The difference between Communism and Socialism

[Oddball]

I don't need to read anything.

You've got every Marxist moonbat cliche, platitude, slogan and neurosis down pat. The "data" you accept only comes from other fringe kooks, unless you try cross-dress your far leftist proclivities (which you do extremely poorly, BTW) with a few assorted cherry picked quotes from the likes of Goldwater or Hayek.

It's like we ordered you from the left wing fringe frakazoid catalog.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Like all your posts about the 'Jacobin fascist communist progressive nazis who hate America'?

Don't remember ever saying that one.

I do, however, recall you sourcing both the Jacobins and Das Kapital to support your authoritarian central planner arguments, so it only follows in your particular case.

You've been challenged numerous times to cite where I've done any such thing.


You've never been able to.

But don't let reality get in your way- you never have before.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not into sorting through the dreck of someone who posts on the order of 70 times a day, for what we both know you've done.

Even though you may be able to bullshit people with short-term memory loss, I don't suffer from that affliction.

 

[Toro]

TeaParty Toro says "Democrats are communists and Republicans are socialists."

Did I get that right?

 

[hortysir]

Their haircuts????

 

[Oddball]

TeaParty Toro says "Democrats are communists and Republicans are socialists."

Did I get that right?

They're two sides of the same authoritarian central planner coin.

Screw 'em both.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The vid expresses the liberal perspective

Okay... this thread is about communism and socialism, not liberalism.

They're three different things. You know, like Hinduism, Catholicism, and Zoroastrianism. There are a few similarities and a lot of differences.

This is an historically accurate representation of lib outlook:

Progressives know they are smarter than everyone else

So liberals think that progressives think they're smarter than everyone else?

You do realize that red, blue, and yellow are not the same thing, right?

You did read all of the posts in this thread, did you not? They were- for the most part- in English.

I appreciate your concern as to the purity of the thread, but my post was in response to post #13 in this very thread.

I'll understand if you take point off for my swerving out of lane.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

You are the confused one.


Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

[Vast LWC]

Umm...

Socialism is a system where government controls the means of production.

Communism is a system where the government controls the means of production, and redistributes the goods produced, in a manner where all citizens receive an equal portion.

That is the definition of both terms. Real simple stuff.

Now, if the thread title read:

"The Difference between Democratic Socialism and Totalitarian Communism",

that would make a lot more sense. As it is, you've lost me.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

You are the confused one.


Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree here.

The OP's terms are too broad for the systems they are describing.

All socialism is not "Democratic Socialism" and all Communism is not "Totalitarian Communism".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Remember this U.S.S.R. •The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

 

[B. Kidd]

Umm...

Socialism is a system where government controls the means of production.

Communism is a system where the government controls the means of production, and redistributes the goods produced, in a manner where all citizens receive an equal portion.

That is the definition of both terms. Real simple stuff.

Now, if the thread title read:

"The Difference between Democratic Socialism and Totalitarian Communism",

that would make a lot more sense. As it is, you've lost me.

Where the hell did you extract the above definitions from? A 1960's 7th grade civics book text?
I adhere to my previous posted difference. Our founding revolution, as in 1776, was about taxes and liberties. Why should the standard common denominator differentiating Socialism and Communism be any different now?
Freakin' obvious..........

 

[mascale]

Socialist Centralization is not altogether about planning of economic outcomes. Chef plans a banquet. Chef is not therefore a socialist. More concretely, no one tends contends for a concept of Widespread Wealth Worldwide--as the outcome of socialist liberalism, then tending to a philosophical anarchy.

Here is an example.

Socialism Today - Credit crunch threatens global downturn

Moreover, it soon became clear that the banks (both the big high street retail banks and investment banks) are, despite the derivatives market, still the lenders of last resort. Mortgage lenders still depend on banks to provide finance for their business, initially using bank funds to provide mortgages which are later sold on the money market. Hedge funds, too, rely on bank loans to finance their day-to-day trading in currency and money markets. Moreover, the banks themselves had, alongside their banking business, moved into the mortgage market through their own special investment vehicles – ‘off-balance sheet’ activity that has not been subject to government or central bank regulation.



