Socialism

[CuongNhuka]

Since the topic in anouther deabte got so far off trac, we're going to "fight it out" here. However, we're going to define certain things:

Socialistic State - One in which most industries (specificly the ones which are vital to the nations health and well being) upto all industry is controlled by the State/Community. However, The governement must have the intention of providing it's citizens with what they need to survive, and in general be what would be called a 'legitmate source of authority'. (this definition is paraphrasing Marx)

Communistic State - A Socialistic State where the government has largely disappeared. Resembles what a Libertarian would want. All industry is controlled by the local community, and all property is held in common with that same community (think Native American tribes Pre-Colonization). (again, paraphrasing Marx)

However, we do have these things called Socialistic Policies, which is simply anytime the government does anything to change, or alter, the economy or private industry.

If you folks want to fight with me so much, have at it.

 

[Big Don]

Once again, for those who weren't bright enough to comprehend it the first thousand times:
In a PERFECT world, full of PERFECT people, communism or its ugly sister socialism would be wonderful. However, we do NOT live in a perfect world and many of those who expouse socialism, are as far from perfect as the rest of us.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Communism

Socialism

Both look REALLY good on paper

But when humans are introduced into the equation you end up with two real big problems with both Communism and Socialism. One is of course Greed those on top tend to take as much as they can for themselves and live like kings. And then you get a lack of drive to do anything as well. If everything is provided for you and no matter how hard you work nothing changes then why do anything at all.

And lastly just to cut down on the confusion

Marxism

 

[FearlessFreep]

Communism never happens top down. The idea that the government will first become socialist and then dissolve itself is fancy. Communism only comes about on small scales from a group of people with common society or goal as a sort of accident.

Socialism, by your definition, applies to every government, based on your definition of 'vital'. The US has shown

 

[CuongNhuka]

However, we do NOT live in a perfect world and many of those who expouse socialism, are as far from perfect as the rest of us.

Thank you for ignoring the fact that the U.S. uses many Socialistic policies, and there are several countries that (whether or not they will admit it) are Socialistic. There were (and still are) also many many many societies that were Communistic. You just don't realise that.

Freap, no it doesn't. Vital to a countries health and well being means "without which, the whole country would collapse". Like fuel, banking, and the major providers to our economy (like Walmart).

 

[FearlessFreep]

Freap, no it doesn't. Vital to a countries health and well being means "without which, the whole country would collapse". Like fuel, banking, and the major providers to our economy (like Walmart).

In the US, the term "provide for the common good" in the Constitution has been used as an argument to federalize many services that many would argue that the federal government has no business being involved in. When you socialize 'vital' services....everyone's going to have an opinion on what is vital. By some definitions, the US is already much more of a socialist state than would've been dreamed of 100 years ago, by other's definitions...not even close.

But by your definition (minimalist interpretation of "vital") , you sound more Libertarian, or maybe even Conservative, than Socialist

 

[arnisador]

Communism

Socialism

Both look REALLY good on paper

Yup, there you go. Just as in the martial arts, competition helps sharpen skills. In principle, kata is enough...in practice, you need competition.

Capitalism works for the same reasons Judo does.

 

[Archangel M]

Thats a pretty good analogy there.

 

[Twin Fist]

yeah that was pretty good

socialism doesnt work large scale.

it just doesnt. As much as we might wish it did, it doesnt.

 

[Empty Hands]

socialism doesnt work large scale.

Most of the EU isn't large scale?

 

[Jai]

Most of the EU isn't large scale?

Another good point. Like many have said both systems on paper look wonderful, but when you add the human element you put "random" factors in because humans are not processed robots, we each have our own ideas, goals, and morals and they will always conflict with someone else. Therefore neither system could work to the fullest potential laid out in paper form.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You cannot study a political / economic system effectively without understanding the cutural makeup of the people over which that system governs.

Socialism works in Europe due to the fact that, for the most part, they have a homogeneous culture. That was not true in the USSR (collectively, including the satellite states). It also would not be true in the U.S., which is made up of people of many, many cultures.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Most of the EU isn't large scale?

Well not in Square miles (oh sorry... EU.... Square Kilometers) if you compare it to say Russia and China

You cannot study a political / economic system effectively without understanding the cutural makeup of the people over which that system governs.

EXACTLY!!!

If you do not know the cultural makeup you cannot really understand WHY or HOW this system of government works in a given area or why a system of Government will not work. I would also add that it is important to know the history that said culture came from as well.

