mrbaracuda, diffrence between Communism and Sozialism? can you tell me pls?

[DC]

in another topic you talked about Chavez, Sozialism and Communism.

i wonder where you see the diffrence between Communism and Sozialism, and what is so evil about it?

[Tailgater]

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html

http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/n...ism/comgov.htm

http://www.usd.edu/honors/HWB/hwb_l/comvssoc.htm

This is funny...

http://www.mentalfloss.com/difference/?p=38

Quote:

The Dilemma: Ever since they took the rod out of the Iron Curtain and sent communism to the cleaners, your knowledge ofcompeting political philosophies has blurred.

People You Can Impress: your ninth-grade civics teacher and Fidel Castro

The Quick Trick: Just toss socialism around in conversation and you’re guaranteed to be right.

[SDC]

I have DC on ignore, but the heading for this thread reminds me of the classic Soviet joke:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity for that stroll down memory lane.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SDC

I have DC on ignore, but the heading for this thread reminds me of the classic Soviet joke:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity for that stroll down memory lane.

I, too, have DC on ignore, but your remarks on the heading for this thread reminds me of an argument I heard recently, to the effect that "capitalism" is a Marxist term and that using it already concedes too much of the debate.

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by SDC

I have DC on ignore, but the heading for this thread reminds me of the classic Soviet joke:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity for that stroll down memory lane.

It has been a while since I last saw that one - thanks for the smile

[Brainster]

Communism is where everybody who's poorer than I am gets to have some of my property. Socialism, which is much more desirable, is where I get to have some of the property of everybody who's richer than I am.

[Tony]

Sozialism?

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Tony

Sozialism?

Yez. Sozializm iz a political zyztem popular in zum countriz.

[davefoc]

This is a question where many people think there is a clear cut answer that somehow or another supports their particular ideology and if you don't know their particular answer to the question you are marked as a lesser human who is not privy to their particular expert understanding of the matter.

As a general answer to those people:

The words have various meanings in different contexts and no matter what are somewhat ambiguous as to exactly what they mean. But please feel free to share your particular definition of the words and how this somehow proves that your ideas about what economic systems are optimal but don't be too surprised if you don't impress people with your answer.

[moon1969]

Communism is bad. Communist try to take away what doesn"t belong to them. Take for example Karelia. Russia stole Karelia from Finland. Come on Josef Stalin was the leader back then. Oh well too bad many russians think that Josef Stalin was a hero. Can"t believe how arrogant many russians are. They think they can deny history. And no Finland was not an ally of the Nazi Germany. That too is a lie. Just ask Max Jakobson or any other jew in Finland and they tell you what the russians did. And Putin and his friends are still trying to cause trouble to other people. Just look at what they are doing in Chechnya and Georgia. Putin is a socialist. Just look at what Putin did to Yukos. That is socialism. Josef Stalin was a communist.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by gtc

Yez. Sozializm iz a political zyztem popular in zum countriz.

Yez indeed it iz an intriguing topic, zis politikal zyzstem, iz it not?
And karacters like zis perzon here are also wery interezting!

[Alex Libman]

All collectivism is the same, no matter what slogans it pushes or what it calls itself.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

All collectivism is the same, no matter what slogans it pushes or what it calls itself.

Define collectivism.Some people consider having a police force to be collectivism.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Define collectivism.Some people consider having a police force to be collectivism.

Well I am pretty sure you can understand him in the context of commie / socialistic stuff.

[gtc]

What is this collectivism? Surely you mean collectivizm?

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by gtc

What is this collectivism? Surely you mean collectivizm?

Heh. Zhis you iz funney, gtz!

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

Well I am pretty sure you can understand him in the context of commie / socialistic stuff.

No, not really.

Then again I'm a politics student so I'm BOUND to be stuffy and insist upon technical definitions.

