Do you know the difference between Socialism and Communism?

[Randox]

In teh end Socialisim is not much more than a democratic communist system.

 

 

 

Canadas NDP party is socalist, so I naturaly don't like them. My family is far enough up the middel class that we would be subject to more taxes, and when income tax hits 50+% I would start getting real pissed.

 

 

 

If we let the Government handel everything, we might be able to drop some prices a bit because the Government would seek to break even, not make a profit (thats what taxes are for). However I think that they would screw it up. Any type of oganization that incredibly large would be plaged by communication problems, political [cabbage], and overal reduced effectivness and efincey. Would proboly raise production costs enough to offset the non-profit thing.

 

 

 

No, I think I come up with a great idea/prduct and want to make my own company so I can get rich off MY idea, I shoudl be able to. I would move to a country where I could make my own companie, and so would many other people, so if we were socalist/communist, we could all sit and watch teh brilliant ideas walk away and compete with our country.

 

 

 

But it is nice of you to explain the diffrence, but I still don't like either system.

[Satenza]

There are many differences between Communsim (or Marxism) and Anarchism though, the main one that he missed out was that there emerges a shared morality between everyone, after the destruction of capitalism and after the dictorial government has no need. This morality essentially means no one would go against it. Although it is (like most communist theory) speculative and untestable. So i personally can never see how communism would ever really proceed past an totalitarian government.

[superson]

Ew, stalinism.

 

 

 

Satenza and his thought provoking posts! 8-)

[Satenza]

Stalinism is a disgusting theory though. Thats what i was going for.

[The Real ET]

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.

 

Ok, I read up to about here and burst out laughing. I have not read anyone elses posts yet, though I'm sure they'll be interesting, but let me just say this: Apparantly, neither can you. Communism is not what you describe, you are describing (an I am repeating myself for the thousandth time) Stalinism. Communism is so much different it isn't even funny. In Communism, after a social revolution in which the proletariat overthrow their burgeosie leaders (upper class, basically), a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat is developed, which eventually fades away, leaving behind NO federal government whatsoever. This is, however, not anarchy; it is not chaotic, but a peaceful, "perfect" society where people hold hands and sing Kumbaya (sp?). I hope I explained that well and full enough for you to know the difference. My biggest goal is to educate everyone (here and in the real world) about the incorrect use of terminology which, as a Stalinist myself, offends me.

 

 

 

I left the government fading away part. It's been awhile since I offically learned this and wasn't sure if it was Communism or Stalinism that had the fading away part, so I just left it out. I'll go correct it now.

[Lenin64]

There are many differences between Communsim (or Marxism) and Anarchism though, the main one that he missed out was that there emerges a shared morality between everyone, after the destruction of capitalism and after the dictorial government has no need. This morality essentially means no one would go against it. Although it is (like most communist theory) speculative and untestable. So i personally can never see how communism would ever really proceed past an totalitarian government.

 

If you mean me, I mentioned that...the 'holding hands and singing Kumbaya" part.

[indy500fan]

There are many differences between Communsim (or Marxism) and Anarchism though, the main one that he missed out was that there emerges a shared morality between everyone, after the destruction of capitalism and after the dictorial government has no need. This morality essentially means no one would go against it. Although it is (like most communist theory) speculative and untestable. So i personally can never see how communism would ever really proceed past an totalitarian government.

 

 

 

If there is no government, it is an anarchy. It can be an anarchy and communist, it can be an anarchy and capitalist, or it can be an anarchy and a mix. Anarchism just refers to all of them, from communist to capitalist, in which there is no government.

 

 

 

If you are just looking at the government part and not the economic part, you can say you are an anarchist. But if you are looking at the socio-economic whole, you can't just say you are an anarchist, because there's a wide range you could be. However you can just say you are a communist and that works as a socio-economic description, because anarchy is inherent in it and not needed to be said. Capitalism is a bit more complicated, because you can be a capitalist and still believe in a government. So if you believe in no government, and a capitalist economy, when describing the socio-economic system you have to say anarcho-capitalism.

[Lenin64]

There are many differences between Communsim (or Marxism) and Anarchism though, the main one that he missed out was that there emerges a shared morality between everyone, after the destruction of capitalism and after the dictorial government has no need. This morality essentially means no one would go against it. Although it is (like most communist theory) speculative and untestable. So i personally can never see how communism would ever really proceed past an totalitarian government.

 

 

 

If there is no government, it is an anarchy. It can be an anarchy and communist, it can be an anarchy and capitalist, or it can be an anarchy and a mix. Anarchism just refers to all of them, from communist to capitalist, in which there is no government.

 

 

 

If you are just looking at the government part and not the economic part, you can say you are an anarchist. But if you are looking at the socio-economic whole, you can't just say you are an anarchist, because there's a wide range you could be. However you can just say you are a communist and that works as a socio-economic description, because anarchy is inherent in it and not needed to be said. Capitalism is a bit more complicated, because you can be a capitalist and still believe in a government. So if you believe in no government, and a capitalist economy, when describing the socio-economic system you have to say anarcho-capitalism.

 

And Stalinism goes one step further: socio-religi-economic, unless religous falls under the social category. But yea all religion is gotten rid of.

[Medellin]

When a government is Communist, they force their ideas on people. This is not part of communism, but it's what has happened.

 

 

 

I, living in a socialist county, (Finland) do not like socialism. Everything is so much more expensive. This computer was 960 USD including tax, in Finland 1800 EUR.

 

 

 

Guess where I bought this?

 

 

 

Socialism FTL, Capitalist and Liberal Democracy FTW.