 

[Twin Fist]

actually, NO, the EU isnt large scale.

the countries themselves are SMALL

many have total populations smaller than New York state.

 

[CuongNhuka]

-Waiting for someone to post something which resembles truth-

 

[Xue Sheng]

-Waiting for someone to post something which resembles truth-

oooh bad play.

If this is your attitude then I am done, you don't want truth you want agreement with your views and beliefs on the topic and if you do not get this you revert to calling others liars. You left the last thread and started this one likely to avoid truth in the first place since you did not bother to respond to the last few posts in it and started this post.

If you would bother webfu (research) or buy a reputable book you would see it there is a lot of truth here, but I doubt you will.

Hey you might even try reading the Communist manifesto or if you had try reading it without bias. Also you might want to consider the fact that there has never been a truly Communist nation only Communist political parties.

And last but not least I was 18 once too and I thought I knew everything as well... I only wish I was a smart now as I thought I was then. You really should copy much of what you have posted in these 2 posts and when you are working on 18 for the 3rd time like I am take them out and reread them, you will be surprised.

I leave you to the other posters who are in some cases more forgiving and in others much less because you have just set this post up for moderator warnings and eventual lock

I'm out.

 

[CuongNhuka]

If you would bother webfu (research) or buy a reputable book you would see it there is a lot of truth here, but I doubt you will.

I have. I've spent two years studying Socialism from the web, books, and talking to actual Socialist. That's why I know that I'm probably the only one on this site who has. People here have the fun habbit of posting what they think from assumption and and the brain washing they got in the "Cold War". If they did any real research, they'd be as offended by there posts as I am.

 

[MBuzzy]

It is true that some places have PARTIALLY socialistic cultures in Europe, but there is still private industry. The problem with a totally socialistic society - one in which everyone gets what they need and the community provides - is that it is either all or nothing. You can socialize some portions and have it work decently...but if you try to do an entire country, you have to do every other country around you or it fail. Hence communism. the people KNEW that there were better ways of life. Human nature is to want more....and more and more and more. Shared property just doesn't fit with how people really are.

It is a great idealistic idea of how things can and maybe SHOULD be....it just can't ever be put into true practice. Otherwise you end up with things like the "secret state" and USSR.

 

[Twin Fist]

i am out.

Xue is right

 

[CuongNhuka]

It is a great idealistic idea of how things can and maybe SHOULD be....it just can't ever be put into true practice. Otherwise you end up with things like the "secret state" and USSR.

Actually there are alot of cultures that use Marx's idea of a Communistic state. We just don't recoginize them as independent states, or Communists. Name an isolated or semi-isolated culture, an old-school tribe living in the middle of Africa or South America. They live in a Classless, Stateless society were everyone works together (mostly anyways). That was what Marx said would be Communism in the end. To him the progression went like this:

Pure Capitilism (it's evil because brutal men rise to the top, who gain wealth by giving the minimal return for labour). Keep in mind Capitilism means that the Government does NOTHING in any way to interfere with the economy.

Socialism (all, or atleast major, industry is controlled by the state, employes, or community). The one where it's controlled by the employes is actually getting popular. I cann't remember the name, but there is a growing trend in certain companies to allow workers to ELECT there direct managers and executives, which is a step towards worker control of the company.

Communism (eventually governement will simply wither away, and leave a world of classless, stateless societies were everybody works together for the pure fact that it is the right thing to do). However, this will take hundereds of years of Socialistic rule, it will not happen over night, or by force of arms. 'nuff said.

The problem I've had with people on this site saying that Communism is evil because I can tell from what they have said that they have not read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or anyone who is themself a Socialist, or subscipes to there views. There can be no "Communist Parties" in reality, just like there can be no "Anarchist Parties". It's an oxymoron.
The problem is that rulers who claim to be Socialist rarely are. And rulers who claim to be Communist, never are. Stalin started with a society that was well on it's way to be a pure Communistic state, but he kept people from realizing that he had no intention of ruling legitimatly. He tricked them into allowing him to be a dictator.
I have read Socialist views. I have read the policy and platform of several Socialist Parties, read exerts from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and so on, I have read the writing of others in the Socialistic currents. One of my favorite teachers is a Socialist, and we would have discussions on the matter 3-4 times a week, for the last two years. I am well versed in what it is to be a Socialist.
That's why I got angry about all this. I was being told that I know nothing about Socialism because I'm 18, who-ho. I've also spent time researching the subject at hand, this is probably not true of my opposition.

Well, I'm tired... nighty night