The difference between Communism and Socialism

[bigrebnc1775]

3. Soicalism does lead to an authoritarian regime would you want to live in China or Stalins Russia?

Would you rather live in England in 1844, in the age of Capitalism, or today, after socialist reforms?


Would you rather work in a factory in Canada or a factory in China or Bangladesh?

England has it's faults also one has to depend on the government to protect them. So no I will live here and keep my guns defending myself aginst anyone and anything even the obama government.

 

[Sheldon]

Can't find an arguement so you go off on a tangent. Saul Alinsky taught you well but I am a quick learner I know his teaching. SO no comment on how many people have been murdered at the hands of a socialist?

I don't know who Saul Alinsky is, but it's probably meant to be an insult?

You've been doing mainly two things in the thread:

a) using socialism and communism interchangeably, and ignoring the more moderate and common forms of socialism that exist in every developed part of the globe.

b) you have been linking socialism at large, and communism specifically, to authoritarianism. I don't dispute those figures you posted, not do I dispute the fact that they used centrally-planned economies. What else is a benevolent dictator to do?

But where your argument fails, where you've been failing this entire thread, is to recognize that socialism is not confined to authoritarian regimes; it exists in all developed nations, and has been common throughout the industrialized world since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe you want to take this country back to the 1870's?

That the Nazis used a form of radical socialism (ethnocentric socialism) is no more a condemnation of socialism as whole than it is a condemnation of parliamentary democracy because the Nazis were put into the Reichstag by over thirty percent of the German electorate.

I wouldn't be surprised if Glen Beck shapes your 'understanding' of socialism. You probably think Obama is going to be this country's Augustus Caesar.

1. I am sure you don't know who Saul Alinsky is any liberal that is worth anything knows who old saul is.
2. Socialism and coummunism do go hand in hand, well maybe not to your water down version, but historical facts show that they do.
3. Soicalism does lead to an authoritarian regime would you want to live in China or Stalins Russia?
4. After reading your reply you have a powder puff water down view of socialism. As for me I see the truth and reality of what happens when a country goes to far socialist.

No, you're just ignorant and arrogant, the worst combination. I still have yet to see you address the fact that every developed nation, every leading country in the global economy, uses degrees of socialism. You are still frozen in the Cold War and would probably necrophilia Reagan if you could, and seem mentally incapable of understanding that not all socialism is communism.

But you've been obtuse and block-headed this entire thread, so why stop now?

 

[Oddball]

3. Soicalism does lead to an authoritarian regime would you want to live in China or Stalins Russia?

Would you rather live in England in 1844, in the age of Capitalism, or today, after socialist reforms?


Would you rather work in a factory in Canada or a factory in China or Bangladesh?

False dichotomies.

I'd rather be a free and independent contractor, rather than someone else's employee....Which, of course, makes people like me the biggest enemy of the authoritarian socialist central planner....A role which I relish.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't know who Saul Alinsky is, but it's probably meant to be an insult?

You've been doing mainly two things in the thread:

a) using socialism and communism interchangeably, and ignoring the more moderate and common forms of socialism that exist in every developed part of the globe.

b) you have been linking socialism at large, and communism specifically, to authoritarianism. I don't dispute those figures you posted, not do I dispute the fact that they used centrally-planned economies. What else is a benevolent dictator to do?

But where your argument fails, where you've been failing this entire thread, is to recognize that socialism is not confined to authoritarian regimes; it exists in all developed nations, and has been common throughout the industrialized world since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe you want to take this country back to the 1870's?

That the Nazis used a form of radical socialism (ethnocentric socialism) is no more a condemnation of socialism as whole than it is a condemnation of parliamentary democracy because the Nazis were put into the Reichstag by over thirty percent of the German electorate.

I wouldn't be surprised if Glen Beck shapes your 'understanding' of socialism. You probably think Obama is going to be this country's Augustus Caesar.

1. I am sure you don't know who Saul Alinsky is any liberal that is worth anything knows who old saul is.
2. Socialism and coummunism do go hand in hand, well maybe not to your water down version, but historical facts show that they do.
3. Soicalism does lead to an authoritarian regime would you want to live in China or Stalins Russia?
4. After reading your reply you have a powder puff water down view of socialism. As for me I see the truth and reality of what happens when a country goes to far socialist.

No, you're just ignorant and arrogant, the worst combination. I still have yet to see you address the fact that every developed nation, every leading country in the global economy, uses degrees of socialism. You are still frozen in the Cold War and would probably necrophilia Reagan if you could, and seem mentally incapable of understanding that not all socialism is communism.

But you've been obtuse and block-headed this entire thread, so why stop now?