Somewhere toward the middle top center of the article, the myopis starts to settle in. It is conceded that all the funding means tend to come back to the banks. The banks are reliant on Centralized Federal Reserve Bank. When the liquidity flood happened, then "bubbles" appeared. Many were better off, but owed far more than could be repaid.

Nowhere does the typical socialist turn to the Central Credit concept--germane to the whole program! There is central ownership of the "means of production," and presumably including only the levers, dials and knobs of it all. Actually, the whole kit-and-kaboodle of it is in fact included. The Creidt Market is included.

In Abraham Lincoln Crisis Management Concept--of the four score and seven year resolutions--is better explained as having no plan at all! With no clue of what the Credit Market was really about, Then Secretary Paulson actually set about using the federal borrowing authority to pay giant bonuses to failed values bankers. The Great Ivy League created a Giant Stimulus, one-third of which went to float giant payrolls of failed local bureaucrats and teachers.

Still, global "socialism" was not imperiled. The banks stayed open, simply refusing to do further business. The rest of the planet went into massive public employment works--from Central Governments--and recovered fairly speedily from the Non-Event of the alleged, "Global Financial Meltdown."

Nothing had happened, except that hundreds of millions of working households worldwide were so much better off as to be able to be recognized, finally, as "small people."

Once again, Central Governments were heavily involved using the "Means of Production," to get out of the non-event "global financial crisis!.

Clearly, no one so-states! The teachers made clear 35 years ago, the humans would have to die knowing nothing about it, whatsoever.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Shiny tokens stlll for squaws--who come to lands of many nations, to make deposits into Indigenous American Relief Funds(?), or something! Montezuma's Revenge is different concept!)

 

[hortysir]

Well I guess 'haircuts' was a wrong answer.....



Must be the t-shirts!! That's it, ain't it?!!


Fuck!
I almost said t-shirts the first time too....

 

[Barb]

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.

I think socialism concentrates more on the natural resources of a country being retained for the good of the people, rather than the products of individual labor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's just say you do not want to live in either type of system

 

[Sheldon]

There's some tautology in these terms. Communism is socialism, but socialism is not necessarily communism. There are different schools of socialism, and communism is the most extreme.

So it's technically correct to say communism is socialism, but using the terms interchangeably can be misleading because it exempts the less severe forms of socialism.

Social democracy, which I think is the most moderate and viable sect of socialism, realizes the benefits of private property and the profit motive of capitalism, with the caveat that unfettered capitalism leads to a different brand of authoritarianism; there's more than one road to serfdom, in other words. So the idea is to temper capitalism to the benefit of society at large, and being a form of democracy allows the society to define "benefit", rather than an insulated and small group of people.

Class divisions are a reality of human nature: our need for hierarchy. But divisions between classes leads to civil unrest when these inequalities become widely unacceptable. A country has an economic interest in maintaining a certain leveling between the classes without destroying the profit motive. It's a balancing act with shades of gray and is constantly evolving.

Every developed nation shows elements of social democracy: capitalism regulated by an elected government and coupled with a progressive tax scheme that, to some degree, lessens the income disparity between classes as a way to lessen civil unrest and, by extension, ensure economic stability. It's the Third Way.

 

[Thunderbird]

It refers simply to the reactionaries and those in power, who have a vested interest in the staus quo or in resotring the status quo ante.

Not at all Beukema, sometimes conservatives are radicals and revolutionaries! Look at Poles like John Paul II and Walesa - they wanted to overthrow the reigning power structure. How about Pugachev's Rebellion? Haven't you heard of "limousine liberals"? Conservatives are at odd with these well-connected liberal establishment types.

 

[Thunderbird]

Fascism, just like EVERY authoritarian government is conservative.

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

All I'm getting from you is name calling Bfgrn. You just want to label everyone you think of as an enemy as an elitist. Unfortunately for you fascists were kind of on the left.

quote: Fascists opposed laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. After the Great Depression began, many people from across the political spectrum blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and communism.

Fascists declared their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering. Nazis and other anti-Semitic fascists considered finance capitalism a "parasitic" "Jewish conspiracy". Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures.

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

 

[JBeukema]

TeaParty Toro says "Democrats are communists and Republicans are socialists."

Did I get that right?

They're two sides of the same authoritarian central planner coin.

Screw 'em both.

Authoritarian central planner?


Stateless communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia