socialism should go so it's hard to define.
What happens if you mix capitalism and socialism together is you get Britain! We are capitalist but have a nagging feeling that we want to do our best for the people who are poorest as it just seems the civilised way. It's a hard balancing act - too much social security encourages people to be lazy, but it seems only right to support people who really can't work.
What is pure socialism and is it good for everybody?
You know, people all seem to have different ideas about what socialism is, especially what pure socialism would be. Those countries that claim to have been socialist all have differences in the economic system they have implemented, and generally, all agree that none of them really are or were socialist. But by any reasonable definition, socialism is not the same as communism. There's no point in having two separate words for the same thing, and those who promote pure socialism support an idea that is distinct from communism.
I think the definition of the word socialism has become muddied, especially in the US, where groups supporting the idea have adjusted it's definition to describe the implementation they would like to see, and conservatives have distorted the definition to describe something no one would want in order to demonize the idea. So I think the most useful and concrete question to ask is whether we want socialism as it is currently executed in some certain country. Most people in the US agree that Chinese socialism and Russian socialism, for example, were really communism, and have been massive failures. But the lesser known scandinavian socialism could be a good idea, since their standard of living is much higher than ours even for those with the least. If it could be demonstrated that scandinavian socialism could work equally well in the US and be sustainable, I don't see any problem with it.
Can someone explain exactly what Democratic Socialism is (and give me the pros and cons of it)?
I belong to Democratic Socialists of America, which is one organization of democratic socialists here in the USA.
I have to admit that different DSA members sometimes bring different definitions to bear on what "democratic socialism" is supposed to be. To get a sense of what the group as a whole believes in, you might want to look here:
How Democratic Socialism differs from other forms of socialism:
1/ Democratic socialism vs. Leninism / "communism" -- generally, democratic socialists believe that socialists should take power not through a revolutionary upheaval, or through -- say - a general strike (an old anarchist idea), but through free elections under a parliamentary or US-style democratic system.
Unlike Leninists, who have a "cadre" or "revolutionary vanguard" theory of politics, in which a small dedicated elite presumes to act as the leader for the entire working class, democratic socialists generally favor broad democratic participation in political affairs, and within the socialist movement itself.
Unlike most revolutionary Communist parties that have taken power, democratic socialists generally support what Trotsky or Lenin might have called "bourgeois civil liberties" -- e.g. , freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, regularly scheduled elections, freedom of religion, etc.
Along with Rosa Luxemburg, a German revolutionary leader who would not have called herself a democratic socialist, we think that the freedom of the "working class" ultimately requires legal freedoms that some other socialists might scorn as supposedly helping only the capitalists.
We believe that no, these "bourgeois" freedoms and "bourgeois" rights are at least as important to socialist working people as they are to anyone else.
It's only when there is true democracy, we think, that society can be run by the "working class." We don't think a Lenininst vanguard party of professional revolutionaries can substitute for the workers doing it themselves.
4) Many American democratic socialists believe -- not in the total takeover of the economy by the State, but it what's sometimes called "economic democracy," sometimes called "workers' control."
That is, we think people should have democratic rights of free expression and the democratic right to self-government in the workplace, not just in the voting booth in November. We think you should have the right to vote for your mayor, your governor -- and your boss, maybe even for the CEO of your company. We don't think the owner of your company should act like a dictator or a king who gets to control everyone in the company. We think you, the person actually doing the work, should get a say in how the company operates, too.
5) Unlike Germany's "national" socialists in the 1920s and 1930s, democratic socialists don't scapegoat particular races or particular religions for all the problems of capitalist society. We don't hope to build "socialism" or any kind of good society by mobilizing a majority of working people to hate & victimize some small racial or religious majority - like the Jews, obviously, but really we don't believe in scapegoating anybody.
Democratic socialists also mostly don't believe in national progress through endless war, which was pretty much the ideal that Hitler and Mussolini both promoted.
I'll run out of space if I write much more, but that's a brief explanation for starters.
Please visit our web site if you want to learn more.
Why does Socialism only work at the expense of hard working and intelligent people?
Because they think the bum on welfare who watches Jerry Springer and plays video games all days deserves the same as the guy who put himself through college and works 60 hr weeks, everyone is 'equal' so if the worker has a lot more than the bum they will take it away from him and pass it out to the bums. Obama is trying to help out his lazy peeps at the cost of the busy bees who work to give them the free cheese welfare to begin with. He might get short term approval by blacks and hispanics, he's all about people worshipping him, but as has been seen in every country that has adopted this nightmare plan it is doomed to fail and after he gets his worship he won't be around when the cards come crumbling down like they did in russia and china who are watching in shock seeing our prez do what we faught not to happen in the past in THEIR countries! pathetic.
What is the Appeal of Socialism and Why Do Many Americans Despise Freedom?
medicare and medicaid are forms of socialism. People like them because they enjoy having medical coverage.
"Americans despise freedom"?
you must mean the anti-choice folks that want the govt running the lives of pregnant women or the homophobes that want the govt telling two consenting adults who they can marry
How did socialism benefit workers during the Industrial Revolution?
Worker safety, less hours work required, full time work encouraged, better wages. Child labor and unsafe work conditions are required to maintain a competitive advantage; capital expenditures to make work safe would make product too expensive to sell and cause the business to lose customers.
Only if all were required by law to put in the safe working conditions could it be economic as all would have to raise cost or lower profit by the same amount.
Transportation costs prohibited moving business out of the country and using the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce prevented States from stealing the manufacturing of other states by permitting unsafe work conditions.
