Socialism is Communism.

Captain_Swoop said:
What is your evidence for this claim?
Click to expand...

There is a lot of evidence. Here is one short news clip that documents the situation there:



There are some longer documentaries about how the Somalis aren't interested in assimilating into Swedish society, and are basically raping and pillaging the country. And yes, that news clip referenced *grenade and bomb* attacks.
 
Belz... said:
Indeed, or at least not with homo sapiens. But it exists on paper and can be analysed and critiqued. Socialism, however, does exist in practice all over the world. That's already a pretty strong demonstration that they are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

If by socialism you mean capitalism and reject communism, sure. But then what's left for you to argue about?
 
Tippit said:
Do they? I just want quality, affordable healthcare. I think people want "universal" health care because they can't afford healthcare, and they assume that the only/best way to solve the problem of healthcare inflation is to socialize it. Why is healthcare so expensive, and priced so far out of reach? Why are people bankrupted by certain healthcare procedures? Can you think of any other ways we can fix it as opposed to handing over ownership to the state?
Click to expand...
LOL. Almost every other country on Earth, big or small, have some form of socialised health care. Except for the USA. And it is certain a LOT of them are far from being communist or even socialist countries. So why do they do this, and how can they possibly afford it? Geez, I dunno. Perhaps it's a more equitable and efficient use of health care money? Nah, can't be that! Capitalism is the ONLY equitable and fair use of health care money!

Then again, unbeknownst to most of the USA, there is already a LOT of "socialist" systems in place run by the government, even Republican governments. If you consider how the military is afforded - everyone pays taxes into a big bucket in DC, the military is paid for out of that, the whole country benefits from the efforts of the military (for various values of "benefits", but let's not discuss that here) - that is absolutely a socialist methodology. And it has been in place for...I don't know how long. How many years has the US government funded a national military? You tell me.
 
novaphile said:
Australia, a Police State...

The 'herp derp' is deep with this one.
Click to expand...
Yep, we are policed so hard that when we are pulled over for speeding both the driver and the cop are forced to get out of their cars, stand on the roadside, and spend at least 15 minutes in a "spirited search for the truth" without slightest possibility of one shooting the other or kneeling on necks.
 
Their 1a definitions are different.

Also, these are dictionaries. For the same reason some dictionaries list "figuratively", as a definition for "literally", there is overlap between your two definitions. When enough people poorly use terms interchangeably, the dictionary needs to be the source someone can look up and know what someone is talking about. While socialism isn't often thought of as the abolition of private property, enough mouth breathers use it that way in conversation that the dictionary needs to say it.
 
Instead of heading for the Merriam-Webster dictionary, how about observe how self-described socialist or communists have styled themselves in recent history? There are many varieties of socialist thought.

But the bigger point here probably is there are no economies that are truly one or the other. Socialism, capitalism, etc. are good rallying cries and punchlines in a polarized political climate. Most of the socialists I know are more radical than Bernie Sanders would ever think to be, for instance. He's an unabashed millionaire for crying out loud.
 
Tippit said:
Do they? I just want quality, affordable healthcare. I think people want "universal" health care because they can't afford healthcare, and they assume that the only/best way to solve the problem of healthcare inflation is to socialize it. Why is healthcare so expensive, and priced so far out of reach? Why are people bankrupted by certain healthcare procedures? Can you think of any other ways we can fix it as opposed to handing over ownership to the state?
Click to expand...

Yes - there are many good and affordable universal healthcare system in the “developed” countries that do not have “ownership by the state”. I am very surprised you are unaware of these.
 
Tippit said:
Do they? I just want quality, affordable healthcare. I think people want "universal" health care because they can't afford healthcare, and they assume that the only/best way to solve the problem of healthcare inflation is to socialize it. Why is healthcare so expensive, and priced so far out of reach? Why are people bankrupted by certain healthcare procedures? Can you think of any other ways we can fix it as opposed to handing over ownership to the state?
Click to expand...

You don't have to turn over healthcare to the State to have Universal Healthcare, amazingly you don't even have to have a single-payer system to do it, though personally, I would suggest that single-payer is the better option.

Can you actually explain how a State created entity that negotiates for the best drug and health care costs with drug companies and hospitals, and then pays for the healthcare of its users from a pool of funds gathered from taxes differs significantly from having a privately created entity that negotiates for the best drug and health care costs with drug companies and hospitals, and then pays for the healthcare of users from a pool of funds gathered from premiums?
 
In my experience, (which is, admittedly, fairly narrow), most nations don't fall easily in to single category definitions. Particularly those with evolved democracies, where power and governance has changed hands over the years. They have evolved hybrid systems with elements of 'socialist' policies, and elements of more conservative right-wing policies. Pure ideologies are a nice exercise for politics and philosophy students, but they rarely survive contact with the real world unless someone is walking around with a big stick or worse.
 
lionking said:
That is probably the most ridiculous website I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen a heap.
Click to expand...
It sure is!

It's almost certainly satire. Designed to rile up the herp derps in the USA, who believe this stuff is real. Because confirmation bias is hilarious.

You can tell because there is an advert for how great Rand Paul is in the top right corner. Like he is relevant for Australia. :rolleyes:
 
Norman Alexander said:
It sure is!

It's almost certainly satire. Designed to rile up the herp derps in the USA, who believe this stuff is real. Because confirmation bias is hilarious.

You can tell because there is an advert for how great Rand Paul is in the top right corner. Like he is relevant for Australia. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, looks like satire to me too. But in the modern world it's impossible to distinguish from crazy.
 
Tippit said:
In another thread, a poster suggested that there is a material difference between Communism and Socialism
Click to expand...

Read your own post, the quotes explain the difference. Under socialism the means of production (AKA Capital goods) are socially owned. IOW factories and business, etc are owned the government or some other socially owned organization like a co-op. Under Communism it's not just Capital goods that are socially owned but all goods.


Countries where a significant number of factories, etc are socially owned are few and far between, countries where all goods are socially owned are non-existent. Most of the whining about "Socialism" is really just An-Cap stupidity under which any government action to support market efficiency is "evil"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom