Zone1 Is communiusm a US obsession ?

[Rigby5]

Nope. But maybe I misunderstood your intent. Do you agree with the OP, specifically the assertion that socialism and communism are unrelated?

Socialism and communism are related in that both recognize that without safeguards, pure capitalism always results in feudalism, which is economic slavery.
But socialism and communism can be very different in practice.
If there is no abusive companies, then socialism can allow pure capitalism.
Socialism only provides alternatives to capitalist means of production if necessary in order to prevent abuse by the capitalists.
With communism, there is no capitalism at all, so you avoid that, but then create the opportunity for government corruption to be just as bad, unless very decentralized.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, the ancient Romans defined fascism, and Mussolini brought it back up before WWII.
Fascism is anti socialist.
It is a dictatorship of the wealth elite, originally the aristocracy, military, and priesthood.
With modern fascism substituting corporations for the priesthood.

The Romans did not define fascism.

The fascists simple used an ancient Etruscan implement as their symbol to provide a visual metaphor for their political philosophy.

 

[dblack]

For those of you hung up definitions, this seems to cover it:

What Are the Differences Between Communism and Socialism?

Communism and socialism are political and economic systems that are historically related but often confused with each other. Here's how they compare.

www.investopedia.com

Can we agree on that and move the conversation past all the bickering over terminology?

 

[Rigby5]

There seems to be a whole school of political illiteracy at play on the American right.
This gibberish is a part of it.

The other one is the "dems were slavers" narrative. Technically it may be correct but it ignores the nuances of the situation.

Ignores it in a bonehead way. Saying that fascism and communism are the same insults our Russian comrades who helped us defeat fascism.

Why you mention socialism in the same breath is baffling.

Fascism and communism are exact opposites.

Fascism is a centralized dictatorship of the wealthy elite who own all the means of production.
Communism is a decentralized democracy where taxes provide the means of production we vote for.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is notable that socialism in all its forms, including Communism, rather obviously appeals most who are lazy and greedy, who want to live on the work of others rather than carrying their own far share of the work.

The OP is a model example, who has famously expressed contempt for me because of my profession…

Well Bob if you were academically gifted ,or even applied yourself in school, you would have a better job with better working conditions.

So why will he not tell us what his profession is, what he does for a living, that he thinks puts him in any position to look down on me for my profession?

I think the answer is obvious. he doesn't do ANYTHING for a living, but collect welfare benefits; paid for out of the pockets of other people who are forced to work to support him on top of supporting themselves. Of course he likes socialism.

 

[Rigby5]

The Romans did not define fascism.

The fascists simple used an ancient Etruscan implement as their symbol to provide a visual metaphor for their political philosophy.

The badge of office of the lictors ( local police ), were the axe handles, facia, that had a ritual where they were bundled together to show strength in unity.
The fascia was not just a metaphor, but also a weapon used to beat or murder the poor majority, if they dissented or wanted any rights.
The vast majority of the population of Rome were slaves.
It was the single most corrupt, evil, and unjust government that ever existed.
You can tell how corrupt they had become, if their idea of amusing entertainment was to watch people being murdered in the circus.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Wrong.
Fascism is the wealthy elite uber alles.
Communism and socialism imply a democracy.

You are confusing theory with application.

In the pie in the sky, unicorns and fairies world, communism MIGHT work, if each and every person was acting altruistically.

In the real world of APPLIED communism, all that is produced is misery.

 

[Rigby5]

I think the answer is obvious. he doesn't do ANYTHING for a living, but collect welfare benefits; paid for out of the pockets of other people who are forced to work to support him on top of supporting themselves. Of course he likes socialism.

That of course has to be a lie, because the only welfare available in the US either ADC or disability.
Able bodied males get no welfare in the US, and never have.

 

[dblack]

What the OP doesn't get is that the aspects of socialism and communism that Americans reject are the same. Both reject free markets. Both advocate for democratic control of resources and labor. Many, if not most, Americans see such a goal in direct conflict with liberty. I agree.

 

[Rigby5]

You are confusing theory with application.

In the pie in the sky, unicorns and fairies world, community nism MIGHT work, if each and every person was acting altruistically.

In the real world of APPLIED communism, all that is produced is misery.