No you are ignorant for thinking socialism is a good thing
You are a lazy POS to think that you need the government to hand things out to you
You are unworthy of the freedoms you have here in America.
Talking about mentally incapable? You are the mental one that thinks socialism doesn't lead to dicatorship. No sir you can keep your change and hope, I will keep my Guns and freedom.

 

[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.

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..........

Are you saying my definitions are somehow incorrect?

What would your definition of Socialism and Communism be then, hmmm?

Please feel free to provide a definition from any dictionary that contradicts mine.

Just because people want to re-label terms to suit their own ends doesn't make their new definitions correct ones.

 

[JBeukema]

3. Soicalism does lead to an authoritarian regime would you want to live in China or Stalins Russia?

Would you rather live in England in 1844, in the age of Capitalism, or today, after socialist reforms?


Would you rather work in a factory in Canada or a factory in China or Bangladesh?

False dichotomies.

Fail.

One is with reform, one is without. It's not a false dichotomoy, it's a matter of whether or not there are reformist labout laws in place and enforced.

That's the difference between Chna or Bangaldesh and the USA.

I'd rather be a free and independent contractor, rather than someone else's employee

That you'd rather be a billionaire than an average person has nothing to do with the matter,

But far be it from you ever do more than pretend to know what you're talking about.

 

[JBeukema]

No you are ignorant for thinking socialism is a good thing

You wish we still sent young children deep into the mines with no protective gear for $1.25 a day?

You are unworthy of the freedoms you have here in America.

Ah, so now you're advocating deciding who deserves freedom or not based on whether they dare to disagree with your political views. You're beginning to sound like Stalin.

Talking about mentally incapable? You are the mental one that thinks socialism doesn't lead to dicatorship. No sir you can keep your change and hope, I will keep my Guns and freedom.

 

[JBeukema]

lol using thinking a tabletop dictionary as a source of you comprehension of socio-political theories and systems.


Go, click, read.

 

[Cuyo]

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

You must spread some rep around before giving it to Bfgrn again

 

[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..........

Are you saying my definitions are somehow incorrect?

What would your definition of Socialism and Communism be then, hmmm?

Please feel free to provide a definition from any dictionary that contradicts mine.

Just because people want to re-label terms to suit their own ends doesn't make their new definitions correct ones.

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? 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.)
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.
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.

 

[Contumacious]

HUH?

Why do you always find a vagina in women?

.

Well can you answer my question or was your reply a hit and run?

You will ALWAYS find socialism in communism because Communists use socialism as their socioeconomic system.

Read the Communist Manifesto when you get a chance.


Karl Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction.[3] Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism."

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No you are ignorant for thinking socialism is a good thing

You wish we still sent young children deep into the mines with no protective gear for $1.25 a day?

China does it. It's socialist why are you complaining?

You are unworthy of the freedoms you have here in America.

Ah, so now you're advocating deciding who deserves freedom or not based on whether they dare to disagree with your political views. You're beginning to sound like Stalin.

You are the one that is advocating the government is to decide for everybody and that is what socialism is all about Government control.

Talking about mentally incapable? You are the mental one that thinks socialism doesn't lead to dicatorship. No sir you can keep your change and hope, I will keep my Guns and freedom.

Yep just as I figured.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well can you answer my question or was your reply a hit and run?

You will ALWAYS find socialism in communism because Communists use socialism as their socioeconomic system.

Read the Communist Manifesto when you get a chance.


Karl Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction.[3] Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism."

.

Not a problem just wondering where you stood on the subject.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol using thinking a tabletop dictionary as a source of you comprehension of socio-political theories and systems.


Go, click, read.

You are the one that needs to read how about the true history of socialism? Not some modern day reinvention of socialism created by liberals,
News flash junior this old man says your shit stinks. You may think it smells like a rose, butrI know what the rose of freedom smells like., and what your tring to pawn off aint it.

 

[JBeukema]

There are rules against modifying peoples' posts

 

[JBeukema]

lol using thinking a tabletop dictionary as a source of you comprehension of socio-political theories and systems.


Go, click, read.

You are the one that needs to read how about the true history of socialism? Not some modern day reinvention of socialism created by liberals,

Liberals and socialists are not the same thing, you dolt. There have been some, since the Mensheviks, who've advocated a greater coalition and cooperation between the two (the Mensheviks advocated working alongside the liberals and socialists), but they reamain two different (sets of) ideologies.


You cited a dictionary as a detailed explanation of socio-economic systems. That you accuse anyone else of not being familiar with the subject matter is hilarious.


You don't like socialism? Go to Banladesh and get a job in a factory devoid of socialist reforms. I happen to enjoy the progress that's been made.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol using thinking a tabletop dictionary as a source of you comprehension of socio-political theories and systems.


Go, click, read.

