Communism v Socialism

[JBeukema]

for the avoidance of doubt, frank, classical economics proposed capital and labor (and land) as distinct factors of production in advance of marx.

Marxism is the fundamental misunderstanding of an economy being a "Struggle" or "Strife" between Kapital and Labour .

Actually, it's a fundamental understanding of socio-economic systems as competition between classes.

 

[JBeukema]

They're the same thing. Communists around the world also call themselves Socialists. So it's easy to understand why so many get confused about the two terms. Socialism is Communism and Communism is Socialism. Some just like to shy away from the term Communism and instead use the term Socialism. They are the same thing in the end though.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know what you're talking about. Socialism is an economic theory. Communism is a form of government.

That proves begyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know what you're babbling about. Both are socio-economic systems and theories.

Clearly, you've never actually read Marx, Engels, lenin, Mao, et al

 

[JBeukema]

they are both left wing ideologies, so whatever.

Yes, clearly the Amish are left wing...

 

[JBeukema]

They're the same thing. Communists around the world also call themselves Socialists. So it's easy to understand why so many get confused about the two terms. Socialism is Communism and Communism is Socialism. Some just like to shy away from the term Communism and instead use the term Socialism. They are the same thing in the end though.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know what you're talking about. Socialism is an economic theory. Communism is a form of government.

Finally!

Yes... social democracy (one school of socialism) totally has nothing to do with the form of government


Not to mention democratic socialism

 

[georgephillip]

Is it accurate to say socialists accept class divisions in society while calling for working class control of profits and wealth while communists support the idea that society should not have classes?

"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization.

"Socialism says that the distribution should take place according to the amount of an individual's production efforts, whilst communism asserts that the goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs."

WikiAnswers: Socialism Vs Communism

 

[code1211]

they are both left wing ideologies, so whatever.

Yes, clearly the Amish are left wing...

If everyone acted like the prototypical Amish person with industry and integrity, Communism would be a workable solution. It works for the Amish as a society within a society.

However, when an individual doesn't quite work out according to the rules of an Amish community, shunning is an option. If those who don't want to play according to the rules can be expelled, then Communisim is a great way to do things.

Communism is like the ultimate Union environment, though, when shunning is not an option. The lowest producer is rewarded on a level with the top producer simply by membership.

In the real world, a society breaks along the lines of those who are pulling the wagon and those who are riding on the wagon. When the crowd riding becomes larger than than the crowd pulling, will the wagon continue to move?

In the USA, we are about to find out. Right now, about 47% of the population is not paying federal income taxes. Being a citizen was always a right, but, in the past, it was understood that every right was deserved because certain responsiblities were embraced.

The idea of responsibility has become a quaint notion of days gone by.

 

[antagon]

Wait... did the OP just call leninism and the new deal communism?

yes. communism can either be soooo theoretical that it cant be associated with any application, or, as i have in the OP, loose attribution can be made to applications which have employed work for communal gains. i would even include taxation in this assesment for the extent that it employs the proceeds of industry(work) in transfer for communal benefits. in a fundamentally capitalist system cash facillitates that transfer, but the implications of the new deal or leninism, regardless of the intended or unintended consequences, cant be precluded from this decidedly communist framework.

 

[antagon]

If two years from now Republicans and Democrats are telling us 9%-10% (or higher) rates of unemployment are now "structural", I believe many Americans will be ready to "...shift spending from unproductive uses - such as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or unconditional bank bailouts that do not revive lending - toward high-return investments."

America 2.0?

this is what the OP is getting at.

there wont be unemployment for that long. it is about how the system accounts for people. the structural adjustment will take place off of the unemployment rolls. see the swelling of welfare and prison rolls following the recessions in the eighties.

