Socialism, as I understand it, is when most if not all resources are controlled by the federalized government in order to make sure all citizens are adequately supported. The idea is popular because it takes the idea of "mob rule" and reverses it to where those with the most education and interest in the people (in this case the government) make the decisions regarding how resources are spent.

"Universal health care" is not, in itself, socialist. If universal health care is voted on then it is technically democratic. Socialism is not a matter of the programs themselves but how those things are decided. If someone in the upper echelon of government says "there should be universal health care" and then it happens regardless of the people then that is socialist.

The difficulty is that the reverse is true. For instance if it were simply decided that all Americans were permitted to carry shotguns at school and there was no vote that would be a socialist decision. Why? The government made the choice without the consultation of the people.

And this is why socialism is such a "bad word" in America (at least for those who actually bother to differentiate between "liberal" and "socialist" which are very different concepts). Socialism posits a system without representation of the people and considering a slogan you may have heard back in grade school ("No taxation without representation!" ring any bells?) the American people are understandably reluctant to consider such a form of government.

If you want to know my theory as to why socialism fails so purely it's because socialism cannot exist. What does that mean? Socialism has conditions which are necessary in order for it to exist and one of the key conditions is one where the government does not abuse its power. As most people who have studied political science or history (again typically political history) could tell you the effort is involved in making a government that isn't corrupt not the other way around.

This correlates with my "power theory" in which politics is the distribution of power. When you place all the power in the hands of the government, an organization, you place all the power in the hands of a minority. Once the minority has control over the majority you end up with abuse of power. I'm not saying the majority never abuses power but the more the power is diluted the less likely severe abuse is to happen.

Think of it this way. You have five people at the table playing, say, poker. There are 50 chips. One guy has 30 chips and the other four have 5 chips each. Who controls the flow of the game? Who can afford to take the risks, throw off the power balance, and decide who has to buy the beer? Probably not one of the guys with 5 chips.

Now give each person 10 chips and can that guy still throw his virtual weight around? Can he control the other four and manipulate them as easily? Probably not. The power is equal. It's diluted. A government system that attempts to spread out the power tends to be empowering to the people instead of the opposite.

Humans instinctively understand the concept of power. We can tell the difference between our money, our land, our clothes, our friends, our stuff. There's a difference in value between your car and a car you borrow from a family member. Even if the borrowed car is a more expensive car you still tend to prefer you own. Why? Because that car is your power. It's your transportation power and if, say, the DMV owned your car and just handed it out to you based on your socioeconomic class and available resources you probably wouldn't be as comfortable with the vehicle.

Socialism creates a system where the majority, the individual, and the people have effectively no power because all resources are owned by the government. The federal government has all the power and you end up with effectively a dictatorship or oligarchy because all the power becomes localized in one small group. Whomever runs the group has all the power. You can talk theory all you want but if a government system does work at a practical level there really isn't much point to it. Anarchy and communism work in theory. Practically they fail miserably just as socialism does.

One last thing. Canada is not a socialist country. They're technically a monarchy with a parliamentary system very similar to the British system of government (no surprise there). There is a Queen of Canada (Her Majesty Elizabeth II) and it's a federal system. Having programs like universal health care and transportation do not make Canada a socialist government! Their monarch may take issue with that idea .

That's my understanding of it, anyway. Hope that helps!

Jacquesne