The difference between Communism and Socialism

[JBeukema]

9. Where Socialists aim to achieve freedom and justice by removing the exploitation which divides men under capitalism, Communists seek to sharpen those class divisions only in order to establish the dictatorship of a single party.


10. International Communism is the instrument of a new imperialism. Wherever it has achieved power it has destroyed freedom or the chance of gaining freedom. It is based on a militarist bureaucracy and a terrorist police. By producing glaring contrasts of wealth and privilege it has created a new class society. Forced labour plays an important part in its economic organisation.


11. Socialism is an international movement which does not demand a rigid uniformity of approach. Whether Socialists build their faith on Marxist or other methods of analysing society, whether they are inspired by religious or humanitarian principles, they all strive for the same goal — a system of social justice, better living, freedom and world peace.


....


POLITICAL DEMOCRACY
1. Socialists strive to build a new society in freedom and by democratic means.
2. Without freedom there can be no Socialism. Socialism can be achieved only through democracy. Democracy can be fully realised only through Socialism.
3. Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. It must secure:
a. The right of every human being to a private life, protected from arbitrary invasion by the state.
b. Political liberties like freedom of thought, expression, education, organisation and religion.
c. The representation of the people through free elections, under universal, equal and secret franchise.
d. Government by the majority and respect for the rights of the minority.
e. The equality before the law of all citizens, whatever their birth, sex, language, creed and colour.
f. Right to cultural autonomy for groups with their own language.
g. An independent judiciary system; every man must have the right to a public trial before an impartial tribunal by due process of law.
4. Socialists have always fought for the rights of man.

I have my concerns with f and as few other details, but this pretty well sums it up

​

AIMS AND TASKS OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Socialism is the economical system that most communist leaders used.

 

[JBeukema]

Socialism is the economical system that most communist leaders used.

Really? Please show how the average worker in the CCCP had a say in anything.

Do not confuse 'collectivization' [bureaucratic collectivist oligarchy], state capitalism, and an oligarchy with a socialist socio-economic system.

 

[Douger]

Demo. Greek. People.Mob.
Cracy. Greek suffix. Rule. Theocracy, democracy, idiocracy.
Mob rules.
51% of the population tells the rest how things are to be done.

It's the worst form of govt there ever was.It's the same as a dictatorship where the brainwashed back the dictator.
If everyone in Cuba hated Fidel do you think he'd still be around ?

Ya see. In Murkastan you brainwashed idiots think you can vote for change.
You got Barry Obasketball alright but look around him when he speaks. It's the same old crowd.
The " supreme" court. The " law makers" in congress.The same old corporations and lobbyists that pay to get the clowns to do as they "a$k
Nothing changed a bit.

Then you have your Nazi's in various uniforms that will defend these clowns with their lives, if necessary.
Both sides, of course.

 

[JBeukema]

Demo. Greek. People.Mob.
Cracy. Greek suffix. Rule. Theocracy, democracy, idiocracy.
Mob rules.
51% of the population tells the rest how things are to be done.

It's the worst form of govt there ever was.It's the same as a dictatorship where the brainwashed back the dictator.
If everyone in Cuba hated Fidel do you think he'd still be around ?

Ya see. In Murkastan you brainwashed idiots think you can vote for change.
You got Barry Obasketball alright but look around him when he speaks. It's the same old crowd.
The " supreme" court. The " law makers" in congress.The same old corporations and lobbyists that pay to get the clowns to do as they "a$k
Nothing changed a bit.

Then you have your Nazi's in various uniforms that will defend these clowns with their lives, if necessary.
Both sides, of course.

lol


go back to school and come back when you've written an 800-word essay comparing direct and representative democratic forms

 

[Vanquish]

one seeks equality...the other is based on a caste system.
one can't abide private property ... the other can co-exist with capitalism (in hybrid form).

it's amazing to me how many conservatives throw these words around interchangeably - and the end result is scaring people into being sheep.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

A common denominator in socialism and communism is the principle that the items produced by the people should be owned publicly, controlled and planned by the Government.

One difference is Socialism advocates that that distribution of items should take into account the individuals efforts, while Communism dictates all items should be divided as to the individuals needs.

Another difference is who actually controls a Society, Socialism has a greater number in Government, while Communism likes to keep a smaller more controllable leadership.

Another difference is that with Communism all private ownership must be done away with ASAP to promote the Classless Society. While Socialism does see Capitalism as a viable need as long as it is controlled tightly by the Centralized Government.

Another difference is who actually controls a Society, Socialism has a greater number in Government, while Communism likes the keep a smaller more controllable leadership.

Confused yet?

Maybe we should toss in a some Marxist views and intensify the debauchery that is killing America ever so slowly.


.

 

[Thunderbird]

Like night and day.

Communism = dictatorship, mass famine, prison camps, massacre.