The actual difference, and yes, there REALLY is an absolute one despite what some folks say (tell me, would you like anyone to use thier personal definition of science too? Oh, that's not the same? Yes, it is. Suck it up.) Oh, and despite the problems with the definitions (you'll see. You'll ALL see.)

Communism is NOT the sharing of wealth by the government. THAT is Socialism (although obviously it has some degrees of variation within it). As far as can be gained from the Communist Manifesto (for it is not all that clear, and I should know, I had to buy it for my course) Communism is the state BEYOND Socialism, whereby there is NO government at all.

Everyone merely works at their job, puts the resulting capital into a shared pot and then takes their fair share. However because this cannot be implimented right away for.....obvious reasons, Marx and Engels stated that first one must have Socialism.

Only, that was never completely defined either, so the best you can get on that is that the Government is large and supports more equal sharing of the wealth, with high tax paying for education, health, power, transport etc.

This can, as one of the above articles mentioned, be as little as socialised healthcare and education etc etc with a lot of money funneled into public spending and a noticable shortening of the gap between rich and poor.

You can also have Socialism to the extent that I would like it (insert evil cackle here) whereby the poorest sector of the populous is guaranteed minnimum standards of comfort, or rather, the option to GET said standards, but in order to gain higher levels, one must work harder/at a more difficult job. For example, someone on benefits might be able to afford a small TV, whereas a decent sized TV will belong to a mid level worker, and a huge great plasma job will belong to the hardest worker or the one doing the most difficult job, a neurosurgeon, to pick a cliche example out of my rather stylish hat. In this system you are rewarded for climbing the career ladder, much as you are in a totally capitalist environment (which no longer exists, anywhere) but you have to pay a significant portion in order to allow those who would NOT have a large sum of money to spend on medical bills to have their quadruple heart bypass for free. You would still be earning far in the excess of the lowest band of worker, but noone would be unable to get good education, or good healthcare, and transport and gas/electricity would be easily sorted.

Then, of course you can have "socialism" that isn't really socialism at all, and I'm looking at YOU Lenin, Mao and Stalin. A general send it to the middle/we don't like the upper/middle classes is NOT Communism or Socialism. However, it would be remiss of me to claim that they did not operate certain socialistic systems within their countries. For example Cuba's high tax paid for free education up to and including university level, which is something I would want for any nation. The downside is because it was Stalinoid in it's approach (thank you Che, he couldn't have done it without you, you beardy idiot and poster boy for the "we know nothing about politics" generation) the good also went hand in hand with the very, very bad. Brutal oppression and mass killings.

See, the problem is that even though they ARE defined terms, they are still fairly wishy-washy, and although Marx never said anything about how wonderful it is to opress everyone (indeed, he would probably have been horrified by Stalin in particular) he never stated that that was NOT what communism/socialism was about either.

He rather stupidly left a lot of what he said a bit vauge, and when you combine that with power mad, but originally (very slightly) well intentioned lunatics like Lenin you have a recipie for...well I'm not sure what it is but it isn't apple pie. Then HE goes and dies, and the person he wanted to get the USSR back on track (as it was doing quite well) goes and gets removedd by Stalin, who was even worse. Then HIS words got corrupted.

It's a funny old world, when you think about it.

Right, I'm off to ruin someone elses day.

[DC]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

No, not really.

Then again I'm a politics student so I'm BOUND to be stuffy and insist upon technical definitions.

The actual difference, and yes, there REALLY is an absolute one despite what some folks say (tell me, would you like anyone to use thier personal definition of science too? Oh, that's not the same? Yes, it is. Suck it up.) Oh, and despite the problems with the definitions (you'll see. You'll ALL see.)

Communism is NOT the sharing of wealth by the government. THAT is Socialism (although obviously it has some degrees of variation within it). As far as can be gained from the Communist Manifesto (for it is not all that clear, and I should know, I had to buy it for my course) Communism is the state BEYOND Socialism, whereby there is NO government at all.

