<p>can it be applied in a way other than economically? like, when people go around saying, 'that's taking away my rights...that's socialism...', is that technically incorrect?</p>
<p>Well, it can have an effect on basic rights. If a society emphasizes power and wealth towards a select group of individuals, then an alternative individual that composes the remaining common society would be deprived of those benefits and opportunities, thus creating an unbalanced and unequalized society.</p>
<p>It’s an economic theory, so it would not make sense technically.</p>
<p>However, socialism can be tied to other things as well (ie:way of governing) which may lead some people to think that socialism is stripping away their rights/property etc.</p>
<p>Well socialism isn’t necessarily just applied to taking away rights, it is primarily an economic system where the government controls everything. I think that can be applied to human rights but just because someone says their rights are being taken away doesn’t mean it’s socialism. For example, let’s say you want to buy a pair of jeans but the socialist government refuses to sell any jeans and you think that is taking away your right to freedom of expression. That is an example of how socialism takes away your rights. However, if a democratic country decides that you can’t vote, the govt. is still taking away your rights but it’s not a result of socialism.</p>
<p>“For example, let’s say you want to buy a pair of jeans but the socialist government refuses to sell any jeans and you think that is taking away your right to freedom of expression. That is an example of how socialism takes away your rights.”</p>
<p>but does it matter <em>why</em> the government refuses to sell u jeans?</p>
<p>specifically, i’m asking in the context of a new driving law called kyleigh’s law in new jersey…i don’t know if ya’ll have heard of it. it states that those younger than 18 may not drive past 11 [as opposed to 12] & must put an orange sticker on their license plates as a way of showing other drivers/the police that they are minors. some people i know have been referring to it as ‘socialist’, & i thought that sounded dumb. but then i realized that i probs don’t know the definition of socialism any better than they do 
: P</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>That’s not socialist, and not only because socialism is an economic theory. That’s not communism either.</p>
<p>^wait, what i was saying in my post or the jeans analogy?</p>
<p>^What they mean is “this is typical of socialist governments.” Socialism doesn’t have to include totalitarianism, but so far just about all socialist governments have.</p>
<p>socialism is an <em>economic</em> theory
although it is usually associated with the government doing whatever the hell it wants (and the mccain-palin campaign didnt do much to end these misconceptions), it is really just an economic theory.</p>
<p>the whole jeans situation probably falls along the lines of totalitarianism</p>
<p>Socialism involves workers gaining control over the means of production and preventing value from being unjustly extracted from their labor (i.e., wages). No government can or has done this - China doesn’t support workers (in fact, China is now one of the most capitalist states on the planet), North Korea is not even ostensibly communist/socialist/leftist, etc. Perhaps the closest is Cuba, which has worked to eliminate income disparity and implement grassroots democracy (e.g. neighborhood councils).</p>
<p>Keep in mind that because capitalism is a global system, there’s really no such thing as “socialism in one country,” because these things degenerate into state capitalism or just outright fail.</p>
<p>For a socialist society to function, it MUST offer it’s citizens fewer rights than a capitalist society is able to (not necessarily does though, a capitalist society can exist with a lack of rights). Anyone who supports socialism who isn’t an idiot realizes this, recognizes it, and claims it still leads to a higher standard of living. </p>
<p>When someone is trying to say something like that, they mean that it’s consistent with what a socialist society would do, which a capitalist society often doesn’t.</p>
<p>
I’m referring to the driving situation and how people say that it’s socialist.</p>
<p>@QwertyKey-- yups that act is usually characteristic of a socialist society, but performing that act doesnt necessarily make a society socialistic</p>
<p>^ Exactly.</p>
<p>Kyleigh’s law is just an excuse for cops to pull people over, nothing more nothing less</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on if, by “rights,” you mean human rights or the right to exploit people. The latter finds its way into constitutional law under capitalism. Provide some examples of rights that can’t be offered in a socialist society.</p>
<p>That driving one isn’t socialist/communist… It’s more “totalitarian”</p>
<p>Socialist is the new health care bill</p>
<p>It’s all very well (and this just to the general public) to disagree intelligently with something the government may (or may not, for that matter) be doing, but another thing entirely to blame/categorize EVERYTHING viewed as antagonistic under the title of “socialism” or “communism”. Those two words have a nasty ring to them because of the connotations associated with them by everything we’ve grown up with. They’re both just overly idealistic economic theories/systems that haven’t ever been correctly applied to any country in existence today.</p>
<p>Perhaps they don’t really work in reality, but I don’t find it fair to label them as evil. I mean, people have used accusations of “socialist!” or “communist!” to ostracize/invade/totally make crap out of other people’s lives.</p>
<p>Socialism is a theory (economic mainly) that advocates the public control of the means of production for redistribution and the allocation of resources.</p>
<p>For instance, public education and healthcare are socialist programs. Why? Because through graduated income tax, the government takes money away from the rich (the means of production in our society) and gives it to the poor through government programs, ie education or healthcare.</p>
<p>However, like terrorism, communism, etc. the word has lost it definition long time ago since the 1920s really. Nothing about socialism or communism spells the lack of freedom of speech, etc. Especially in communism where the goal is to have a revolution through the working class to redistribute the means of production. When that happens, there would be no need for a government. Hence, there will be an absolute freedom of speech and absolute rights. Essentially, anarchy. However, this is kind of ironic since only revolutions that actually succeed aren’t by the proletariat but by a rising middle class. So the only rights socialism and communisms takes away from us is the right to property. The government should not be able to take away my means of production aka money, through their socialist programs. (Just saying as an example)</p>
<p>We automatically think socialism in a negative connotation because well, it’s always been like that in America. So when people call something negative socialist or communist, just think about what that word REALLY means. </p>
<p><em>Anyone please correct me if I’m wrong</em></p>