What if our Great Recession is not caused by a temporary imbalance between supply and demand? What if Reagan insiders and lifelong conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts and David Stockman are correct about an onrushing American Economic Apocalypse?

i think it is evident from this thread that apocalypse for some is change. our economy goes through fundamental changes as i see it which arise as solutions to an apocalyptic problem. our capacity for this has afforded the US our world dominance economically and otherwise. reagan ushered in a solution to a very apocalyptic stagflationary economy. what has happened era to era is that the solutions to the prior apocalypse become the problem at the root of the next. reaganomics fundamentally inverted the tax-supported demand-side economics of the progressive era by installing debt-supported supply-side econ. it's burning out. i think that the tax basis of the progressive era imparted more discipline in the economy, where debt-basis, like any credit card, is a quick burn and bust recipe, apparently.

there are some years left in this approach yet, but it is definitely shorter than eras past.

As your earlier post pointed out, I do have a tendency to rely on the opinions of others for my economic insights. Thinking effectively about the nature of complex things, I believe, begins with amassing evidence. When I see "experts" with establishment credentials on the left and right agreeing on the source of our current downturn, I have to take that with a few more grains of salt than the opinions of those currently working for Wall Street or the Federal Government much less my own ability to think efficiently about the nature of things.

understandable. i'm no different to be honest. i'd like to think i chew and digest to a greater extent... then regurgitate.

In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater that in 1970."

this is an era to era comparison. now compare interest rates 78-2008.

 

[JBeukema]

Is it accurate to say socialists accept class divisions in society while calling for working class control of profits and wealth while communists support the idea that society should not have classes?

Okay, let's first establish that there is more than one form of communism (compare marxism to the Amish) and more than one form of socialism (compare progressivism, social democracy, and democratic socialism)

"Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization.

Not necessarily. See: Social Democracy (welfare capitalism variety)

 

[antagon]

Okay, let's first establish that there is more than one form of communism (compare marxism to the Amish) and more than one form of socialism (compare progressivism, social democracy, and democratic socialism)

are these species or movements?

 

[Tech_Esq]

This is a long thread at this point, but I'm not going to read it. I'm just going to answer the OP.

The problem is you are thinking in the box. The government cannot possibly spend enough to get an economy the size of the American economy go. The best it could to is keep it in a sort of economic purgatory.

The best "expenditure" of funds for the government is to forgo revenue. A sensible set of tax cuts aimed at unleashing the American private sector. R & D tax credits are great for this. But there are many that are good. This is not enough though. There must be regulatory certainty. We are still suffering now primarily because of regulatory uncertainty. The government has written tremendous checks that private industry must now cash. They don't know how much it is going to cost them yet, so NOTHING is going to happen. No employment, no improvement in the general economy.

This is the answer to your question. Not more or less socialism/communism.

 

[antagon]

This is a long thread at this point, but I'm not going to read it. I'm just going to answer the OP.

The problem is you are thinking in the box. The government cannot possibly spend enough to get an economy the size of the American economy go. The best it could to is keep it in a sort of economic purgatory.

The best "expenditure" of funds for the government is to forgo revenue. A sensible set of tax cuts aimed at unleashing the American private sector. R & D tax credits are great for this. But there are many that are good. This is not enough though. There must be regulatory certainty. We are still suffering now primarily because of regulatory uncertainty. The government has written tremendous checks that private industry must now cash. They don't know how much it is going to cost them yet, so NOTHING is going to happen. No employment, no improvement in the general economy.

This is the answer to your question. Not more or less socialism/communism.

it is a bit of a long thread... plenty non sequiturs of interest.

could what you've proposed be part of the problem? one discussion focused on the fact that our economy cycles through eras where solutions like the essentially reaganesque conservatism you've proposed run their course and amount to the problems to which new solutions must developed and applied.

reaganomics is still running its course, but is looking a bit winded with raise-and-bust interest rates and a massive public debt. deficit spending is habitual - irrespective to the economic cycle. all this is well jaded and its only been 30 years.

even if you don't buy history's lessons about these cycles and our reliance on economic innovation when they transpire, do you buy that there is simply no more room to squeeze more returns from tax-cut conservatism?

 

[Big Fitz]

Okay, let's first establish that there is more than one form of communism (compare marxism to the Amish) and more than one form of socialism (compare progressivism, social democracy, and democratic socialism)

are these species or movements?

Same shit... Different manufacturer... differently labeled pile and the price varies.

I see my zero level commie summoning spell worked.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This is a long thread at this point, but I'm not going to read it. I'm just going to answer the OP.

The problem is you are thinking in the box. The government cannot possibly spend enough to get an economy the size of the American economy go. The best it could to is keep it in a sort of economic purgatory.

The best "expenditure" of funds for the government is to forgo revenue. A sensible set of tax cuts aimed at unleashing the American private sector. R & D tax credits are great for this. But there are many that are good. This is not enough though. There must be regulatory certainty. We are still suffering now primarily because of regulatory uncertainty. The government has written tremendous checks that private industry must now cash. They don't know how much it is going to cost them yet, so NOTHING is going to happen. No employment, no improvement in the general economy.

This is the answer to your question. Not more or less socialism/communism.

it is a bit of a long thread... plenty non sequiturs of interest.

could what you've proposed be part of the problem? one discussion focused on the fact that our economy cycles through eras where solutions like the essentially reaganesque conservatism you've proposed run their course and amount to the problems to which new solutions must developed and applied.

reaganomics is still running its course, but is looking a bit winded with raise-and-bust interest rates and a massive public debt. deficit spending is habitual - irrespective to the economic cycle. all this is well jaded and its only been 30 years.

even if you don't buy history's lessons about these cycles and our reliance on economic innovation when they transpire, do you buy that there is simply no more room to squeeze more returns from tax-cut conservatism?

You are correct in so far as identifying continual deficit spending as a significant issue. However, attempting to use an ever increasing (for that's what government does) central government upon which both socialism and communism depend. Additionally, human (bureaucratic) decision-making is inadequate to the task of allocating the resource of an economy the size of the US. This has been proven everywhere it has been tried. As slow as the market is to correct itself, humans are slower.

What history also shows us is that while Reagan's spending program and tax cutting was a problem, that problem was created because the House of Representatives (Tip O'Neil) demanded that in order to get the programs the President wanted, he must give them the programs that the Dems wanted. (Log rolling). So, despite Reagan's inclination to cut the deficit, he could not get that done if he wanted his other priorities to be funded.

Eventually, when Clinton was elected and the House and Senate switched to the Republicans, something more in line with Reagan's plan took hold. Although the spending priorities were different under Clinton, economically, that makes little difference. The result of fiscal restraint in the Congress and economic expansion created by a fairly stable regulatory environment and reasonably low taxes (although increased from the Reagan era) was a near surplus.

This opportunity was destroyed by the combined effects the dot com bust, the corporate corruption scandals that were occurring in the late 1990s and burst in 2000 - 2002 and of course 9/11.

 

[antagon]

Okay, let's first establish that there is more than one form of communism (compare marxism to the Amish) and more than one form of socialism (compare progressivism, social democracy, and democratic socialism)

are these species or movements?

Same shit... Different manufacturer... differently labeled pile and the price varies.

I see my zero level commie summoning spell worked.

nah, your zero level commie deal is bullshit, i think.

specie or movement doesn't preclude different, fitz.

 

[Big Fitz]

are these species or movements?

Same shit... Different manufacturer... differently labeled pile and the price varies.

I see my zero level commie summoning spell worked.

nah, your zero level commie deal is bullshit, i think.

specie or movement doesn't preclude different, fitz.

Nope, not referring to you about that. JB spit out a bunch of posts, as he always done when I post the leftist rainbow.

 

[antagon]

This is a long thread at this point, but I'm not going to read it. I'm just going to answer the OP.

The problem is you are thinking in the box. The government cannot possibly spend enough to get an economy the size of the American economy go. The best it could to is keep it in a sort of economic purgatory.

The best "expenditure" of funds for the government is to forgo revenue. A sensible set of tax cuts aimed at unleashing the American private sector. R & D tax credits are great for this. But there are many that are good. This is not enough though. There must be regulatory certainty. We are still suffering now primarily because of regulatory uncertainty. The government has written tremendous checks that private industry must now cash. They don't know how much it is going to cost them yet, so NOTHING is going to happen. No employment, no improvement in the general economy.

