Political Crossfire Forums

economic_reform · Joined: 14 Oct 2006 Posts: 15

Socialism has been called many thing. It has been called a old religion, a modern ethic, a popular movement, a battle cry for revolutionaries, a drawing-room delusion of utopian philosophers, the salvation of the future, and the funeral pyre of civilization. In the the United States it is a distasteful, if not a dirty, word. Sometimes it has been grossly lumped with communism. Sometimes it has been seen as even more sinister, with a creeping for engulfing our system of free enterprise.

Both communism and socialism are fundamentally economic philosophies that advocate public rather than private ownership, particularly of the means of production. Even here, distinctions begin. Karl Marx, on whose theories both philosophies are based, concentrated his attention on the industrial worker and on state domination of the means of industrial production. In practice, the Marxian dogma has largely been followed in Communist countries in conjunction with massive programs for the development of heavy industry, and the emphasis has been on production regardless of the wants or comforts of the individual. Socialism, occurring where industry has already developed, has concerned itself with the welfare of the individual and the fair distribution of whatever wealth is available.

Communism has a rigid theology, and a bible known as the Das Kapital, that sees communism emerging as a result of almost cosmic laws. Modern socialism is much closer to the ground. It, too, sees change in the human society and hopes for improvement, but there is no unchanging millennium at the end of the trail. Communism is sure that it will achieve the perfect state and, in this certainty, is willing to use any means, however ruthless. Socialism confident only that the human condition is always changing, makes no easy approximation between ends and means and so cannot justify brutalities. This distinction in philosophy, of course, makes for an immense conflict in methods. Communism, believing revolution is inevitable, works toward it by emphasizing class antagonisms. Socialism, while seeking insists on the use of democratic procedures within the existing social structure of the particular society. The upper-class capitalists are not to be overthrown but won over by logical persuasion. Such a process is less far dramatic, but in the long run world socialism has built on strong foundations. Its prospects are as bright as those ideologies with which it must compete in the twentieth century, for communism carries with it the fear of Soviet or Chinese dominationm and capitalism the memory of colonial exploitation in vast and formative areas of the world.

Gaea · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 5575

economic_reform wrote: Socialism has been called many thing. It has been called a old religion, a modern ethic, a popular movement, a battle cry for revolutionaries, a drawing-room delusion of utopian philosophers, the salvation of the future, and the funeral pyre of civilization. In the the United States it is a distasteful, if not a dirty, word. Sometimes it has been grossly lumped with communism. Sometimes it has been seen as even more sinister, with a creeping for engulfing our system of free enterprise.

Both communism and socialism are fundamentally economic philosophies that advocate public rather than private ownership, particularly of the means of production. Even here, distinctions begin. Karl Marx, on whose theories both philosophies are based, concentrated his attention on the industrial worker and on state domination of the means of industrial production. In practice, the Marxian dogma has largely been followed in Communist countries in conjunction with massive programs for the development of heavy industry, and the emphasis has been on production regardless of the wants or comforts of the individual. Socialism, occurring where industry has already developed, has concerned itself with the welfare of the individual and the fair distribution of whatever wealth is available.

Communism has a rigid theology, and a bible known as the Das Kapital, that sees communism emerging as a result of almost cosmic laws. Modern socialism is much closer to the ground. It, too, sees change in the human society and hopes for improvement, but there is no unchanging millennium at the end of the trail. Communism is sure that it will achieve the perfect state and, in this certainty, is willing to use any means, however ruthless. Socialism confident only that the human condition is always changing, makes no easy approximation between ends and means and so cannot justify brutalities. This distinction in philosophy, of course, makes for an immense conflict in methods. Communism, believing revolution is inevitable, works toward it by emphasizing class antagonisms. Socialism, while seeking insists on the use of democratic procedures within the existing social structure of the particular society. The upper-class capitalists are not to be overthrown but won over by logical persuasion. Such a process is less far dramatic, but in the long run world socialism has built on strong foundations. Its prospects are as bright as those ideologies with which it must compete in the twentieth century, for communism carries with it the fear of Soviet or Chinese dominationm and capitalism the memory of colonial exploitation in vast and formative areas of the world.

Interesting.

But may add to your comments that most people in America want a portion of our tax dollars to pay for the common good or that which will benefit all of us and raise our standard of living and security.

