Socialism is Communism.

Earthborn said:
A fairly benevolent welfare state, made by socialists. Social Democrats are Socialists, but they are not Communists; disproving the "Socialism is Communism" hypothesis.
Click to expand...

You're communists, because you advocate for the same thing, which is clearly more important than everything else, ie: the state ownership of the means of production. The only other meaningful difference between socialists and communists, is that socialism is in transition both in the sense that some socialists still have private property, and the classless system advocated by Marx doesn't yet exist (and never will).
 
Okay all the people in the society make stuff; goods and services. We'll call this "The Production."

Now we have to distribute "The Production."

Here's my issue.

In Socialism who decides who gets what is the society.

In Communism who decides who gets what is the government.

And this is what I was alluding too earlier when I called Socialism nothing but passive-aggressive Communism or Communism with an air of "For your own good" over it.

What's the difference, in a functional real world level not some Polysci 101 hypothetical perfect plane of existence, between the government and the society doing something?

If your system of government is democratic or republic, then I would argue that the distinction between Communism and Socialism is pretty academic. It's not a distinction without difference, but a distinction without a big difference.

This happens in political discourse all the time and it drives me crazy. People talk about "The Government" as if it's this thing that's walking around doing stuff, completely separate from "The People." And sure in totalitarian governments and monarchies and other systems with very centralized leadership that's true but in any even halfway working modern democracy, so like most of the countries in the world and the ones where the "It's not Communism, it's Socialism" argument gets made the most, there is no real difference.

The "Community" that decides who gets what in Socialism and the "Government" who decides who gets what in Communism are the same IF THE GOVERNMENT IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

This is why I think we're using terms that don't work in 2021.
 
Tippit said:
You're communists, because you advocate for the same thing, which is clearly more important than everything else, ie: the state ownership of the means of production. The only other meaningful difference between socialists and communists, is that socialism is in transition both in the sense that some socialists still have private property, and the classless system advocated by Marx doesn't yet exist (and never will).
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. You have completely ignored all the arguments and points that people have made to you because you are not open to discussion.

Nobody here wants the state to control all means of production. But the state offering SERVICES is not the same thing. Roads, emergency services, social safety nets, healthcare. Those aren't communist no matter how much you want them to be.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I think this pretty accurately describes modern capitalism so I'm wondering what your point is.
Click to expand...

I think that a very few people control all of the property that matters in the execution of power, ie: government, media, education, et al. This is where conspiracy theory comes in, and I diverge from "conservatives". Conservatives, typically fail to acknowledge the very real wealth disparity that exists both in the west and the rest of the world. Where they do acknowledge it, they attribute the difference to a lack of "merit", and offer a bankrupt "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" solution to an intractable problem.

I contend that capitalism doesn't exist in any meaningful form, because of the corruption of money itself. Yes, private property exists, and so does the private ownership of the means of production. But since the fiat money/fractional reserve banking system enables those who control it to expropriate the means of production (and whatever other property they desire) by the simple issuance of fiat money, they can acquire all of the property that matters in exchange for nothing at all. The system that actually exists could be more accurately described as the "privatization of gains, and the socialization of losses". The people who have the power to create money cannot lose, because they can simply socialize the burden of their losses. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with money.

This type of fraud renders any equitable notion of private property obsolete, for the same reason that if Kim Jong Un points a gun at someone and expropriates their property, we get the same result - theft of the productive, by the non-productive.

If an armed robber points a gun at you and forcibly takes your property, is capitalism to blame? In the same vein, if bankers create fantastic sums of fiat money for themselves and their cronies ex nihilo, and acquire all of the property that matters, is capitalism to blame? The answer is no to both questions.

Capitalism is about profit and loss. Those who have the power to create money can never lose. There can be no capitalism without honest money.
 
This is ridiculous.

"I think X and Y are the same!"

"You're wrong because A, B and C, what you should be saying is that X and Y are different. At best they hold some similarity."

"X and Y are the same!"

"...No, we've shown you why that's not true. Some of us are even members of group X, and we've very patiently described why you're mistaken in your assertion. Please address our points and don't just repeat your assertion becaus..."

"X and Y are the same!"
 
MarkCorrigan said:
This is ridiculous.

"I think X and Y are the same!"

"You're wrong because A, B and C, what you should be saying is that X and Y are different. At best they hold some similarity."

"X and Y are the same!"

"...No, we've shown you why that's not true. Some of us are even members of group X, and we've very patiently described why you're mistaken in your assertion. Please address our points and don't just repeat your assertion becaus..."

"X and Y are the same!"
Click to expand...

