Do you know the difference between Socialism and Communism?

[The Real ET]

Okay, I'm personally sick of America's fear of Communism and how it's always lumped together with Socialism. Neither are diseases that are going to spread and take control of the world if we let a government operate like that.

 

 

 

Socialism and Communism are similar in the aspect of government control, but their main ideas and ideals are completely different. Both can lead to an abusive federal government because of human greed. Humans are almost inherently greedy, so the elimination of wealth classes wouldn't work as someone will always take control and more money. However, Socialistic practices are everywhere, including the United States and have been around before the Socialist philosophy was fully developed. A few examples from throughout American history are: tariffs, railroads, transportation, and education.

 

 

 

Personally, I'm neither a Socialist nor a Communist but I'm just tired of peoples' fear of it and the inability of some to differentiate the two. Discuss your feelings on the two philosophies, if you know/knew the difference, the irrational fear towards the two, and Socialistic practices in our lives.

 

 

 

*Just to clear it up for those who didn't know (if you didn't my post may not have made a lot of sense):

 

 

 

Socialism - political philosophy where the government controls the economy, distribution of goods, and abolishes private business; belief that wealth should belong to a country as a whole; examples of famous Socialists: George Orwell and Upton Sinclair

 

 

 

Communism - political philosophy derived from Socialism that takes government control a step further by eliminating social classes and take control of everything for a short period, before slowly fading away leaving no federal government, and creating a "perfect" classless society that would be the ultimate synthesis (according to Conflict Theory of Historical Change based on Hegel); examples of famous Communists: Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin

 

 

 

*Both definitions are in my own words and may not be 100% right, but are there for people to understand the general ideas.

[Errdoth]

That's interesting. I had no idea they were two different things; always thought they were the same thing. american that you referred to>

[gonpost]

As an American, I have to say I haven't seen anyone around me ever have a "fear of communism". People merely think that it never turns out well, which, in fact, it never does.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that communism and socialism are the forms of the market, not necessarily of the government. Communism just tends to degrade into a dictatorship, so that's why they're always associated with one another.

 

 

 

Most of Europe has a socialist economy or practices mainly socialism. The US is a capitalistic economy with many socialized things, such as government owned utilities and welfare.

 

 

 

As to which one is best....I'll leave that up to the debaters. That contest has been going on for centuries.

 

 

 

Once again, as far as I've observed with kids my age, there is no fear of communism and all that red scare crap went out long ago with the Vietnam war. If people fear China because they are a communist country, then those people are idiots. No one should fear or even *consider* war (which for some reason I hear about all the time) against a country just because the other country has different government and economic practices. Not to mention, China has been becoming more and more capitalistic as time has gone on. With their economy as it is, they really have no choice.

[Necromagus]

I've been a member of the Dutch Socialist Party for five years now...

 

 

 

It started out in the 70s as a Maoist party, working on a local level, but in the eighties it denounced the old doctrine in favour of democratic socialism. Since being elected into parliament in 1994 they haven't lost a single national election. This is because the traditional big left wing party (Labour) has shifted to the right a lot in recent years. The Socialist Party also supports a lot of local social and political activism, keeping in touch with the public in a way that the traditional parties can't.

 

 

 

In the party's manifesto of principals it calls for a society where human dignity, equality and solidarity are most important. Its core issues are employment, social welfare and investing in education, public safety and health care. The party opposes privatisation of public services and is a critic of globalisation.

 

 

 

To prevent elected party officials from abusing their position for financial gain, their salaries are paid directly to the party, which then pays a salary that fits their living situation. This means that only the truly dedicated are elected to positions of power, and that any accusations of abusing their position to enrich themselves can be avoided. The party's representatives on both the local, national and international levels recieve extended training in the political process to make sure they come into power fully prepared.

 

 

 

Because of this carefully constructed foundation, the party has managed to avoid the quick collapse of the LPF, a populist party that made its debut in parliament with over a sixth of the votes. The coalition they formed collapsed within a year because of how unprepared that party was for its responsibilites. Ironically, now they can't even get enough of their members into a room at the same time to vote on the disbanding of the party.

[dsavi]

dfafsdma

[highlanders]

It's annoying how most people don't know the difference.

 

 

 

I think the big difference to keep in mind is that in communism, you don't actually own anything, it is owned by the state. It is also extremely easy to control people in communism.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That's strange... because I was under the impression that Communism has never actually been defined. :-k

 

 

 

The fact is America is a typically right-wing capitalist country, controlled by the bourgeoisie. Twenty years ago, it was in a war of idelogies with a 'Communist' country. Its main economic rival, China, has a history of communism, and is still controlled by a supposedly 'Communist' party. For the past 50 years, it's had a trade embargo with Fidel's communist Cuba. America has always, to some extent, hated socialist or communist ideology. Even its 'left-wing' party (the Democrats) would be regarded right-wing in any other nation.