Programs such as fire departments, police forces, garbage collection, sewage plants, water treatment plants, national forests, public highways and roads, etc. These are socialsist ideas and in no way imply that people who want these services for the common good want communism or to do away with private ownership fo business or property. For anyone to imply or even suggest otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and are full of bs.

economic_reform · Joined: 14 Oct 2006 Posts: 15

Moot wrote: economic_reform wrote: Socialism has been called many thing. It has been called a old religion, a modern ethic, a popular movement, a battle cry for revolutionaries, a drawing-room delusion of utopian philosophers, the salvation of the future, and the funeral pyre of civilization. In the the United States it is a distasteful, if not a dirty, word. Sometimes it has been grossly lumped with communism. Sometimes it has been seen as even more sinister, with a creeping for engulfing our system of free enterprise.

Both communism and socialism are fundamentally economic philosophies that advocate public rather than private ownership, particularly of the means of production. Even here, distinctions begin. Karl Marx, on whose theories both philosophies are based, concentrated his attention on the industrial worker and on state domination of the means of industrial production. In practice, the Marxian dogma has largely been followed in Communist countries in conjunction with massive programs for the development of heavy industry, and the emphasis has been on production regardless of the wants or comforts of the individual. Socialism, occurring where industry has already developed, has concerned itself with the welfare of the individual and the fair distribution of whatever wealth is available.

Communism has a rigid theology, and a bible known as the Das Kapital, that sees communism emerging as a result of almost cosmic laws. Modern socialism is much closer to the ground. It, too, sees change in the human society and hopes for improvement, but there is no unchanging millennium at the end of the trail. Communism is sure that it will achieve the perfect state and, in this certainty, is willing to use any means, however ruthless. Socialism confident only that the human condition is always changing, makes no easy approximation between ends and means and so cannot justify brutalities. This distinction in philosophy, of course, makes for an immense conflict in methods. Communism, believing revolution is inevitable, works toward it by emphasizing class antagonisms. Socialism, while seeking insists on the use of democratic procedures within the existing social structure of the particular society. The upper-class capitalists are not to be overthrown but won over by logical persuasion. Such a process is less far dramatic, but in the long run world socialism has built on strong foundations. Its prospects are as bright as those ideologies with which it must compete in the twentieth century, for communism carries with it the fear of Soviet or Chinese dominationm and capitalism the memory of colonial exploitation in vast and formative areas of the world.

Interesting.

But may add to your comments that most people in America want a portion of our tax dollars to pay for the common good or that which will benefit all of us and raise our standard of living and security.

Programs such as fire departments, police forces, garbage collection, sewage plants, water treatment plants, national forests, public highways and roads, etc. These are socialsist ideas and in no way imply that people who want these services for the common good want communism or to do away with private ownership fo business or property. For anyone to imply or even suggest otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and are full of bs.

What is the U.S. standard of living these days?

Anyway, you make a excellent point. Social stability services like the ones you mentioned are socialistic views but, as you said, are no way related to communism. I never implied, or at least I think I didn't, that any of these are communistic viewpoints. I actually believe that these socialistic services are a barrier to prevent anarchy. If any of these were privately owned, as they were before the Great Chicago Fire, we would be in utter choas.

nanite1018 · Joined: 01 Oct 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Georgia

economic_reform wrote: Socialism has been called many thing. It has been called a old religion, a modern ethic, a popular movement, a battle cry for revolutionaries, a drawing-room delusion of utopian philosophers, the salvation of the future, and the funeral pyre of civilization. In the the United States it is a distasteful, if not a dirty, word. Sometimes it has been grossly lumped with communism. Sometimes it has been seen as even more sinister, with a creeping for engulfing our system of free enterprise.

Both communism and socialism are fundamentally economic philosophies that advocate public rather than private ownership, particularly of the means of production. Even here, distinctions begin. Karl Marx, on whose theories both philosophies are based, concentrated his attention on the industrial worker and on state domination of the means of industrial production. In practice, the Marxian dogma has largely been followed in Communist countries in conjunction with massive programs for the development of heavy industry, and the emphasis has been on production regardless of the wants or comforts of the individual. Socialism, occurring where industry has already developed, has concerned itself with the welfare of the individual and the fair distribution of whatever wealth is available.

Communism has a rigid theology, and a bible known as the Das Kapital, that sees communism emerging as a result of almost cosmic laws. Modern socialism is much closer to the ground. It, too, sees change in the human society and hopes for improvement, but there is no unchanging millennium at the end of the trail. Communism is sure that it will achieve the perfect state and, in this certainty, is willing to use any means, however ruthless. Socialism confident only that the human condition is always changing, makes no easy approximation between ends and means and so cannot justify brutalities. This distinction in philosophy, of course, makes for an immense conflict in methods. Communism, believing revolution is inevitable, works toward it by emphasizing class antagonisms. Socialism, while seeking insists on the use of democratic procedures within the existing social structure of the particular society. The upper-class capitalists are not to be overthrown but won over by logical persuasion. Such a process is less far dramatic, but in the long run world socialism has built on strong foundations. Its prospects are as bright as those ideologies with which it must compete in the twentieth century, for communism carries with it the fear of Soviet or Chinese dominationm and capitalism the memory of colonial exploitation in vast and formative areas of the world.