Everyone merely works at their job, puts the resulting capital into a shared pot and then takes their fair share. However because this cannot be implimented right away for.....obvious reasons, Marx and Engels stated that first one must have Socialism.

Only, that was never completely defined either, so the best you can get on that is that the Government is large and supports more equal sharing of the wealth, with high tax paying for education, health, power, transport etc.

This can, as one of the above articles mentioned, be as little as socialised healthcare and education etc etc with a lot of money funneled into public spending and a noticable shortening of the gap between rich and poor.

You can also have Socialism to the extent that I would like it (insert evil cackle here) whereby the poorest sector of the populous is guaranteed minnimum standards of comfort, or rather, the option to GET said standards, but in order to gain higher levels, one must work harder/at a more difficult job. For example, someone on benefits might be able to afford a small TV, whereas a decent sized TV will belong to a mid level worker, and a huge great plasma job will belong to the hardest worker or the one doing the most difficult job, a neurosurgeon, to pick a cliche example out of my rather stylish hat. In this system you are rewarded for climbing the career ladder, much as you are in a totally capitalist environment (which no longer exists, anywhere) but you have to pay a significant portion in order to allow those who would NOT have a large sum of money to spend on medical bills to have their quadruple heart bypass for free. You would still be earning far in the excess of the lowest band of worker, but noone would be unable to get good education, or good healthcare, and transport and gas/electricity would be easily sorted.

Then, of course you can have "socialism" that isn't really socialism at all, and I'm looking at YOU Lenin, Mao and Stalin. A general send it to the middle/we don't like the upper/middle classes is NOT Communism or Socialism. However, it would be remiss of me to claim that they did not operate certain socialistic systems within their countries. For example Cuba's high tax paid for free education up to and including university level, which is something I would want for any nation. The downside is because it was Stalinoid in it's approach (thank you Che, he couldn't have done it without you, you beardy idiot and poster boy for the "we know nothing about politics" generation) the good also went hand in hand with the very, very bad. Brutal oppression and mass killings.

See, the problem is that even though they ARE defined terms, they are still fairly wishy-washy, and although Marx never said anything about how wonderful it is to opress everyone (indeed, he would probably have been horrified by Stalin in particular) he never stated that that was NOT what communism/socialism was about either.

He rather stupidly left a lot of what he said a bit vauge, and when you combine that with power mad, but originally (very slightly) well intentioned lunatics like Lenin you have a recipie for...well I'm not sure what it is but it isn't apple pie. Then HE goes and dies, and the person he wanted to get the USSR back on track (as it was doing quite well) goes and gets removedd by Stalin, who was even worse. Then HIS words got corrupted.

It's a funny old world, when you think about it.

Right, I'm off to ruin someone elses day.

good post.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

As far as can be gained from the Communist Manifesto (for it is not all that clear, and I should know, I had to buy it for my course)

Oh. My sincerest condolences. It's sitting on my shelf as well, and I'm not even a politics student!

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

Oh. My sincerest condolences. It's sitting on my shelf as well, and I'm not even a politics student!

It's quite a good read.

You will probably find yourself going "Hmm, well that sounds ideal but....you silly silly men."

The thing with Communism is, it sounds wonderful, but it's a forlorn hope, at best.

Socialism, if practiced well and regulated by democracy, is more than good enough for me.

[DC]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

It's quite a good read.

You will probably find yourself going "Hmm, well that sounds ideal but....you silly silly men."

The thing with Communism is, it sounds wonderful, but it's a forlorn hope, at best.

Socialism, if practiced well and regulated by democracy, is more than good enough for me.

do you think there have been a socialist government that did a good job in practicing socialism yet?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

do you think there have been a socialist government that did a good job in practicing socialism yet?

Yes. A lot of them.

Of course, it depends upon what form of Socialism you MEAN. I mean lets face it early USSR under Lenin worked wonderfully well for what it was. Does that mean I would want my country run that way? Hell no.