X and Y are distinctions without any material difference, is the point. The only distinction between Socialism and Communism is that Socialism has not yet achieved Marx's classless ideal.
 
A nonsense, as you would know if you had even remotely read the detailed responses you have received with an open mind.

To give an example my post here:

MarkCorrigan said:
I suspect the breadth of what I would want nationalised would be a sticking point for you.

For once, wikipedia seems to have come to my aid. I would describe myself as being a "Market Socialist" as they charmingly put it, and would provide the following quote as a reasonable, if not exhaustive explanation of my political ideals:



Essentially I would like to see companies all be run like John Lewis or the Co Op is over here. All employees are given shares in the company and take a proportion of the profits from said shares rather than all the money going to a handful of high ups and day traders.

ETA: and yes, the company I work for offers something similar, although disappointingly limited in its effect. I am a shareholder of the company I work for.
Click to expand...

In what way is this the same as Communism?
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Someone is conflating Private Property with Means of Production.
Click to expand...

The two are connected.
And, though I think the OP Is totally worng, I am not a big fan of the government controlling the means of production. Has not worked out well when it has been tried. Command economies just do not work.
 
Trebuchet said:
As I pointed out in another thread a while back, public roads are pure socialism: They are built and maintained by the government for the good of society. Very few people seem to be opposed to them.
Click to expand...

We have to defind socialism to begin with. I think most think socilaism would involve more then the government building roads.
 
Tippit said:
I think that a very few people control all of the property that matters in the execution of power, ie: government, media, education, et al. This is where conspiracy theory comes in, and I diverge from "conservatives". Conservatives, typically fail to acknowledge the very real wealth disparity that exists both in the west and the rest of the world. Where they do acknowledge it, they attribute the difference to a lack of "merit", and offer a bankrupt "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" solution to an intractable problem.

I contend that capitalism doesn't exist in any meaningful form, because of the corruption of money itself. Yes, private property exists, and so does the private ownership of the means of production. But since the fiat money/fractional reserve banking system enables those who control it to expropriate the means of production (and whatever other property they desire) by the simple issuance of fiat money, they can acquire all of the property that matters in exchange for nothing at all. The system that actually exists could be more accurately described as the "privatization of gains, and the socialization of losses". The people who have the power to create money cannot lose, because they can simply socialize the burden of their losses. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with money.

This type of fraud renders any equitable notion of private property obsolete, for the same reason that if Kim Jong Un points a gun at someone and expropriates their property, we get the same result - theft of the productive, by the non-productive.

If an armed robber points a gun at you and forcibly takes your property, is capitalism to blame? In the same vein, if bankers create fantastic sums of fiat money for themselves and their cronies ex nihilo, and acquire all of the property that matters, is capitalism to blame? The answer is no to both questions.

Capitalism is about profit and loss. Those who have the power to create money can never lose. There can be no capitalism without honest money.
Click to expand...

God, a Goldbug.
Do you consider crypto currency to be honest money?
I smell an Ancap at work.
 
Belz... said:
Ridiculous. You have completely ignored all the arguments and points that people have made to you because you are not open to discussion.

[SIZE="6"]Nobody here wants the state to control all means of production. But the state offering SERVICES is not the same thing. Roads, emergency services, social safety nets, healthcare. Those aren't communist no matter how much you want them to be.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

I would debate that;we do have a couple of out and out Neo Marxists here.


but that is where I stand. I support a strong social net but oppose anything like a command ecnonomy on the grounds is just does not work.
 
dudalb said:
I would debate that;we do have a couple of out and out Neo Marxists here.


but that is where I stand. I support a strong social net but oppose anything like a command ecnonomy on the grounds is just does not work.
Click to expand...

What, Caveman1917? Ok but he's not in the thread.
 
dudalb said:
I would debate that;we do have a couple of out and out Neo Marxists here.


but that is where I stand. I support a strong social net but oppose anything like a command ecnonomy on the grounds is just does not work.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean by “neo Marxist”?
 
I think Private Enterprise would be much happier, and would require far less regulation, if the State provided all stages of the production and distribution of basic needs such as food, housing, education, banking, communication on a very simple level.
Then what private companies did wouldn't threaten the stability of the country if they messed up.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I think Private Enterprise would be much happier, and would require far less regulation, if the State provided all stages of the production and distribution of basic needs such as food, housing, education, banking, communication on a very simple level.
Then what private companies did wouldn't threaten the stability of the country if they messed up.
Click to expand...

What happens when the government "messes up"? What happens, when, god forbid, someone like Trump is in control of virtually every important aspect of your life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom