Sentences with phrase «socialism means»

Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy.

Socialism means whatever you want it to mean.

Socialism means that the government owns the means of production.

(Therefore, I am not a socialist, if socialism means state ownership of the means of production.

In practice, however, socialism means ownership by the state, which may or may not represent the people.

Everywhere we look — China, Cuba, Tanzania, eastern Europe — socialism means the same thing: the domination of society by huge, ponderous government bureaucracies.

Socialism means state ownership or control of the means of production in an economy.

Not exact matches

That commitment was quickly applied to economics, meaning so - called public ownership of production, distribution and exchange — socialism — which became a pivotal plank 20 or so years after the party emerged.

«Socialism is about having the government take over the economy, owning the means of production, and — most importantly — allocating resources....

Friedrich Hayek once said «socialism can only be put into practice by means of which most socialists disapprove.»

Paul explicitly equates democracy and socialism, believing that people of modest means will always vote for the smiling bureaucrat offering a bag of free groceries or subsidized health care.

So to truly apply the mindset of Madison today means to admit what he couldn't quite see: that just as air is to the regrettable existence of fire, and as liberty is to the regrettable existence of faction, so is modern republican government to the regrettable existence of various at - bottom - suicidal democratic mindsets: progressivism, democratic socialism, militant secularism, and libertarianism.

You don't even have a clue what «socialism» means.

Does this not mean that socialism is then reduced to one ideal alongside others?

James Nuechterlein replies: If Mr. Segermark has his way, the word socialism will no longer mean what it has always meant» public ownership and control of the means of production» but something along the lines of «left - wing programs I do not like.»

This often means supporting the forces that seek socialism against the supporters of the status quo.

Now I have no objection whatever to socialism and so on, and I certainly grant that every person — and that means every Christian, too — has a right to support these causes.

And then they accept the means socialism uses to establish justice — namely, the violent tactics described above.

This does not mean, writes Buber, that religious socialism and the kingdom of God are to be identified.

Socialism any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Socialism and communism are based on the principle that the means of producing goods and providing services — such as all factories and companies — should be owned publicly and controlled and planned by a centralized organization rather than being controlled by members of a small class of wealthy people.

Marxist socialism can not remedy this poverty of structure because its means — unity and centralization — are entirely unlike and can not possibly lead to its ultimate ends — multiplicity and freedom.

But what do we mean by these two terms, capitalism and socialism?

In theory, socialism is the ownership of the means of production and distribution by «the workers» or the people.

Socialism is the economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the state, which decides through central planning what is to be produced and how it is to be distributed.

Many of those less friendly to the market than the Pope seem to be under the impression that when he talks about a framework circumscribing the market, he means some kind of mixed system halfway between the efficiency of the market and the «ideal» of socialism — that elusive «third way» that former Czech President Vaclav Klaus has said is the surest path to the Third World.

George Soros in America and Jane Kelsey in New Zealand have both referred to «market fundamentalists», by which they mean those who reject all modern forms of socialism and government interference in economic issues, and who seek a return to the free market and private enterprise of pre-modern society.

Atheism... has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation.

«Atheism... has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in need of such a mediation.»

Socialism, as they understand it, meant that society as a whole would order its economic life for the good of all.

He saw the conflict in contemporary socialism and its immobility in the face of the crises that confronted it — e.g., its inability to make decisive use of the means of power for its own protection and that of Weimar democracy as such — as due to its overdependence on bourgeois presuppositions.

He himself gives an answer when he writes: «Socialism is religious if religion means living out of the roots of human being.»

Socialism's goal of a classless society does not mean a society without roots, without loyalties, traditions, faith.

«Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation...» — Karl Marx

@Chad «Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation...» — Karl Marx

In official party and state rhetoric liberation meant both freedom from capitalism and militarism (and thus from fascism and imperialism, since the first two were presumed to lead by the logic of history to the second two) and freedom for socialism and communism (the one seen as a stage in the transition to the other).

And in fact, we can learn a lesson from its defeat in terms of the strength of capitalism as a global system, which used all political and military means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of socialism.

While Churchill was a great orator, his words meant much back in those days but how soon does history tend to overlook such orations,,, For is it not a more wiser ambition to live freely among all religious persuasions and cling ever gently upon one's own independent literacies even though self - indulgence of the religious socialisms may give rises toward individualized dementia?

While socialism as the state ownership of the means of production was discredited in the twentieth century, the egalitarianism of Rorty's utopia is maintained by fellow - feeling and a pervasive altruism.

The real story here is who created all these desperate people and communities like the Pope and the Church that have to reach out to socialism for meaning.

Pesch and his Jesuit successors developed the idea of «solidarism,» by which they intended «a mean between individualism and socialism.»

does this mean dumbness is genetical or is it societal hierarchies being the dumbness from which socialisms are currently adorned and auspisciously bequeathed?

This would mean giving up, once and for all, the endless rationalization of socialist fiascoes and the restless search for some allegedly different incarnation of «true socialism» in this or that obscure corner of the globe.

Communism alone can defeat National Socialism or vice versa, and that by the use of the same means.

If and in so far as socialism... means the satisfaction of material need and social justice in a material democracy, socialism is the symbol for the liberation of men from the vicious circle of poverty.

But this did not mean that Christian critics of the identification of Christianity with socialism turned against socialism.

I have repeatedly expressed my opinion on the relations between the Socialist Movement and the theories of Socialism, these relations are by no means rigid or immutable.

She is renewing the conviction that to be a Christian requires one to be a socialist as well, Of course this does not mean an unqualified approval of all that is done in the name of socialism.

As Croce saw it: «The psychological conditions which we have described, uncertainty with regard to aims, doubt as to means bankruptcy of ideas all these symptoms from which Italy was suffering explain how it was that her young men were fired with such lively enthusiasm for the doctrines of socialism.

At the same time, if an all encompassing socialism has proved too cumbersome, inefficient and corruptible, that does not mean that disaggregated forms of socialism are unworkable.