Well, Karl Marx isn't really the basis for socialism. In fact, he has relatively little effect on many threads of it, except for the common labor theory of value.

I wonder what exactly is "communism"? Is it strictly Marxist? I believe i am a democratic socialist, mostly because i believe the economy should work for the good of society, and i believe the state should have a big role, while the state is controlled democratically by the people. I think the abolition of private property would be nice, if it was workable. But for the time being it isn't, and so i support nationalization of certain major industries, social security, a highly progressive income tax, high minimum wage, public works projects and such to eliminate unemployment, and other social democratic measures.

Revisionism is the name of my game, so i am absolutely no Marxist. By the way, in practice, what is the real difference between a reformist demoratic socialist and a social democrat. Just where they wish to stop? And how far does democratic socialism go? I can't find answers to these questions.

What is the point of this topic, exactly? Just a discussion of communism and socialism?

This post is a mass of questions.

Gaea · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 5575

economic_reform wrote: Moot wrote: economic_reform wrote: Socialism has been called many thing. It has been called a old religion, a modern ethic, a popular movement, a battle cry for revolutionaries, a drawing-room delusion of utopian philosophers, the salvation of the future, and the funeral pyre of civilization. In the the United States it is a distasteful, if not a dirty, word. Sometimes it has been grossly lumped with communism. Sometimes it has been seen as even more sinister, with a creeping for engulfing our system of free enterprise.

Both communism and socialism are fundamentally economic philosophies that advocate public rather than private ownership, particularly of the means of production. Even here, distinctions begin. Karl Marx, on whose theories both philosophies are based, concentrated his attention on the industrial worker and on state domination of the means of industrial production. In practice, the Marxian dogma has largely been followed in Communist countries in conjunction with massive programs for the development of heavy industry, and the emphasis has been on production regardless of the wants or comforts of the individual. Socialism, occurring where industry has already developed, has concerned itself with the welfare of the individual and the fair distribution of whatever wealth is available.

Communism has a rigid theology, and a bible known as the Das Kapital, that sees communism emerging as a result of almost cosmic laws. Modern socialism is much closer to the ground. It, too, sees change in the human society and hopes for improvement, but there is no unchanging millennium at the end of the trail. Communism is sure that it will achieve the perfect state and, in this certainty, is willing to use any means, however ruthless. Socialism confident only that the human condition is always changing, makes no easy approximation between ends and means and so cannot justify brutalities. This distinction in philosophy, of course, makes for an immense conflict in methods. Communism, believing revolution is inevitable, works toward it by emphasizing class antagonisms. Socialism, while seeking insists on the use of democratic procedures within the existing social structure of the particular society. The upper-class capitalists are not to be overthrown but won over by logical persuasion. Such a process is less far dramatic, but in the long run world socialism has built on strong foundations. Its prospects are as bright as those ideologies with which it must compete in the twentieth century, for communism carries with it the fear of Soviet or Chinese dominationm and capitalism the memory of colonial exploitation in vast and formative areas of the world.

Interesting.

But may add to your comments that most people in America want a portion of our tax dollars to pay for the common good or that which will benefit all of us and raise our standard of living and security.

Programs such as fire departments, police forces, garbage collection, sewage plants, water treatment plants, national forests, public highways and roads, etc. These are socialsist ideas and in no way imply that people who want these services for the common good want communism or to do away with private ownership fo business or property. For anyone to imply or even suggest otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and are full of bs.

What is the U.S. standard of living these days?

A standard of living that allows us to live without streets full of sewage and mountains of garbage in order to prevent the spread of disease, well maintained streets to prevent accidents, street lights for safety, fire departments so entire neighborhoods don't burn down, a police force to maintain local civil order, parks in metro areas for kids, hospitals and first responders, schools to help our kids get a competive edge in the global economy, national parks to protect land for future generations, social security for retirees in order to prevent the pain & suffering of the Great Depression, Medicare so seniors on fixed incomes don't have to make the choice between medicine for food,....etc..

All these things contribute to the higher standard of living we all enjoy in the US.