[DC]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Yes. A lot of them.

Of course, it depends upon what form of Socialism you MEAN. I mean lets face it early USSR under Lenin worked wonderfully well for what it was. Does that mean I would want my country run that way? Hell no.

while Lenin may be a good example, i kinda wonder the "A lot of them".

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

while Lenin may be a good example, i kinda wonder the "A lot of them".

I wonder what you're on about.

You DID read my post, right? You comprehended what I said, yes?

[DC]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

I wonder what you're on about.

You DID read my post, right? You comprehended what I said, yes?

i just wondered to read that alot of them did it good

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i just wondered to read that alot of them did it good

Someone help me out here, am I being stupid?

What do you MEAN by good? Do you mean efficient? If so I could name LOADS. Do you mean actually run for and by the people? I could name a few if you narrowed down to which type of Socialism you mean.

You aren't helping me understand you here.

[leonAzul]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

do you think there have been a socialist government that did a good job in practicing socialism yet?

No. There are only examples of governments who have exploited the notion of socialism in order to ƒ people over
consolidate advantage.

[DC]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Someone help me out here, am I being stupid?

What do you MEAN by good? Do you mean efficient? If so I could name LOADS. Do you mean actually run for and by the people? I could name a few if you narrowed down to which type of Socialism you mean.

You aren't helping me understand you here.

ah sorry.

well yes by good i would mean run in favor of the peoples (atleast the majority /working classes). but also having human right standards.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

ah sorry.

well yes by good i would mean run in favor of the peoples (atleast the majority /working classes). but also having human right standards.

The UK.

Canada.

France.

Anywhere with socialised medicine and education to a high standard, in fact.

Or would you like absolute Socialism? Hasn't ever been implimented.

Socialism with absolute control? Doesn't work for the people.

[DC]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

The UK.

Canada.

France.

Anywhere with socialised medicine and education to a high standard, in fact.

Or would you like absolute Socialism? Hasn't ever been implimented.

Socialism with absolute control? Doesn't work for the people.

oh i call those Capitalism/Socialism hybrids. and i think it is the best known form we know yet.

but i like your point of view in that mather

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

oh i call those Capitalism/Socialism hybrids. and i think it is the best known form we know yet.

but i like your point of view in that mather

....That's because they are.

If you're talking about a purely Socialist system, you can't find one. Well, aside from Moldova but that's....weird.

Socialism has never been totally implimented.

[Billdave2]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

No, not really.

You can also have Socialism to the extent that I would like it (insert evil cackle here) whereby the poorest sector of the populous is guaranteed minnimum standards of comfort, or rather, the option to GET said standards, but in order to gain higher levels, one must work harder/at a more difficult job. For example, someone on benefits might be able to afford a small TV, whereas a decent sized TV will belong to a mid level worker, and a huge great plasma job will belong to the hardest worker or the one doing the most difficult job, a neurosurgeon, to pick a cliche example out of my rather stylish hat. In this system you are rewarded for climbing the career ladder, much as you are in a totally capitalist environment (which no longer exists, anywhere) but you have to pay a significant portion in order to allow those who would NOT have a large sum of money to spend on medical bills to have their quadruple heart bypass for free. You would still be earning far in the excess of the lowest band of worker, but noone would be unable to get good education, or good healthcare, and transport and gas/electricity would be easily sorted.

Not to derail this topic but how would this work? If everyone is guaranteed this so called "minimum level of comfort", who would determine what the minimum level is and what jobs qualify for which level, the government? If so would people who only get the minimum still be allowed to vote? Because I would think that as time went by a sure fire way to get elected would be to say " I promise if I am elected, the minimum level of comfort would include a giant plasma screen TV". Also, if I am guaranteed this minimum level of comfort, what happens if I drop below due to my own fault? For example I have my small TV that is guaranteed and I accidently break it? Do I get another? What if I on purpose break it? Who determines if I did it on purpose or not? I think that it would fairly quickly be a large mess. If the difference between minimum and the other levels is not great enough, what incentive is there to acheive?

