SOCIALISM FOR AMERICA....ITS TIME!!!

Walter,

You are quibbling again.

Are you suggesting that "Soviet-style communism" was not either socialistic or following Marx's doctrines? My impression is that even in Eastern Europe there was central management of the economy by government and widespread government ownership and direct management of the means of production. In short -- all the things that Amigo is advocating.

You can call this quibbling.

But I don't think that socialism and communism (of whatever coleur) are equivalent.


Marx and Engels were the 'spin doctors' for both.

Perhaps so. However, even the USSR didn't claim that it had attained communism. They called themselves socialist ... as you well know.

I don't exclude the possibility that small doses of these largely failed political and economic doctrines can - in some highly homogenious societies - be beneficial. However, the overwhelming mass of facts concerning the results achieves in such regimes - from the USSR, to pre-reform China, eastern Europe, Cuba and even the Atlee labor government in Britain - rather clearly points to the systematic and crippling defects of socialism.

Not only in politics but also int (related) economics the world isn't only "Democrats" and "Republicans".

Even in eastern Europe of cold war times we find .... mixed economic systems, like in Yugoslavia, Hungaria and (at least partly) Bulgaria.

(Not to speak of the "Social Market Economy" in Western Europe.)

Well then what was the essential difference between the systems in Eastern and Western Europe that made those in the West so much fore successful and enduring?

George Ob1--Most writers on Socialism will agree that Socialism is on a continuum. When it is extreme it becomes Communism. The countries of Europe are drowning in their cradle to the grave arrangements. The percentage of GDP in most European countries which goes to social services is astonishing.
Germany is well over 50%. People are living longer and there are fewer workers to pay taxes into the system.

Beware of anyone who thinks there is no material connection between Socialism and Communism.

I am continually astounded at the number of Europeans and Asians who , despite the fact that they are well cared for by mother Socialism, opt for residence in the capitalistic United States.

Well, possum, stay in the status of astonishment.

Oh my ........

be-still my heart.

The little mexican wants to do it.











*thud*

What do you believe the primary difference(s) to be Walter?

The primary difference is: different spelling

Communism is the hell, socialism the limbo. Or to put it differently: to come to communism you have to go through socialism at first (since there's still private property and money, for instance).

Walter

The question was serious.

You made it a point to insist that communism and socialism are not equivalent.

I'm not prepared to argue one way or the other.

Since you are an academic who lives in part of the world where the ideologies of both socialism and communism have been applied (faithfully or otherwise) to actual forms of national government, I thought your perspective would be interesting and informative.

Proponents of socialism often hasten to point out that is not the same as communism. I'm sure that to some extent this is correct, but I suspect that the desire to draw the distinction between the two has more to do with distinguishing between the historical examples of application rather than between the specific elements of each ideology.

If the following represents your serious reply, then thanks but it's not as helpful as I might have expected.

Socialism is only a watered down version of communism, or a hybrid of communism and capitalism. As is fascism.

Wow. Your insights truly leave one breathless and rolling one's eyes in wonder, okie. And you do it all with a straight face, too. Amazing.

I'm pretty sure okie truly believes what he posts, that makes it easy to do it with a straight face.

Broken down to a simple explanation so that you can understand it, the root word "social" implies the banding together of individuals into groups, so that they do things together, such as people forming governments to take care of certain aspects of their lives as a group, such as medical care, old age care, child care, education, and the list could go on. The root word "commune" implies the people live together and have not just some things common, but virtually everything common, including property and finances. So communism goes a step further than socialism. Socialism allows for people to live apart, own their own property, etc., but they use government to do only some things together as a community rather than almost everything.

To understand how countries practice socialism or communism, both require a strong government, a strong central state to do what the people want done together as a community, whether it be almost everything as in communism, or merely for some functions of living, as in socialism. It is understood that any country must have a government to govern itself, and thus has at least a small measure of some aspects of socialism merely to be a country, but it is not customary to label a government socialistic unless it socializes or administers more than just the basic functions of police protection, national defense, and a few other basic things.

The more functions administered by its government for the community or country of people, the stronger and bigger the government will be, and likely more oppressive, as the rights and desires of individuals must be subjugated to the perceived good of the whole, or the community. The United States of America was founded upon a more non-socialistic approach, placing the rights and responsibilities in the hands of individuals. This carries with it not only more freedom, but more responsibility to be responsible citizens. Rights do not survive without responsibility to sustain them.

Does that help you, Merry and dyslexia, to understand this a little better?

I'm sorry, Amigo, I just now saw your post.

Yes, unfortunately, we do need the factory. I understand (and concur in most part) how the globalization of our economy has become the basis for our existence at the detriment of others. On the other hand, I also understand that the polarization of those who can afford to live their lives supporting the neighborhood shoe maker and pharmacist are far removed (and becoming farther removed every day) from those who have no alternative than to shop at Walmart, Walgreens, and the like.

I wish is wasn't so...

To add to what I said above, the Bill of Rights is more about protecting the people's rights as individuals, from the government, it is not about what the people should be entitled to be supplied by the government, such as health care, or whatever.

I think the main difference is that Socialism covers a continuum, whereas Communism covers only one point at the extreme of that continuum.

To illustrate the distinction: Many American conservatives use the term Socialism so broadly that they count France as a Socialistic country. That's arguably correct, because France's institutions are strongly influenced by the Socialist party, and Democratic Socialism, also known as Social Democracy, lies within the broad spectrum of Socialistic ideologies. But nobody, including American conservatives, would call France a Communist country. That would be absurd.

What country would you call "communist"? The both the USSR and pre reform China termed themselves as socialist: communism was in their terms still a distant goal.

The truth is that socialism is more than just a continuum in the linear sense. There are other, perhaps orthogonal, factors, only partly related to the degree of socialism that exists. They have to do with individual freedom and the existence of political structures that have the acknowledged possibility of modifying the system in a fundamental way. Most of the present and former systems that involved extreme forms of socialism also involved authoritarian rule and built in political limits in the ability of the people to limit or modify the system of governance and its economic control. However, there are also examples of highly democratic systems that both protect individual freedom and involve some substantial elements of socialism. My impression is that the line is clearly crossed when the state assumes the power to broadly suppress individual economic activity.

Agreed. Because socialism falls on a continuum, there are more variations, types, and degrees of socialism, from country to country. In contrast communism implies all things common, as living in a commune, the country being the commune or community, all things owned and done in common, and all administered by an all powerful government, the good of the whole trumps the good of the individual. There cannot be too many variations of that, it is what it is.