Socialists try to lend working people a hand. Socialists are democrats who respond to the will of the people. Socialists respect human rights. Socialists do not hate religion, nor do they seek to impose atheism. Communists are guilty of both.

 

[Bfgrn]

A common denominator in socialism and communism is the principle that the items produced by the people should be owned publicly, controlled and planned by the Government.

One difference is Socialism advocates that that distribution of items should take into account the individuals efforts, while Communism dictates all items should be divided as to the individuals needs.

Another difference is who actually controls a Society, Socialism has a greater number in Government, while Communism likes to keep a smaller more controllable leadership.

Another difference is that with Communism all private ownership must be done away with ASAP to promote the Classless Society. While Socialism does see Capitalism as a viable need as long as it is controlled tightly by the Centralized Government.

Another difference is who actually controls a Society, Socialism has a greater number in Government, while Communism likes the keep a smaller more controllable leadership.

Confused yet?

Maybe we should toss in a some Marxist views and intensify the debauchery that is killing America ever so slowly.


.

Confused, not at all. There is a simple explanation.
Socialism is liberal.
Communism is conservative.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Socialism and Communism

 

[Thunderbird]

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works.

Equating Conservatism with elitism is of course absurd. Conservatism = attachment to religion or family or tribe. Conservatism is usually very popular. Liberalism can be defined as antipathy to religion or family or tribe. Liberalism is an icy, arid doctrine embraced only by elites.

"Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism."

If you think Marx had any kind of genuine attachment to democracy you are mistaken.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Where Socialists aim to achieve freedom and justice by removing the exploitation which divides men under capitalism, Communists seek to sharpen those class divisions only in order to establish the dictatorship of a single party.

First, this is the kind of thoughtful and thought provoking thread we can never have enough of...(sorry to end with a preposition)

But there is so much here to debate!

Might have been a dozen threads!

In #9, the pharase "aim to achieve"... consider what has been experiential:

"For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production, says Aiyar:
These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too.
Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year.
It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade. "

The title of the article is " SOCIALISM KILLS: THE COST OF DELAYED ECONOMIC REFORM IN INDIA."
Socialism Kills: The Human Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India | Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar | Cato Institute: Development Briefing Paper

And speaking of 'killing,' From “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,” which is a compilation of research edited by French scholar Stephane Courtois, totals over 100 million victims of Communist murder during the 20th Century.

Most intellectuals today are aware of what communism, socialism, totalitarianism, or any central command-and-control doctrine has done in Russia, under Mao’s reign of terror, or Cuba or other grotesque examples. Yet great numbers of them will use every excuse to avoid attributing the problems to their economic systems. Even a superficial comparison of North and South Korea, East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell, Hong Kong and Mainland China before reforms, or Cuba and other countries in Latin America, demonstrate that free economies are superior at promoting the common good. And yet the mystification continues. Socialist true believers have the power to cloud their own minds.
From a speech delivered by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

 

[Bfgrn]

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works.

Equating Conservatism with elitism is of course absurd. Conservatism = attachment to religion or family or tribe. Conservatism is usually very popular. Liberalism can be defined as antipathy to religion or family or tribe. Liberalism is an icy, arid doctrine embraced only by elites.

"Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism."

If you think Marx had any kind of genuine attachment to democracy you are mistaken.

If only pigs could fly...

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

Before analyzing current-day conservatism's machinery of deception, let us outline the main arguments of conservatism. Although these arguments have changed little through history, they might seem unfamiliar to many people today, indeed even to people who claim to be conservatives. That unfamiliarity is a very recent phenomenon. Yet it is only through the classical arguments and their fallacies that we can begin to analyze how conservatism operates now.

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

 

[Oddball]

Most intellectuals today are aware of what communism, socialism, totalitarianism, or any central command-and-control doctrine has done in Russia, under Mao’s reign of terror, or Cuba or other grotesque examples. Yet great numbers of them will use every excuse to avoid attributing the problems to their economic systems. Even a superficial comparison of North and South Korea, East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell, Hong Kong and Mainland China before reforms, or Cuba and other countries in Latin America, demonstrate that free economies are superior at promoting the common good. And yet the mystification continues. Socialist true believers have the power to cloud their own minds.

Yeah, but.....but...but....but.....it's never been tried MY way!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most intellectuals today are aware of what communism, socialism, totalitarianism, or any central command-and-control doctrine has done in Russia, under Mao’s reign of terror, or Cuba or other grotesque examples. Yet great numbers of them will use every excuse to avoid attributing the problems to their economic systems. Even a superficial comparison of North and South Korea, East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell, Hong Kong and Mainland China before reforms, or Cuba and other countries in Latin America, demonstrate that free economies are superior at promoting the common good. And yet the mystification continues. Socialist true believers have the power to cloud their own minds.

Yeah, but.....but...but....but.....it's never been tried MY way!