My point is that anytime we try to set an arbitrary standard of what fair is, the effort is bound to fail.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Billdave2

Not to derail this topic but how would this work? If everyone is guaranteed this so called "minimum level of comfort", who would determine what the minimum level is and what jobs qualify for which level, the government? If so would people who only get the minimum still be allowed to vote? Because I would think that as time went by a sure fire way to get elected would be to say " I promise if I am elected, the minimum level of comfort would include a giant plasma screen TV". Also, if I am guaranteed this minimum level of comfort, what happens if I drop below due to my own fault? For example I have my small TV that is guaranteed and I accidently break it? Do I get another? What if I on purpose break it? Who determines if I did it on purpose or not? I think that it would fairly quickly be a large mess. If the difference between minimum and the other levels is not great enough, what incentive is there to acheive?

My point is that anytime we try to set an arbitrary standard of what fair is, the effort is bound to fail.

....There's this strange new fangled concept called "money" that people are talking about.

You might want to look into it.


To be less flippant, although, I don't see why I should, since your post is rather.....umm....pointless, the minimum standard would NOT be enforced by anyone. The Government would pay for all education, healthcare, public transport (no, NOT your car, YES the train you go to work on) and the like. Everything else would be bought with that radical concept of "money" which would be handed out to those on the dole at a government determined level dependant upon wages at the time and inflation, as well as other factors.

I'm not on about handing out TV's here. If you break your TV you go without or save up for a new one. The very fact that high end products cost more would be sufficient to stop Joe Douche from claiming that his minimum standard would be plasma screens, unless he enforced price fixing, or raised the dole and minimum wage up to astronomical levels, thus rendering the economy useless.

Please, try to keep up with the rest of the class.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

....There's this strange new fangled concept called "money" that people are talking about.

You might want to look into it.


To be less flippant, although, I don't see why I should, since your post is rather.....umm....pointless, the minimum standard would NOT be enforced by anyone. The Government would pay for all education, healthcare, public transport (no, NOT your car, YES the train you go to work on) and the like. Everything else would be bought with that radical concept of "money" which would be handed out to those on the dole at a government determined level dependant upon wages at the time and inflation, as well as other factors.

I'm not on about handing out TV's here. If you break your TV you go without or save up for a new one. The very fact that high end products cost more would be sufficient to stop Joe Douche from claiming that his minimum standard would be plasma screens, unless he enforced price fixing, or raised the dole and minimum wage up to astronomical levels, thus rendering the economy useless.

Please, try to keep up with the rest of the class.

What about housing? Should that be free for all?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Texas

What about housing? Should that be free for all?

No...Housing costs would be covered by the amount of, once again, money, that one has.

Lowest tier houses would be like they are now, council houses.

If you decide that buying an X-Box 360 is more important than your rent, you will be out on the street. I am not advocating spoonfeeding people here, merely allowing anyone to gain access to the tools needed to (theoretically) rise to the top.

The severely disabled and the very old would be the only ones with state provided housing and care support. Everything else is either delivered at the time it's needed, like education or healthcare, or is bought from the money that is gained from work, or your state mandated dole money.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

No...Housing costs would be covered by the amount of, once again, money, that one has.

Lowest tier houses would be like they are now, council houses.

If you decide that buying an X-Box 360 is more important than your rent, you will be out on the street. I am not advocating spoonfeeding people here, merely allowing anyone to gain access to the tools needed to (theoretically) rise to the top.

The severely disabled and the very old would be the only ones with state provided housing and care support. Everything else is either delivered at the time it's needed, like education or healthcare, or is bought from the money that is gained from work, or your state mandated dole money.