 

 

 

As for the issue, it's not just America that seemingly has a problem. The amount of times here in Britain (with a socialist Prime Minister) I've had to explain that Stalinism isn't even close to my views as a socialist is appaling. The word 'socialist' is still flung around by the Tories as an insult, and something you shouldn't be proud of being. It annoys me to no end. -.-

 

 

 

BTW, dsavi, the very fact Finland is in the capitalism-driven EU would tell me Finland isn't a socialist country. It's just more left-wing than most. Unless the proletariat actually owns the means of production in a country, a country cannot be regarded 'socialist'.

[The Real ET]

That's strange... because I was under the impression that Communism has never actually been defined. :-k

 

 

 

In an essence it wasn't until the late 1840s when Karl Marx wrote The Manifesto of the Communist Party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto). It was written for the working masses to promote Communism, but is often viewed as the definitive communistic work. Communism has always been: 1)the elimination of social classes 2)the controlling of all economic production and distribution by the government 3)the elimination of all concept of private property 4)all the wealth of the nation belonging to the whole (that part comes straight from Socialism). There are a fwe other points to it, but those are the biggest ones that really define Communism.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That's strange... because I was under the impression that Communism has never actually been defined. :-k

 

 

 

In an essence it wasn't until the late 1840s when Karl Marx wrote The Manifesto of the Communist Party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto). It was written for the working masses to promote Communism, but is often viewed as the definitive communistic work. Communism has always been: 1)the elimination of social classes 2)the controlling of all economic production and distribution by the government 3)the elimination of all concept of private property 4)all the wealth of the nation belonging to the whole (that part comes straight from Socialism). There are a fwe other points to it, but those are the biggest ones that really define Communism.

 

The book may have been called the Communist Manifesto, but this ideal state of "Communism" has never actually been defined, and is still open to interpretation by many philosophers and historians.

 

 

 

The people who followed Marx's work are Marxists, not Communists. In fact, there's a very clear distinction between the Marxists in early-20th century Russia who wanted to set up a bourgeoise state to follow the process Marx describes, and Leninists who wanted the St. Petersburg Soviet to seize power.

[The Real ET]

That's strange... because I was under the impression that Communism has never actually been defined. :-k

 

 

 

In an essence it wasn't until the late 1840s when Karl Marx wrote The Manifesto of the Communist Party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto). It was written for the working masses to promote Communism, but is often viewed as the definitive communistic work. Communism has always been: 1)the elimination of social classes 2)the controlling of all economic production and distribution by the government 3)the elimination of all concept of private property 4)all the wealth of the nation belonging to the whole (that part comes straight from Socialism). There are a fwe other points to it, but those are the biggest ones that really define Communism.

 

The book may have been called the Communist Manifesto, but this ideal state of "Communism" has never actually been defined, and is still open to interpretation by many philosophers and historians.

 

 

 

I don't see it as such. The "perfect" Communistic state can never be truly defined as, with human greed, it's an impossible state to achieve. Unless something extreme happens to create the "perfect" Communistic state, we'll never know what it would really be like. That extreme would have to be really extreme though, as it would have to be a global movement and not just by singular nations to truly achieve the ideal Communistic state. However, the theory of Communism seems to be pretty defined and not too open to interpretation by now.

[The Real ET]

Once again, as far as I've observed with kids my age, there is no fear of communism and all that red scare crap went out long ago with the Vietnam war. If people fear China because they are a communist country, then those people are idiots. No one should fear or even *consider* war (which for some reason I hear about all the time) against a country just because the other country has different government and economic practices. Not to mention, China has been becoming more and more capitalistic as time has gone on. With their economy as it is, they really have no choice.

 

 

 

I have no idea how old you are, but the fear is ever present in politics and the older generation(s). I haven't looked to hard, but I have yet to see an open, active Communist party in the States. Also, the US still has an embargo on Cuba, does it not? Cuban cigars contain secret mindwashing drugs that make the smoker support Communism, duh.

[indy500fan]

The fact is America is a typically right-wing capitalist country, controlled by the bourgeoisie.

 

 

 

I wouldn't call any country capitalist, or even socialist. All countries are pretty much a mix. Sure the US is mostly capitalist, but there are also a lot of socialist properties to it also. 1 in 5 people are employed by the government. Income tax is about 33%. You could also say that it corporatist, which may be a word I just made up. Anyways it means that corporations control a lot more than they should, and that is not capitalism.

