The difference between Communism and Socialism

[JBeukema]

The term "Socialism" didn't just magically become the same thing as "Democratic Socialism", for instance.

Democratic Socialism is to Socialism as Crimson is to Red

One can certainly have a Socialist state that is ruled by a totalitarian government

Yes, let's focus on scarlet and pretend crimson, carnelian, falu, sangria, and maroon don't exist

 

[Vast LWC]

Not totally incorrect, but somewhat abridged.

I defined the differences between socialism and communism in post #33. (Taxes and civil Liberties).

Your abridged def. of Socialism is 'where the gov't controls the means of production', yer words; over simplistic. It doesn't state to what extent gov't controls the means of production, or, does your definition say that the gov't controls ALL means of production?

Those would be degrees of Socialism, and would not apply to the definition. Lesser degrees than that of "pure" socialism would be states of "semi" or "quasi" socialism.

The fallacy that any amount of socialism creates a "Socialist" state makes it possible for people to do things like refer to the president as a "Socialist" because he wants universal health care.

Most importantly, your def. of Socialism never takes into account HOW the gov't controls the means of production....never mentions taxes, does it? And, the extent of taxation is how any socialist system controls the means of production, whether they be individual or corporate taxes. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the industrialized western countries, 38% (but thats for some other thread.)

It doesn't matter how the government takes over the means of production. Whether it takes it over by force or by taxation, it's still Socialism in the end.

There are of course a number of paths to reach a socialist state, none of which affect the definition of the term. And those paths don't necessarily even have an effect on what the resulting government will become.

Also, according to your dictionary, your over simplified and incomplete def. of communism is 'where the gov't controls the means of production, and redistibutes the goods produced, in a manner where all citizens receive an equal portion' Once again, your abbreviated dictionary and definition of communism nowhere states HOW this occurs. This can only occur thru a major erosion of civil liberties.

The path to Communism, again, can vary, and is not particularly taken into account when defining the terms.

And, when I mention civil liberties, and especially the lackof civil liberties, that is the HOW of defining communism.
I understand the revolution that borne this country, and, do not need some abridged dictionary definition of what socialism and communism is to give me clarity, nor do you.
I understand where we've come from, can only hope you do, and the juncture we've arrived at.

You mention clarity, but you are specifically muddying the terms.

Define the terms first, then discuss the degree of, and path to, the form of government you are referring to.

 

[Vast LWC]

The term "Socialism" didn't just magically become the same thing as "Democratic Socialism", for instance.

Democratic Socialism is to Socialism as Crimson is to Red

One can certainly have a Socialist state that is ruled by a totalitarian government

Yes, let's focus on scarlet and pretend crimson, carnelian, falu, sangria, and maroon don't exist

So, Sweden is the same as, say, Stalin's USSR?

There is no difference at all between France and, say, Yugoslavia in the Iron Curtain days?

 

[JBeukema]

Wow, you're fucking stupid.

You said they were the same and tried to ignore the existence different systems and ideologies, remember?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

HUH?

So was Jefferson referring to the Canadians? Mexicans?

.

Let's keep the comment I made in context with the discussion

Quote: Originally Posted by bigrebnc1775

Even though I have a high regard for the Declaration of Independence it is not part of the Constitution. Which is what we have been discussing.

If the Declaration of Independence was consider a law then those who would push for sepration of church and state would not have a leg to stand on.

And this was the comment that I was replying to

Quote:
Bfgrn
We're talking about the Declaration of Independence. Are you John Boehner, or is this a mass affliction of the right??

reb, you're even terrible at backpedaling!

We were talking about the DOI, not the Constitution. The phrase in question, the phrase that shows you don't comprehend the influence of John Locke, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', is found in the DOI. That is the phrase I brought up, that you responded to, and that Bfgrn then responded to you and explained where it comes from. Then, out of the blue, you said that the Constitution doesn't give us rights. huh? At no point was I or Bfgrn talking about the Constitution. You just went off into lala-land.

You blame your typos and third-grade grasp of grammar on your fat fingers, but I just think you're the board's brand-new village idiot.

Who's back peddling? What is the title of this thread? Would you show what each party said instead of paraphrasing? And make sure what you show was said in this thread. I want to see a time stamp of the post and the thread title. I have already caught JBeukema posting something as if I made the comment. Until then you are full of shit. Now as for your comment about my typos tell me are you, L.K.Eder, JBeukema the self appointed grammar Nazi’s? Do you go after others like you have with me? If you are going after others you three must be really busy, because no one on this board makes a perfect grammatically correct post. Or is it just me you attack? Thanks for the complement. When a person insults they have nothing else to argue with.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow, you're fucking stupid.