I disagree.
Communism is not what Stalin or Lenin ever intended.
They were paid by capitalists, like Germany and the US, to murder all the communists, socialists, and anarchists in Russia, in order explicitly corrupt and prevent communism.
So it is not at all a dichotomy theory and application.
Lenin and Stalin deliberately worked against the theory of communism and created a pure capitalist feudal state instead.
It was easy to do since Russia had always only been feudal in the past, and all the aristocracy, military, etc., were all on board with capitalist feudalism.

 

[Rigby5]

What the OP doesn't get is that the aspects of socialism and communism that Americans reject are the same. Both reject free markets. Both advocate for democratic control of resources and labor. Many, if not most, Americans see such a goal in direct conflict with liberty. I agree.

While communism does "advocate the democratic control over resources and labor", socialism does not, and I think we do want and need that democratic control safeguard against capitalist feudalism.

What if landlords decide to raise property taxes so high you will be forced from your home, and have to rent it back as rates that keep you in abject poverty for the rest of your life?
While voting in tax breaks for landlords to make it easy for them to do this.
The point is the wealthy have an easy means of creating economic slavery unless you have economic safeguards. Like protection against unsafe working conditions, child labor, union protection, etc.

 

[dblack]

While communism does "advocate the democratic control over resources and labor", socialism does not, and I think we do want and need that democratic control safeguard against capitalist feudalism.

And that's just splitting hairs in my view. I'm going with the definitions in the article I posted above.

 

[Rigby5]

egalitarian is social equality. Social equality is, among other things, equality in status, power etc. How can that be achieved? Government control of the masses.

No, preventing crime like slavery, rape, extortion, etc., is NOT "government control of the masses".
Capitalist always historically resort to slavery, rape, extortion, etc. if not specifically prohibited by egalitarian laws.
The US had its period of extreme feudalism.
Around 1890 or so, there were company towns where the police, government, housing, food, etc., was all under the control of the wealth elite, who acted as dictators.
The private police would murder, beat, extort, etc.
There was child labor, unsafe work conditions, etc.
It was no different than any feudal dictatorship.

 

[Rigby5]

And of course social equality won't be achieve that way either. It will just be government deciding who gets the goodies rather than a free society.

Wrong.
A socialist egalitarian society does not at all control who get the fruits of labor.
Socialism means you have a fair and equal opportunity to labor for wealth, and does not at all control actual wealth.

 

[dblack]

No, preventing crime like slavery, rape, extortion, etc., is NOT "government control of the masses".
Capitalist always historically resort to slavery, rape, extortion, etc. if not specifically prohibited by egalitarian laws.

LOL - horseshit.

That's like saying socialism always historically resorts to mass killings and pogroms. Some socialist countries did this (unless you're going into definition denial here), but would you blame that on socialism, or just some assholes who called themselves socialists?

 

[Rigby5]

And that's just splitting hairs in my view. I'm going with the definitions in the article I posted above.

Wrong.
Socialism just requires regulating the means of production in order to prevent abuses.
Unions and labor laws are sufficient to do that.
Government does not have to then invest in the means of production at all under socialism.

{...
so·cial·ism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]

NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole:
   ...}
   

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
A socialist egalitarian society does not at all control who get the fruits of labor.

Ok. You're clearly using some very special definition of socialism. For the rest of us, controlling who gets the fruits of labor IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT of socialism.

 

[Rigby5]

LOL - horseshit.

That's like saying socialism always historically resorts to mass killings and pogroms. Some socialist countries did this (unless you're going into definition denial here), but would you blame that on socialism, or just some assholes who called themselves socialists?

Wrong.
It is extremely impossible for any socialist country to EVER "resort to mass killings and pogroms".
If a country does things against the will of the majority, then it obviously can not possibly be socialist, by definitions.
When you have a minority doing nasty things for profit, that is fascist, feudal, capitalism.
To believe anything else is to ignore the meaning of words.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
It is extremely impossible for any socialist country to EVER "resort to mass killings and pogroms".

Sure.

If a country does things against the will of the majority, then it obviously can not possibly be socialist, by definitions.

So what??? You seem to be assuming that mass killings and pogroms can never be the will of the majority. I think you're just plain wrong on that one.

 

[Rigby5]

Ok. You're clearly using some very special definition of socialism. For the rest of us, controlling who gets the fruits of labor IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT of socialism.

No one has ever thought that socialism is controlling who gets the fruits of labor.
Socialism is always about preventing someone else from unethically extorting the fruits of your labor.
Socialism is just protecting each worker from exploitation.
The whole point of Marx and Engles was to figure out how to stop abusive feudal monopolies on the means of production.