[Bubsa]

Okay, I'm personally sick of America's fear of Communism and how it's always lumped together with Socialism. Neither are diseases that are going to spread and take control of the world if we let a government operate like that.

 

 

 

Wow, can you hear me back there, in the '60s?

[meol]

The fact is America is a typically right-wing capitalist country, controlled by the bourgeoisie.

 

 

 

I wouldn't call any country capitalist, or even socialist. All countries are pretty much a mix. Sure the US is mostly capitalist, but there are also a lot of socialist properties to it also. 1 in 5 people are employed by the government. Income tax is about 33%. You could also say that it corporatist, which may be a word I just made up. Anyways it means that corporations control a lot more than they should, and that is not capitalism.

 

My definition of capitalism is "an economical system where the means of production are private property and are operated for profit" (instead of, for example, state-controlled electricity service, which operates for welfare). Wouldn't the U.S be very similar to that? Remember that a lot of the taxes you pay in the U.S. go to the army, not to social services.

 

Also, the U.S. are firm advocates of free trade, even if it might bring a higher social inequality. For me, that's a capitalist point of view.

[indy500fan]

My definition of capitalism is "an economical system where the means of production are private property and are operated for profit" (instead of, for example, state-controlled electricity service, which operates for welfare). Wouldn't the U.S be very similar to that? Remember that a lot of the taxes you pay in the U.S. go to the army, not to social services.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's the first line in Wikipedia. You contradicted yourself right after that. Electricity is a means of production, it being partially controlled by the state is not capitalist. Any sort of welfare is not capitalist. Any sort of controls on the market are not capitalist (capitalist doesn't necessarily equal a perfect market). A military, police force, and judicial system would be the only government institutions in a capitalist market, and some would even argue that they don't belong. The only action the government would take in regards to the market are the enforcement of contracts.

[dsavi]

sdfaiojdsf

[meol]

My definition of capitalism is "an economical system where the means of production are private property and are operated for profit" (instead of, for example, state-controlled electricity service, which operates for welfare). Wouldn't the U.S be very similar to that? Remember that a lot of the taxes you pay in the U.S. go to the army, not to social services.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's the first line in Wikipedia. You contradicted yourself right after that. Electricity is a means of production, it being partially controlled by the state is not capitalist. Any sort of welfare is not capitalist. Any sort of controls on the market are not capitalist (capitalist doesn't necessarily equal a perfect market). A military, police force, and judicial system would be the only government institutions in a capitalist market, and some would even argue that they don't belong. The only action the government would take in regards to the market are the enforcement of contracts.

 

The example with electricity was an example of a non-capitalist service. i actually had no idea that I was exactly telling how the system was in the U.S. Now I understand your point. You are putting "capitalist" as an extreme term, so you're saying that all economical systems in the world fall between socialist and capitalist. If it's that way, I agree with you, seeing that a real, stateless communist country hasn't ever existed.

[Unoalexi]

 

 

 

Socialism FTL, Capitalist and Liberal Democracy FTW.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

What people need to realize is that capitalism is NOT perfect. Just take a look at companies such as Mcdonalds and Walmart.. *shudders* and imagine how much worse they would be if America was 100% capitalist.

 

 

 

Democracy isn't perfect ether. Yes, the concept is good- every one, no matter what background you come from gets to have their say. However it is VERY easy to take advantage of.

 

 

 

For example, lets take the annual presidential election in America. Think about who's counting the votes. Is it the people?! NO! It's the government!

 

The government could just manipulate the numbers around so that the people believe said party candidate won, when in fact, the other person won! In essence, a party's candidates could stay in power forever because of this, and the people would feel no need to rebel because they believe they're being treated fairly.

[The Real ET]

 

 

 

Socialism FTL, Capitalist and Liberal Democracy FTW.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

What people need to realize is that capitalism is NOT perfect. Just take a look at companies such as Mcdonalds and Walmart.. *shudders* and imagine how much worse they would be if America was 100% capitalist.

 

 

 

Democracy isn't perfect ether. Yes, the concept is good- every one, no matter what background you come from gets to have their say. However it is VERY easy to take advantage of.

 

 

 

For example, lets take the annual presidential election in America. Think about who's counting the votes. Is it the people?! NO! It's the government!

 

The government could just manipulate the numbers around so that the people believe said party candidate won, when in fact, the other person won! In essence, a party's candidates could stay in power forever because of this, and the people would feel no need to rebel because they believe they're being treated fairly.

