Is social security socialism ?

What Is social security Socialism ?

Socialism is a popular political and economic system that is based on public ownership as also known as collective or common ownership of the means of production.

Those means also include the machinery tools and factories that are used for the production of goods that are directly satisfying human needs.

Communism and socialism are the main terms that are referring to two left-wing schools of economic thought; both oppose capitalism, but socialism predates the Communist Manifesto, and the 1848 pamphlet by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by a few decades.

In a purely socialist system, the government makes all legal production and distribution decisions, and individuals completely rely on the state for everything from healthcare to food.

The government also determines the pricing and output levels of these goods and services.

Socialists contend that is shared ownership of resources and central planning provide an equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.

Understanding the concept of is social security socialism

Common ownership under socialism might take shape through oligarchic, technocratic totalitarian, democratic, or even voluntary ruled.

The Soviet Union is the prominent historical example of a socialist country. Contemporary examples include countries like Cuba, China and Venezuela.

Due to its poor track record and practical challenges, socialism is sometimes a utopian or “post-scarcity” system. However, modern adherents believe that it could work only if it is properly implemented.

They also argue socialism which creates equality and provides security—a worker’s value can come from the amount of time they have worked for, not in the value of what they produce—while capitalism exploits workers for the benefit of the wealthy.

Why social security is not socialism?

Who said social security is socialism. A Social Security is mainly a just means of a insuring against such a economic risk. It is a fundamentally as an insurance program, it is not a saving program. As such it is not basically a welfare. By Just because of an economic activity that are used to transfers income from one individual or a group to another individual does not make it socialism.

Is social security socialism is  ideal choice:

Production for a use, rather than for a profit.

Equitable distribution of material resources and wealth among all people.

No more competitive selling or buying in the market.

Free access to services and goods.

Or, as an old socialist slogan it describes as, “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

Origination of Socialism

Socialism is a developed in a opposition to the excesses and a abuses of liberal capitalism and individualism. During the late 18th and 19th centuries, under early capitalist economies, western European countries also experienced industrial production and compound economic growth at a rapid step.

Some families and individuals quickly rise to riches, while others sunk into creating income inequality, poverty and other various social concerns.

Robert Owen, Karl Marx, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Vladimir Lenin are the early socialist thinkers who were also one of the most famous.

It was primarily Lenin who was behind the expounding on the ideas of earlier socialists and helped in bringing socialist planning for the national level after the Russia’s 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.

By following the failure of socialist central planning in Maoist China and the Soviet Union during the 20th century, many modern socialists also adjust to a redistributive system and high regulatory; sometimes it is referred to as democratic socialism or market socialism.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

Capitalist economies, which are also known as free-market or market economies and socialist economies, which is differed by their logical underpinnings, stated or implied objectives and structures of ownership and production.

Socialists and free-market economists concur on fundamental economics—the demand and supply framework, for instance—while contracting about its proper adaptation.

Several philosophical questions also lie about the debate between capitalism and socialism: What is the character of government? What is constituting a human right? What roles should play inequality and justice in society?

Practically, free-market and socialism, capitalism can be divided on control of production and property rights.

In a capitalist economy, enterprises and private individuals own the means of production and the right to profit from them; rights of private property are taken very seriously and applying for nearly everything.

In a socialist economy, the government can also owns and controls the production; personal property is sometimes that is allowed but only in the arrangement of consumer goods.

In a socialist economy, public officials can control consumers, producers, savers, borrowers, and investors by taking over and regulating of trade, the flow of capital, and various other resources.

In an economy of free-market, trade can be conducted on a nonregulated or voluntary basis.

Market economies also rely on the separate actions of self-determination of individuals for determining distribution, production and consumption.

Various decisions about what, when, and how to produce are made privately and coordinated through a spontaneously developed price system, and the laws of supply and demand determine prices.

Proponents also say that freely floating market prices can direct resources towards their end that is most efficient. Profits can be encouraged and even can be driven future production.

Socialist economies can rely on either the government or worker cooperatives for driving production and distribution.

Consumption can be regulated, but partially it is still left up to individuals.

The state can determine that how main resources can be used and taxes wealth for efforts of redistribution. Socialist economic thinkers is mainly consider that many private economic activities can be irrational, such as leverage or arbitrage, because they do not have to create immediate consumption or “use.”

Bones of disagreement

There are so many points of disagreement between these two type of a systems. Socialists also consider capitalism as the free market that can be unfair and possibly unsustainable.

E.g., most socialists contend that market capitalism is not capable of providing enough subsistence for the lower classes. They contend that owners who are greedy can suppress wages and seek to retain profits for themselves.

Proponents of market capitalism counter that socialist economies can not allocate scarce efficient resources without any real market prices.

They can claim that the resultant surpluses, shortages and political corruption would lead towards more poverty, not less. Overall, they can say that socialism is inefficient and impractical, suffering from two major challenges.

The first challenge was widely known as the “incentive problem,” says no one wants to be a worker for sanitation or wash skyscraper windows.

That is socialist planners who were cannot incentivize laborers for accepting dangerous or uncomfortable jobs without the violation of the equality of outcomes.

Far more serious is the problem of calculation, a concept of origination from economist Ludwig von Mises’ 1920 an article was introduced “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.”