This is the answer to your question. Not more or less socialism/communism.

it is a bit of a long thread... plenty non sequiturs of interest.

could what you've proposed be part of the problem? one discussion focused on the fact that our economy cycles through eras where solutions like the essentially reaganesque conservatism you've proposed run their course and amount to the problems to which new solutions must developed and applied.

reaganomics is still running its course, but is looking a bit winded with raise-and-bust interest rates and a massive public debt. deficit spending is habitual - irrespective to the economic cycle. all this is well jaded and its only been 30 years.

even if you don't buy history's lessons about these cycles and our reliance on economic innovation when they transpire, do you buy that there is simply no more room to squeeze more returns from tax-cut conservatism?

You are correct in so far as identifying continual deficit spending as a significant issue. However, attempting to use an ever increasing (for that's what government does) central government upon which both socialism and communism depend. Additionally, human (bureaucratic) decision-making is inadequate to the task of allocating the resource of an economy the size of the US. This has been proven everywhere it has been tried. As slow as the market is to correct itself, humans are slower.

What history also shows us is that while Reagan's spending program and tax cutting was a problem, that problem was created because the House of Representatives (Tip O'Neil) demanded that in order to get the programs the President wanted, he must give them the programs that the Dems wanted. (Log rolling). So, despite Reagan's inclination to cut the deficit, he could not get that done if he wanted his other priorities to be funded.

Eventually, when Clinton was elected and the House and Senate switched to the Republicans, something more in line with Reagan's plan took hold. Although the spending priorities were different under Clinton, economically, that makes little difference. The result of fiscal restraint in the Congress and economic expansion created by a fairly stable regulatory environment and reasonably low taxes (although increased from the Reagan era) was a near surplus.

This opportunity was destroyed by the combined effects the dot com bust, the corporate corruption scandals that were occurring in the late 1990s and burst in 2000 - 2002 and of course 9/11.

i disagree about the relative value of political conditions which you associate with reagan's policies and the economic conditions which in the clinton years you've reduced to happenstance. i feel that economic conditions inform reactions to a greater extent then do ideologies, and that the political machine at the time must abide with this beckoning more that shape it itself.

but that's neither here nor there.

i dont think that a return to the same sort of commie or socialist themes that the 20th century embraced is the idea. in the OP, i began to explore the capacity for the private sector to undertake communal functions that were presumed to be government's domain in the 19th and 20th centuries.

the government will still need to play a role as it would in any economy, but the direction of our development could take a decidedly de-centralized character by way of private-sector leadership. public finance will change, and this has already begun.

i cant be certain, of course, if this is a potential direction for our economy. it is certain that we need infrastructure development and that marketized investment has stalled with its potential to create more jobs, even to finance the US economy. there is another chapter forthcoming, and if history is any indicator, it's methods wont be a simile of the past.

 

[georgephillip]

If it's true in normal times, the Fed and not the market determines the short-term interest rate and that rate is the price we trade wealth in the present for wealth in the future, doesn't it follow that 19 unelected bankers function as central planners of the US economy?

(Republic of the Central Bank)

With the demise of capital controls and regulated currencies in the 1970s a "virtual senate" of bankers and investors now "...carry out a moment by moment referendum on government policies, and if they find them irrational - that is, designed to help people, not profits - they vote against them by capital flight, attacks on currency, and other means." (Crisis and Hope)

Central planning by bankers whose principle loyalty is to international oligarchs concerned only with short-term gain guarantees the US will continue socializing cost and privatizing profit regardless of whatever meaningless label, i.e., socialist, communist, or capitalist decorates its ruling party stationary.

 

[antagon]

might i propose that the fed's role in the entire economy is too weak to consider it the central planner even if it is a central planning device?

 

[georgephillip]

What about the Pentagon's role?

From our national railroads and freeways to computers, satellites, the Internet and most of the IT revolution as well as civilian aircraft, advanced machine tools, pharmaceuticals and biotech much of the cost of R&D, procurement, subsidy (and bailouts) has been socialized under cover of "National Defense" while any eventual profits are turned over to the private sector.

Doesn't this qualify as "central planning?"