 

 

 

I could understand your arguement if this was a different time period. With the mass media we have today, something like that wouldn't stay secret for long. I'm not saying that the government doesn't keep secrets, but that kind of conspiracy would be quickly uprooted. Also, Socialism, with all economic power in the hands of the government, can be used abusively by the government as well. There could be all kinds of scandals with the government hiding/covering up economic changes or putting too much money in their own pockets. There is no such thing as a "perfect" government as humans are greedy and will always take advantage of others when they're higher up. Anarchy isn't an answer either because of the mass choas that would result. My point is that government will always take advantage of its nation, but it's a nesacary evil for (semi-)order.

[indy500fan]

 

 

 

Socialism FTL, Capitalist and Liberal Democracy FTW.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

What people need to realize is that capitalism is NOT perfect. Just take a look at companies such as Mcdonalds and Walmart.. *shudders* and imagine how much worse they would be if America was 100% capitalist.

 

 

 

Democracy isn't perfect ether. Yes, the concept is good- every one, no matter what background you come from gets to have their say. However it is VERY easy to take advantage of.

 

 

 

For example, lets take the annual presidential election in America. Think about who's counting the votes. Is it the people?! NO! It's the government!

 

The government could just manipulate the numbers around so that the people believe said party candidate won, when in fact, the other person won! In essence, a party's candidates could stay in power forever because of this, and the people would feel no need to rebel because they believe they're being treated fairly.

 

 

 

McDonalds and Wal-mart provide cheap goods and services, I see nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

If the votes are being changed, that isn't democracy. Your reasoning fails there.

[Ginger_Warrior]

McDonalds and Wal-mart provide cheap goods and services, I see nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

If the votes are being changed, that isn't democracy. Your reasoning fails there.

 

Your logic falls flat there. According to capitalism, if one person is profiting, or receiving something for cheaper (you in this case), someone else must be paying a higher price to compensate the company's loss. Is it OK by you that McDonald's sell Hot Chocolate, or Walmart sell sugar, cheaply, if it means that a farmer in the Caribbean or in Africa has his/her profits squeezed for the company to make up for that loss, and in turn, struggles to feed his/her family?

 

 

 

As meol says, what you need to understand is that capitalism has its bad sides. For you to have cheaper products, and for global companies to make the billions of dollars profit they make, someone else has to suffer. In our world, that's mostly the workers and the labourers who actually make the raw materials for that product. I see plenty wrong in that. If you don't, then you really are a true capitalist.

[indy500fan]

Your logic falls flat there. According to capitalism, if one person is profiting, or receiving something for cheaper (you in this case), someone else must be paying a higher price to compensate the company's loss. Is it OK by you that McDonald's sell Hot Chocolate, or Walmart sell sugar, cheaply, if it means that a farmer in the Caribbean or in Africa has his/her profits squeezed for the company to make up for that loss, and in turn, struggles to feed his/her family?

 

 

 

Um, yes? If the farmers feel they are being treated unfairly, they don't have to sell to the companies anymore. If all the farmers did that, then the companies wouldn't have any sugar to buy, and would have to pay more or go out of business.

[Darksavior69]

Your logic falls flat there. According to capitalism, if one person is profiting, or receiving something for cheaper (you in this case), someone else must be paying a higher price to compensate the company's loss. Is it OK by you that McDonald's sell Hot Chocolate, or Walmart sell sugar, cheaply, if it means that a farmer in the Caribbean or in Africa has his/her profits squeezed for the company to make up for that loss, and in turn, struggles to feed his/her family?

 

 

 

Um, yes? If the farmers feel they are being treated unfairly, they don't have to sell to the companies anymore. If all the farmers did that, then the companies wouldn't have any sugar to buy, and would have to pay more or go out of business.

 

I'm sure poor farm workers who can barely live off the wages they're paid can easily all organize a protest since there aren't any people who can possibly take their place.

[indy500fan]

I'm sure poor farm workers who can barely live off the wages they're paid can easily all organize a protest since there aren't any people who can possibly take their place.

 

 

 

Then there are too many farmers. Labour follows the rule of supply and demand too you know.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Your logic falls flat there. According to capitalism, if one person is profiting, or receiving something for cheaper (you in this case), someone else must be paying a higher price to compensate the company's loss. Is it OK by you that McDonald's sell Hot Chocolate, or Walmart sell sugar, cheaply, if it means that a farmer in the Caribbean or in Africa has his/her profits squeezed for the company to make up for that loss, and in turn, struggles to feed his/her family?

 

 

 

Um, yes? If the farmers feel they are being treated unfairly, they don't have to sell to the companies anymore. If all the farmers did that, then the companies wouldn't have any sugar to buy, and would have to pay more or go out of business.

 

If they don't sell to the big supermarket chains at their knock-down prices, who can they sell to? Noone, that's who.

 

 

 

They either sell their produce to the supermarkets and the companies who take advantage of them, or their family starves more than it currently is. You make it sound like those farmers actually have a choice in who they sell to...