You said they were the same and tried to ignore the existence different systems and ideologies, remember?

No, no I did not.

I said that the term "Socialism" has one single meaning.

However, I did not in fact say that there was not a possibility of varying degrees of "Socialism" within a given society. But a society that has a mix of socialism, capitalism, and, I don't know, how about some feudalism (just for fun), would certainly not be regarded as a "Socialist" state just because of the socialist aspects it contains.

Re-defining the term "Socialism" to fit said varying degrees or types, as opposed to using other descriptive terms, (like "Democratic Socialism") is, as you put it, "Fucking Stupid".

 

[B. Kidd]

Not totally incorrect, but somewhat abridged.

I defined the differences between socialism and communism in post #33. (Taxes and civil Liberties).

Your abridged def. of Socialism is 'where the gov't controls the means of production', yer words; over simplistic. It doesn't state to what extent gov't controls the means of production, or, does your definition say that the gov't controls ALL means of production?

Those would be degrees of Socialism, and would not apply to the definition. Lesser degrees than that of "pure" socialism would be states of "semi" or "quasi" socialism.

The fallacy that any amount of socialism creates a "Socialist" state makes it possible for people to do things like refer to the president as a "Socialist" because he wants universal health care.

Most importantly, your def. of Socialism never takes into account HOW the gov't controls the means of production....never mentions taxes, does it? And, the extent of taxation is how any socialist system controls the means of production, whether they be individual or corporate taxes. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the industrialized western countries, 38% (but thats for some other thread.)

It doesn't matter how the government takes over the means of production. Whether it takes it over by force or by taxation, it's still Socialism in the end.

There are of course a number of paths to reach a socialist state, none of which affect the definition of the term. And those paths don't necessarily even have an effect on what the resulting government will become.

Also, according to your dictionary, your over simplified and incomplete def. of communism is 'where the gov't controls the means of production, and redistibutes the goods produced, in a manner where all citizens receive an equal portion' Once again, your abbreviated dictionary and definition of communism nowhere states HOW this occurs. This can only occur thru a major erosion of civil liberties.

The path to Communism, again, can vary, and is not particularly taken into account when defining the terms.

And, when I mention civil liberties, and especially the lackof civil liberties, that is the HOW of defining communism.
I understand the revolution that borne this country, and, do not need some abridged dictionary definition of what socialism and communism is to give me clarity, nor do you.
I understand where we've come from, can only hope you do, and the juncture we've arrived at.

You mention clarity, but you are specifically muddying the terms.

Define the terms first, then discuss the degree of, and path to, the form of government you are referring to.

I defined my terms in post 33. Anything I put forth beyond that logically stems from those terms. If its' muddied to you, than your perception of our nation's history is impaired or revisionist. Therefore, discussing with you, the degee, path, and form of gov't, would take a dissertation by me that your impaired or revisionist perspective concerning our nation's history would not penetrate; and, besides would give me a headache.

You're perspective of our history, and a furthur attempt to expand your perspective by me, using the template of taxes and civil liberties as regarding Socialism and Communism and as it relates to the U.S., would fail in this venue, and frankly, is not my responsibility.

In summary, terms defined, use them or lose them, and once again it's your responsibility, if you use my terms, on your own, to figure out the degree to which we are gravitiating towards socialism or communism.

 

[antagon]

The term "Socialism" didn't just magically become the same thing as "Democratic Socialism", for instance.

Democratic Socialism is to Socialism as Crimson is to Red

One can certainly have a Socialist state that is ruled by a totalitarian government

Yes, let's focus on scarlet and pretend crimson, carnelian, falu, sangria, and maroon don't exist

where socialism is red, the end game looks more like orange versus purple to me when you add in the bases of political structure to the mix. well-laid democracy and dictatorial oligarchy each contribute a hell of a difference. mix in other economic principles and it is different, yet.

 

[antagon]

Socialism - individual taxed to the max on what they earn and buy and still can complain.

Communism - individual's earnings and bought goods so pitiful they are not worth really taxing and dare not complain.

this does presume a lot about each form and the societal solution that they are in. in that way classical definitions are well superior. these aren't definitions at all.