Well we already have that arrangement with public housing. What is state mandated dole money? If that is welfare then we have that also. We have Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the seniors and permanently disabled. We have free public education through high school and heavily subsidised state universities with very low tuition and financial aid. It appears that the US already fits your model.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Texas

Well we already have that arrangement with public housing. What is state mandated dole money? If that is welfare then we have that also. We have Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the seniors and permanently disabled. We have free public education through high school and heavily subsidised state universities with very low tuition and financial aid. It appears that the US already fits your model.

No, it doesn't.

Are you joking? Your healthcare system is a joke. Your education system is failing and you do not have free transport, fuel, heating, water....the list goes on.

The US is NOTHING like the model I want.

You are either being obtuse or you have no idea what I'm talking about and how your own system works.

Well done, you managed an epic fail. Be proud.

No wait, don't.


ETA: For starters I want free top level healthcare FOR ALL. Private options would not exist except for non emergency plastic surgery.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

No, it doesn't.

Are you joking? Your healthcare system is a joke. Your education system is failing and you do not have free transport, fuel, heating, water....the list goes on.

The US is NOTHING like the model I want.

You are either being obtuse or you have no idea what I'm talking about and how your own system works.

Well done, you managed an epic fail. Be proud.

No wait, don't.


ETA: For starters I want free top level healthcare FOR ALL. Private options would not exist except for non emergency plastic surgery.

Why do you say that our health care system is a "joke" Have you ever used it? So you really believe that there is some funding mechanism to provide true "free top level Health care"? What is wrong with private options? You stated earlier that if you had the money you would permit those that had it to spend it as they wish. Do you know any place on earth that provides free fuel, transport, heating, etc? If so please provide a cite or two. Can you ride the tube in London for free? Take a cab gratis? How about the buses are they free also? Our universities turn out more scientists, engineers, doctors, attorneys and teachers that any place on earth. Is it that you are just proposing a Utopian model that has yet to be reality?

[Magtor]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

If you decide that buying an X-Box 360 is more important than your rent, you will be out on the street.

So what will happen to the stupid people that make wrong choices in your dream society? Let them live on the streets or provide, "reward", them with shelter anyway?

(Your society being one which I have identified as the democratic socialist one, ie the ones to the left of the social democrats. A fair assumption?)

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

The severely disabled and the very old would be the only ones with state provided housing and care support. Everything else is either delivered at the time it's needed, like education or healthcare, or is bought from the money that is gained from work, or your state mandated dole money.

So you are for some form, or a variant, of free market regulation when it comes to (some) goods, but not for salaries, why?

[DC]

Originally Posted by Billdave2

Not to derail this topic but how would this work? If everyone is guaranteed this so called "minimum level of comfort", who would determine what the minimum level is and what jobs qualify for which level, the government? If so would people who only get the minimum still be allowed to vote? Because I would think that as time went by a sure fire way to get elected would be to say " I promise if I am elected, the minimum level of comfort would include a giant plasma screen TV". Also, if I am guaranteed this minimum level of comfort, what happens if I drop below due to my own fault? For example I have my small TV that is guaranteed and I accidently break it? Do I get another? What if I on purpose break it? Who determines if I did it on purpose or not? I think that it would fairly quickly be a large mess. If the difference between minimum and the other levels is not great enough, what incentive is there to acheive?

My point is that anytime we try to set an arbitrary standard of what fair is, the effort is bound to fail.

In Switzerland we have already kinda such a system. you have a minimum granted.
we pay a insurance monthly, so in case we get jobless, we have 2.5 years we atleast 65% of the last income we had. if you still didnt find a job after 2.5 years you dont count as jobless anymore (to sexyup the unemployment statistics) from then on you are a "Sozialfall" . there is a limit of what you atleast need in switzerland to survive, money for renting a apartment, money for food, clothes etc. and the "Sozialamt" will pay that minimum you need dependen on the size of your family. untill you are able to earn your own money. it is not much money you will get, but atleast you can get food for you and your family and an apartment.