With the subheadings
a. it hasn't been tried long enough
b. not enough money was allocated
c. "it's not about me..."
d. the ever-popular "they may not know what's good for them," as follows

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2a2momdss8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Thunderbird]

and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Of course Bfgrn, there are no liberal or leftist think tanks or government bureaucrats. I think most people can name quite a few liberal aristocratic familes, starting with the Kennedy's.

More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.

Yea liberal elites don't want to abide by elections so they assert that the people lack the intelligence or higher consciousness of the lofty liberal seers. Liberals pretend to care about the people even as the liberals dispossess the people.

From Voltaire, who praised tyrants like Catherine the Great, to Robespierre to the Bolsheviks to George Soros liberal elitists have hi-jacked reform movements and betrayed the people.

And don't forget the strong leftist element found in fascism. Are you familiar with Zeev Sternhell, a leading scholar of fascism?

quote: Zeev Sternhell traces the roots of Fascism to revolutionary far-left French movements, adding a branch, called the 'revolutionary right', to the three traditional right-wing families cited by René Rémond - (legitimism, orleanism and bonapartism). The main influences, according to Sternhell were:

Boulangisme, a populist far-right movement led by Georges Boulanger who almost succeeded in his attempt at a coup d'état in 1889;
Revolutionary syndicalism, pointing out how some Italian anarcho-syndicalists, influenced by George Sorel's thought, embraced fascism in its early stages;
Cercle Proudhon's intellectual influence and the synthesis it would have provoked (the activities of Georges Valois and Edouard Berth).

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeev_Sternhell

 

[Bfgrn]

and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Of course Bfgrn, there are no liberal or leftist think tanks or government bureaucrats. I think most people can name quite a few liberal aristocratic familes, starting with the Kennedy's.

More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.

Yea liberal elites don't want to abide by elections so they assert that the people lack the intelligence or higher consciousness of the lofty liberal seers. Liberals pretend to care about the people even as the liberals dispossess the people.

From Voltaire, who praised tyrants like Catherine the Great, to Robespierre to the Bolsheviks to George Soros liberal elitists have hi-jacked reform movements and betrayed the people.

And don't forget the strong leftist element found in fascism. Are you familiar with Zeev Sternhell, a leading scholar of fascism?

quote: Zeev Sternhell traces the roots of Fascism to revolutionary far-left French movements, adding a branch, called the 'revolutionary right', to the three traditional right-wing families cited by René Rémond - (legitimism, orleanism and bonapartism). The main influences, according to Sternhell were:

Boulangisme, a populist far-right movement led by Georges Boulanger who almost succeeded in his attempt at a coup d'état in 1889;
Revolutionary syndicalism, pointing out how some Italian anarcho-syndicalists, influenced by George Sorel's thought, embraced fascism in its early stages;
Cercle Proudhon's intellectual influence and the synthesis it would have provoked (the activities of Georges Valois and Edouard Berth).

link: Zeev Sternhell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You fail... what you are doing is justifying YOU. Because YOU can't care about other people, liberals CAN'T. Otherwise, it would make YOU lessor. You are mentally twisting the axiom 'I'm OK, you're OK...you're version would be" "I''m a scum bag, you're a scum bag"

We can only speculate another person's intent or their motivations. And the only benchmark each of us have is ourselves.

The Kennedy family has wealth, but there is NO family in America that has done more for, fought harder for or spoke out more on behalf of the poor, the disabled and the weak.

The ONLY people that don't want to abide by the elections are the obstructionist Republicans in Congress, the teabagger 'Bushies' and pea brains like YOU.

Fascism, just like EVERY authoritarian government is conservative.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

 

[Oddball]

You fail... what you are doing is justifying YOU. Because YOU can't care about other people, liberals CAN'T. Otherwise, it would make YOU lessor. You are mentally twisting the axiom 'I'm OK, you're OK...you're version would be" "I''m a scum bag, you're a scum bag"

Or, in your particular case, "I'm a sociopath, you're a sociopath".

Explains a lot.

 

[Vanquish]

I love any time someone posts using wild generalities about a particular political bent...since it makes them automatically wrong.

 

[Oddball]

That's what we know as the classic strawman argument.

Control how to define "THEM", as mean, closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic brutes, to "prove" how wonderful, open-minded and "inclusive" the "WE" are.

Also see: Hegelian dialectic.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's what we know as the classic strawman argument.

Control how to define "THEM", as mean, closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic brutes, to "prove" how wonderful, open-minded and "inclusive" the "WE" are.

Also see: Hegelian dialectic.

Hey Jethro...you can't accuse people (liberals) of being sissies, weaklings, pacifists, tree huggers, nig_er lovers and queers, then turn around and accuse them of being fasicts, authoritarians and dictators.

I've noticed lately you have moved from being a peanut gallery 'judge', to the Mod that represents the spammers on the board...

Now, give me one of your BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!