How is Socialism (or Communism) ideologically feasible if the government itself becomes the rich class?
You do understand that that is exactly what has happened in every socialist paradise that has ever been established? If you were a party member or friend of one in the USSR you were quite well off. Today the Castros and their friends live quite handsomely amid the poverty of the Cuban economic system. As George Orwell remarked about socialism in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
What is the difference between Socialism and National Socialism?
In the great spectrum of politics, communism and fascism meet at the opposite of centralism, they are both amazingly similar in many respects. Socialism is a more moderate form of communism, which actually takes a few (but not all) of the economic regulation of the system. National Socialism, which was the name of the Nazi party, Nazi being the mash-up of Nationalsozialismus, the German word for National Socialism, is a form of Socialism, but is separate in the reasons behind why its necessary (the Jews and all that fun stuff) and how its implemented. It is more designed to eliminate big business and the "Jewish Conspiracy"
How exactly would socialism work out if Marxism proves correct?
Socialism can't work without political democracy.
If the workers can't vote on the officials who control production, there's no feedback mechanism other than the market. And politically-powerful bureaucrats can over-rule even the socialized market by having their favorite production units subsidized, whether the workers are using the products those units turn out or not.
That's how Yeltsin, for instance, before he turned into Mr. Anti-communist, solidified his position as Moscow party boss, by having factories where his supporters worked kept open when their products weren't moving, while places which produced both crucial staples and the public's favorite treats were closed, even though the products were in short supply.
Hey, all those people were waiting on lines for _something_.
Capitalism can function very well without democracy and usually does, but socialism can't. It eventually fails without an activist, involved, and politically-free population. Either it is smashed by outside invasion, or it's strangled by the bureaucracy that forms in the vacuum that's left in the wake of dissipated revolutionary energies in the times AFTER heroic revolutionary periods.
With even the most democratic of socialist revolutions, and it can be argued that was what the early Soviet period was, Boris and Nadia Six-pack eventually stop being street heroes and go back to raising children and hell on Friday nights after work. And then the bureaucracy comes out of the woodwork.
There's a joke from Russia in the immediate post-Soviet period. Two old men are talking. "It is a crime the way the Stalinists ran the country. An absolute crying shame. And now we know that everything they told us about socialism was lies."
"You know what's even worse?" asks the other old timer. "No, what's that?" his friend replies.
"Now we also know that everything they told us about capitalism was true."
FIRST, be aware that there are economic systems and there are government systems. the words are not interchangable. you can have a representative communist government or a dictator capitalist government. or any combination. the type of economic system is not set in stone by the type of government. although some seem to combine better than others.
You have asked about what are "economic" systems and then interjected the subject of governments and military along with business. this will require a long answer to a complicated question. it is not simple as you hope. But it is fairly easy to understand if you try.
Socialism is when the government controls the means of production with rules or regulations or taxes. It recognizes private property ownership but controls what you can do with property. It may have taxes so high that the incentives are removed and people do not work as hard or try as hard. The government is expected to provide for most unmet needs of the people with the money it gets from taxes. There may be so many regulations and controlling agencies, that it is hard to get anything done efficiently, because of all the red tape and beauracracy
Communism is when the government OWNS the means of production and everything else and decides who uses it and for what and how. It typically operates under a dictator who runs everything.( but you could have a democratic communist system) There is no private ownership of property or right to control it by regular people. All jobs are government jobs. All housing is government housing. All transportation is government transportation. few countires are communist and even fewer PURE communist but Red China comes closest at this time.
(not counting the recent experiments with capitalism) It seems to be changing to a combination of a dictatorship of communism with some capitalism allowed.
Capitalism is when the means of production and most of the property is owned privately and the owner can decide how to use it, but with some rules and regulations imposed for the public good by the government. The government may require a license or impose reasonable taxes. It may require you to operate safely.
The government also may own some property, such as parks or government buildings and land, but it does not operate for a profit in competition with private enterprize. It may lease the land or rights or property to private persons or companies and enjoy some fee income, but it does not engage in production directly as do communist governments like Red China.
The higher the taxes and the more control the government obtains, the closer the economic system gets to pure socialism.
Sweden may be a good example of a country that is very socialistic, but has a lot of freedoms.
Socialism is an economic system and not a type of government. you can have dictatorship socialism or representative type free governments with socialism. So there is no one way that socailism would "think" about government, military and businesses. But basically it would require businesses to pay taxes and submit to regulations. It would be subordinate to whatever form of government had created it and chose to use it.
A militaristic government run by generals may use the taxes and regulations of the socialist system to enlarge their powers and invade other countries for conquest. Or it may be used by a kindly government to take good care of the people and avoid military missions and perhaps even be a peace-loving nation with a small military.
First you form a government and take power.
Second you determine what economic system you will have.
USA began with a royal system of government that was basically feudal in nature, being neither socialist or communist or capitalist. It had developed in England from a pure monarchy into a system of partly royal monarchy with a parliament that gave some power to the Aristocracy and so it was not only the king who had power. This weakening of the king's power grew more popular in America as they were so far away they did not fear him so much.
Capitalism had started in England under the kings and queens and spread to America where it flourished in the new land and became predominant. Yet still under the royal government. It changed to a representative style government and became gradually party socialistic and partly capitalistic with some vestiges of the old royal system feudal rules by taxes being imposed on land by the state governments.( formerly it was the lords who paid taxes to the king on land)
So USA is capitalist, socialist and feudal, but not any part communist. There are no governments anywhere that can claim to have a pure form of any economic system.