You are the one that needs to read how about the true history of socialism? Not some modern day reinvention of socialism created by liberals,

Liberals and socialists are not the same thing, you dolt. There have been some, since the Mensheviks, who've advocated a greater coalition and cooperation between the two (the Mensheviks advocated working alongside the liberals and socialists), but they reamain two different (sets of) ideologies.


You cited a dictionary as a detailed explanation of socio-economic systems. That you accuse anyone else of not being familiar with the subject matter is hilarious.


You don't like socialism? Go to Banladesh and get a job in a factory devoid of socialist reforms. I happen to enjoy the progress that's been made.

You cannot lie to me but you can lie to yourself. Do you honestly think the government can run your life better then you can? Do you like the money you worked hard for to be stolen from you by the government, to be given to someone else?

Yes liberals/ progressives are socialist are you a liberal? Are you pushing for socialism?

Bangladesh? Now that's a good comparisons you might be better suited to live there.
Parliamentary republic, unitary state

No I didn't just cite any old dictionary I used the CIA'S definition which is part of the government. After all that is what you strive for. Government control but you don't like to use the government terms do you?


A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as one single unit in which the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Many states in the world have a unitary system of government.

 

[JBeukema]

Do you like the money you worked hard for to be stolen from you by the government, to be given to someone else?

You know you pretty much just coopted Marx's criticism of capitlaism, where the fruits of your labour are stolen by the capitlaist and the bourgeoisie, right?

Yes liberals/ progressives are socialist

Words cannot express how stupid you sound when you assert that liberals are socialist.

are you a liberal?

You're an idiot, aren't you? I've stated what I am multiple times. Just look at my user title when you forget.

Are you pushing for socialism?

Since you're retarded, let me spell it out for you: social democrats advocate social democracy

Bangladesh? Now that's a good comparisons you might be better suited to live there.
Parliamentary republic, unitary state

No I didn't just cite any old dictionary I used the CIA'S definition which is part of the government.

Lol


First you cited a dictionary, then you cited those behind MKULTRA and the Bay of Pigs Invasion




Just go and and read the actual words of Engles, Schachtman, Bauer, and the others, if you want to understand what each of them them believed and advocated.

After all that is what you strive for. Government control but you don't like to use the government terms do you?

What're you babbling about? I'm on record on this very board calling for drastic cuts to to fed and decentralization.


But don't let reality get in your way- you haven't thus far.,

A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as one single unit in which the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Many states in the world have a unitary system of government.

In other words, the USA ever since 1869.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you like the money you worked hard for to be stolen from you by the government, to be given to someone else?

You know you pretty much just coopted Marx's criticism of capitlaism, where the fruits of your labour are stolen by the capitlaist and the bourgeoisie, right?

Furits of my labor are stolen by capitalist? You haven't the faintest of an idea what you are talking about. Step away from that liberal playbook. Short version of economics 101
I search for a job
Man with money has a job
We negotiate wages
I accept his offer
The government takes my money through income taxes sales tax, or proprety tax.
You are steping all over yourself tring to defend your views I suggest you hit the books and compose yourself.

Yes liberals/ progressives are socialist

Words cannot express how stupid you sound when you assert that liberals are socialist.
Are you a liberal?

You're an idiot, aren't you? I've stated what I am multiple times. Just look at my user title when you forget.

Rule 5 pitty doesn't it get old using a technic that has no effect?


Since you're retarded, let me spell it out for you: social democrats advocate social democracy

insults? prime example of rule 5 old saul playing again.

Bangladesh? Now that's a good comparisons you might be better suited to live there.
Parliamentary republic, unitary state


Lol


First you cited a dictionary, then you cited those behind MKULTRA and the Bay of Pigs Invasion




Just go and and read the actual words of Engles, Schachtman, Bauer, and the others, if you want to understand what each of them them believed and advocated.
If I have told you once I have told you a thousand times I do not need to read any modern day reinvention of the word socialism. I have history as my guide.

After all that is what you strive for. Government control but you don't like to use the government terms do you?

What're you babbling about? I'm on record on this very board calling for drastic cuts to to fed and decentralization.
WOW you want cuts in the federal Government? If this is true who would the central power be in your socialist society?


But don't let reality get in your way- you haven't thus far.,

You do have a problem with reality not me.

A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as one single unit in which the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Many states in the world have a unitary system of government.

In other words, the USA ever since 1869.

Wrong America is a Constitutional Republic

 

[JBeukema]

So you once again say 2= 5 and ask the same stupid question I've answered numerous times and continue to answer with my user title... and you say that Engels is a 'modern day reinvention'... and you're lost when someone points out that since 1869 the Fed now tells they States what powers the possess and the Constitution was thrown out the window.


Yet you claim to be familiar with history and you accuse others of being unfamiliar with the subject matter...