 

 

 

This is why I don't think I could live in European countries. My heart would cry everytime I'd look in my paycheck and see the gov't getting around 50+% of it

[bubbyjoe2]

Neither communism nor socialism will be successfully run as a form of government, because of human nature.

 

 

 

Both express the idea of everyone in the system not being better than anyone else, and not getting any more benefits nor wealth than anyone else. The wealth, goods, and territory is divided to be equally advantageous to everyone. The prices of goods are also chosen by the government, and jobs are assigned by the government as well. Everyone is also meant to be working on the same projects and ideas together.

 

 

 

Communism is usually run by an official known as a Chairman, and that person, in most cases, either loses his power quickly, or converts the government into an autocracy or dictatorship.

 

 

 

The other reasons why this isn't possible is because humans can't "Just get along" as this system suggests. There almost always has to be some sort of competition between people, and they cannot always agree on everything such as jobs or prices which the government must decide for them.

[YourOldFriendIsBack]

One is Europe, the other is an ideology just like Anarchism.

 

 

 

Anyways, free market real Conservatism owns them both! And I mean real Conservatism, not this phony NeoConservatism (aka the Republican Party) thing that we have in this country.

[Guest baronmaster]

Neither communism nor socialism will be successfully run as a form of government, because of human nature.

 

 

 

Both express the idea of everyone in the system not being better than anyone else, and not getting any more benefits nor wealth than anyone else. The wealth, goods, and territory is divided to be equally advantageous to everyone. The prices of goods are also chosen by the government, and jobs are assigned by the government as well. Everyone is also meant to be working on the same projects and ideas together.

 

 

 

Communism is usually run by an official known as a Chairman, and that person, in most cases, either loses his power quickly, or converts the government into an autocracy or dictatorship.

 

 

 

The other reasons why this isn't possible is because humans can't "Just get along" as this system suggests. There almost always has to be some sort of competition between people, and they cannot always agree on everything such as jobs or prices which the government must decide for them.

 

 

 

Im going to take up the marxists side and say you're suffering from False Class Consciousness.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Neither communism nor socialism will be successfully run as a form of government, because of human nature.

 

 

 

Both express the idea of everyone in the system not being better than anyone else, and not getting any more benefits nor wealth than anyone else. The wealth, goods, and territory is divided to be equally advantageous to everyone. The prices of goods are also chosen by the government, and jobs are assigned by the government as well. Everyone is also meant to be working on the same projects and ideas together.

 

 

 

Communism is usually run by an official known as a Chairman, and that person, in most cases, either loses his power quickly, or converts the government into an autocracy or dictatorship.

 

 

 

The other reasons why this isn't possible is because humans can't "Just get along" as this system suggests. There almost always has to be some sort of competition between people, and they cannot always agree on everything such as jobs or prices which the government must decide for them.

 

What partisan teacher taught you that then? It seems like the classic words of a Capitalism-supporting historian's testbook...

 

 

 

In a Socialist government, it's perfectly possible to have conflicting views on how something should be run. The only main fundamental difference between ours and America's current government is that in a Socialist government, the proletariat will have taken over the means of production from the middle classes, in effect making the country controlled by the workers. It's still perfectly possible to have a democracy with conflicting viewpoints in a Socialist state.

 

 

 

Communism may go further. I wouldn't really know. I'm not a Communist.

[assassin_696]

Sure I do, they're both bunk.

 

 

 

ooo

[BlueLancer]

Frankly, in todays world the concepts like communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.. Mean nothing (except in North Korea which is the only exception, let's not get into that). Look at China and tell me it's really 'communist'.

 

 

 

What every country needs is more humanistic governments and ideas, which are also approved by the population. This year, Norway pledged $1 billion dollars for poor people of the world (and that's besides the fact they already donate 1% of their gross GDP to foreign aid.

 

 

 

That's not all... They also pledged to donate 3 billion crowns (USD $560 million) to rainforest preservation, just two days ago.

 

 

 

Count how much money that equals in a country of merely 4.3 million people. That means every Norwegian is personally aiding the world this year by about 500-700$ US dollars.

 

 

 

Now, just think if all western countries could do even 1/10th of that...

[assassin_696]

Sadly though, throwing money at the situation in Africa and other parts of the world isn't really the best way to go about changing it.

[dsavi]

sdfasf

[Ginger_Warrior]

Frankly, in todays world the concepts like communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.. Mean nothing (except in North Korea which is the only exception, let's not get into that). Look at China and tell me it's really 'communist'.

 

Now, here's a question. Isn't that like saying the term 'republic' means nothing? Why do assume the term 'Communism' has one meaning? In actual fact, it's never been defined. Ever.

 

 

 

Like all forms of government, Communism evolves. Fidel's form of Communism in Cuba may not be the Western view of Communism, but in truth, it is an adaptation of Communism.

 

 

 

If we can have multiple types of Democracy in the world (from our proportoinal representation system to your federal system), why can't Communism take many forms?

 

 

 

As for Socialism, that's very much still alive. Maybe there are less Marxists out there in that crowd now, but the principle still stands. France is a testomany to that fact. The Socialist female condidate picked up some 40% of the French vote. In the UK, the SNP are slammed for being too socialist even by members of the Labour Party. Many MPs in the Labour Party declare themselves as Soclialsts.

 

 

 

I myself am a Socialist, and there are a few more on the forums. The urge for a Socialist revolution may be the stuff of fantasy now, but the principles of the Socialist movement are still alive to this very day.

[InfiniteLove]

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.

 

 

 

This question has to do with the Russian Revolution and Vladmir Lenin: Was Lenin a good leader because his successors, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, don't seem very "great". Did he lead his country well?

 

 

 

I'm not educated in the least about politics but I'd just like to know.