Socialists also wrote an article for about Mises that we’re been unable to perform any real economic calculation without a pricing mechanism. Without any real cost of factor, no true accounting might take place. Without any futures markets, capital can never reorganize efficiently over time.

Can a Country Be Both?

While socialism and capitalism seem opposing, today, most capitalist economies have some socialist aspects.

Components of a market economy and a socialist economy can be combined together and can be converted into a mixed economy.

And in fact, most modern countries were operating with a mixed economic system; government and private individuals were influenced in production and distribution.

A well-Known economist and social theorist, Mr. Hans Herman Hoppe, wrote that there are only two archetypes in economic affairs—socialism and capitalism—and that every real system combines these archetypes. But because of various differences in archetypes, there is an inherent challenge in the philosophy of a mixed economy.

It has become a never-ending balancing act between predictable obedience for the state and the unpredictable consequences of the individual behavior.

How Mixed Economies were Developing?

Relatively Mixed economies are still young, and theories around them have only recently been codified.

The Financial Power of Nations, Adam Smith’s pioneering economic was a treatise; it has been argued that markets were spontaneous and that the state couldn’t directed to them or the economy.

Later economists, including F.A. Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter, John-Baptiste and Milton Friedman would expand on this idea.

However, in 1985, the political economy theorists Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe C. Schmitter have introduced the “economic governance” for describing markets that are not spontaneous but was needed to be created and can be maintained by institutions.

The state for pursuing its objectives are needed for creating a market that was following its rules.

Historically, mixed economies also have followed two types of trajectories. The first type was assuming that private individuals have the right to own produce, property and trade.

State intervention was gradually developed, usually in the name of protection of the consumers, supporting industries was crucial towards the public good (in some fields like energy or communications), providing welfare, or several other aspects of the social safety.

Most of the western democracies, such as the United States, was following this model.

The second trajectory have involved this states that was evolved from totalitarian regimes or pure collectivist.

Individuals who were interests are considered as a distant second to state interests, but elements of capitalism were adopted for promoting economic growth. China and Russia are some well-known examples of the second model.

Transitioning From Socialism

A nation needs to be transfer the means of a production to a transition from mainly socialism to free markets. The process of transferring any functions and assets from central authorities to a private individuals is known as privatization.

Privatization occurs whenever ownership rights transfer from a coercive public authority to a private actor, a company or an individual. Different forms of a privatization which include:

Contracting out to a private firms.

Awarding franchises.

Outright selling government assets or divestiture.

In some cases, privatization isn’t privatized. Case in point: private prisons. Rather than completely ceding a service for competitive markets and influencing the supply and demand, private prisons in the United States are just a monopoly of contracted-out government.

The scope of functions that is forming the prison are largely controlled by government’s law and also executed by government policy. It is also important to remember that not all transfers of government control are resulted of the free market.

Privatization of a Socialist Economy

Efforts of some nationwide privatization would be relatively mild, while others can be dramatic.

The most striking examples are the former satellite nations of the Soviet Bloc after the falling of the U.S.S.R. and the same modernization of the post-Mao Chinese government.

The privatization process also involves several different types of reforms, not all of them completely economical.

Enterprises also need to be deregulated, and prices are needed to be allowed for flowing which is based on microeconomic considerations; tariffs and import/export barriers need to be removed; state-owned enterprises need to be sold; investment restrictions must be relaxed, and the state authorities must relinquish their interests in the means of production.

The logistical problems are associated with these actions that have not been fully resolved, and several different theories and practices that have been offered throughout the history.

Is it necessary that these transfers be gradual or immediate?

What can be the possible impacts of shocking an economy which is built around central control?

Can firms be depoliticized effectively?

As the Eastern Europe was struggling in the 1990s shows that it can be very difficult for a population for adjusting with the complete state control for suddenly having political and economic freedoms.

In Romania, for e.g., the National Agency for Privatization was charged for privatizing commercial activity in a controlled manner.

Private ownership funds, or POFs, was established in 1991. The state ownership fund, or SOF, was also responsible for selling 10% of the state’s shares every year to the POFs, which was allowing prices and markets for adjusting to a new economic process.

But initial efforts was failing as progress was slow, and politicization was compromising with many transitions.

Further authority was given to more government agencies and, over the next decade, bureaucracy took over what should have been a private market.

These failures was also indicating that the primary problem with gradual transitions that when the political actors were controlling the process, then economic decisions was continued to be made, which was based on noneconomic justifications. A quick transition was also resulting in the greatest initial shock and the most initial displacement.

Still, it results in the fastest reallocation of resources toward the most valued, market-based ends.


Socialism is an economic and political system which is based on public ownership of the means of production.

The government makes all legal production and distribution decisions in a socialist system. The government was determining all output levels and pricing levels.

Citizens in a socialist society was relying on the government for everything, from healthcare to food.

Proponents of socialism was believing that it was leading to an equal distribution of goods and services and was more equitable for the society.

Is social security socialism has example

For socialist countries   the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and Venezuela.

Socialist ideals include:

Production for a use, rather than for just profit.

Equitable distribution of material resources and wealth was among all people.

There was no more competitive buying and selling in the market.

Free access to goods and services.

With this believe in private ownership and the goal to maximize profits, capitalism stands in contrast to socialism.

While socialism and capitalism seem opposed, most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects.

Leave a Comment