Quote: Anyway, you make a excellent point. Social stability services like the ones you mentioned are socialistic views but, as you said, are no way related to communism. I never implied, or at least I think I didn't, that any of these are communistic viewpoints. I actually believe that these socialistic services are a barrier to prevent anarchy. If any of these were privately owned, as they were before the Great Chicago Fire, we would be in utter choas.

I wasn't sure of the point of your thread either. So I just thought I'd add my two cents and speak out for the common good which we call social democracy today, so that others might not confuse it with socialism or communism.

the prophet · Joined: 11 Nov 2006 Posts: 830 Location: Michigan

I would call socialism a watered down version of Communism. It lays somewhere in between our form of government and China's. Many times in the past and present we vote in socialist laws and then vote them out again and because our our balance of power we never become a socialist state thank god. Government control ed medicine socialized medicine. Doctors do not want this because they would lose the competition and wages they make. The same in any private sector. I choose to keep the government where it belongs. Working for me not the reverse. Freedom is worth the the problems that go with it. Nazi Germany was a socialist state as was Russia. Both failed . We are still here and still the best example of freedom in the world today. I'm proud of that. The prophet

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Communism and socialism are the same thing with one difference:

Socialism has a state, communism does not.

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10375 Location: Kansas

The other thing to remember - Socialism is a lot more adaptive than Communism - Elements of a socialist framework can be bolted onto a capitalist society without too much trouble.

Example free education and medical services are both strong socialist ideals, yet both have had not trouble co-exisitng within a capitalist society.

bigred510 · Joined: 13 Nov 2006 Posts: 42 Location: Illinois

I agree with that and an example of socialist ideas brought into a capitalist society is welfare. Everybody pays for the poor to get paid for the work, or lack of it in some cases. I mainly dislike socialist policies because they do not promote hard work to get what you want and deserve; however, such benefits as free education and the like are nice bonuses.

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 10375 Location: Kansas

Quote: I agree with that and an example of socialist ideas brought into a capitalist society is welfare. Everybody pays for the poor to get paid for the work, or lack of it in some cases. I mainly dislike socialist policies because they do not promote hard work to get what you want and deserve;

Thats the tight rope you walk - help those doing it tough - but not to the extent it is worth more to them, not to look for work, than to work,

Comrade Dave · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 1324

LostSoul3412 wrote: Communism and socialism are the same thing with one difference:

Socialism has a state, communism does not.
That's an unfair statement. The fact that a state exists completely negates any similarities between the two. Communism is built on delusions. Socialism is built on reality.

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

Comrade Dave wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Communism and socialism are the same thing with one difference:

Socialism has a state, communism does not.
That's an unfair statement. The fact that a state exists completely negates any similarities between the two. Communism is built on delusions. Socialism is built on reality.

socialism IS a delusion.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

LeopardPM wrote: Comrade Dave wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Communism and socialism are the same thing with one difference:

Socialism has a state, communism does not.
That's an unfair statement. The fact that a state exists completely negates any similarities between the two. Communism is built on delusions. Socialism is built on reality.

socialism IS a delusion.

As is anarcho-capitalism.

Zoot · Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 1897

Socialism doesn't necessarily have a state. Anarchism is non-statist socialism.

LeopardPM · Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 1226 Location: Arizona

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote:

socialism IS a delusion.

As is anarcho-capitalism.

but it seems such a nice place to be....

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote:

socialism IS a delusion.

As is anarcho-capitalism.

but it seems such a nice place to be....

Of course it does, because it's a utopia. Utopias always seem like a much nicer place to be than reality.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7324 Location: Tampa, FL

Eh, I think it would be foolish not to strive for utopia...

bigstick61 · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject:

Quote: But may add to your comments that most people in America want a portion of our tax dollars to pay for the common good or that which will benefit all of us and raise our standard of living and security.

Programs such as fire departments, police forces, garbage collection, sewage plants, water treatment plants, national forests, public highways and roads, etc. These are socialsist ideas and in no way imply that people who want these services for the common good want communism or to do away with private ownership fo business or property. For anyone to imply or even suggest otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and are full of bs.

These are not socialist ideas. Public roads and infrastructure have always been considered necessities in America, even in the earliest days; often, this was the limit of even State and local governments. Not even proponents of limited government will argue against these, so long as they are done at the State, County, or local level.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Allow me to rephrase my earlier statement:

Communism is a political, social, and economic philosophy all rolled into one.

Socialism is merely an economic philosophy.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

bigred510 wrote: I mainly dislike socialist policies because they do not promote hard work to get what you want and deserve; however, such benefits as free education and the like are nice bonuses.

"I like socialism when I get stuff, but not when I have to pay for things..."

Classic American philosophy... :roll: