Scientist declares “Earth is F**ked" --Discuss?!
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
As usual, the old adage proves itself true: people hate and fear what they don't understand.
So, socialism and Communism are exactly the same thing, are they?
No, socialism is the end-stage of communism, which is just a transitionary period required for socialist-man to evolve. As one East Bloc joke went, "Mommy, will we still have money when we reach true socialism?" "No dear, we won't have any of that, either."
If you limit the definition of socialism to government ownership of the means of production, you've pretty much narrowed it down to communist implementations, since Germany's national socialists and Mussolini never completely got to that point in their planned economic development. You could argue that nationalizing industrial firms should count, but that's also common in right-wing juntas, monarchies, and other types of government, and it only encompasses a tiny part of the "means of production", usually the major revenue generators or critical infrastructure.
If you limit the definition of socialism to government ownership of the means of production, you've pretty much narrowed it down to communist implementations, since Germany's national socialists and Mussolini never completely got to that point in their planned economic development. You could argue that nationalizing industrial firms should count, but that's also common in right-wing juntas, monarchies, and other types of government, and it only encompasses a tiny part of the "means of production", usually the major revenue generators or critical infrastructure.
History would not agree with you.
More likely a western joke told about the east. Words have meanings and government ownership on the means of production is the meaning of the word Socialism. If you expand meanings of words to meet whatever definition you need it to in order to match your argument you are working against effective communication.
Irrelevant. It isn't an all or nothing choice. A healthy modern economy would have both Capitalism and Socialism.
And one would be right to do so.
Socialism is an economic system not a political one.
But the communists would, and as you should recall, they considered themselves experts on implementing socialism.
No, the Soviet bloc had tons of jokes, and most were hilarious.
How does every communist joke start? By looking over your shoulder.
They even had jokes about jokes.
Some Soviet judges were leaving the court buiding and one started laughing hysterically. Another judge asked him what was so funny, and the laughing judge said, "I just heard the funniest joke in my courtroom." "Well tell us, what was the joke?" "I can't repeat it. I sentenced the man to five years hard labor for telling it."
Just Google some up. It's great material.
No they would not, since in their view, communism was the end stage of socialism (NOT the other way around; you have that completely backwards). One of the key differences between a communist and a socialist is their starting assumption: the communist believes that socialism is just a means to an end, while the socialist believes in socialism for its own sake. Communism is generally the more extreme flavor of socialism in that it tends to implement socialism with a massive and pervasive bureaucracy whose ultimate goal (theoretically) is to promote communal participation in the means of production along a pattern carefully mapped out by the central government. Socialists, on the other hand, have the central government directly running the show and are generally less prone to delegate control to local councils and subcommittees.
In practice, Communism tends more towards autocracy mainly because the local party members tend not to be the types who think for themselves, nor do they always have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and degenerate into local thugs who push people around and harass their communities into striving towards some unreachable standard of ideological purity. Socialism, OTOH, is more conductive to centralized tyranny by a handful of strongmen or military/political juntas. As with many things, there's a bit of an overlap between the two systems, but they are not at all the same thing and are not implemented the same way either.
Yakov Smirnoff was many things, but I wouldn't go as far as to call him "the Soviet Bloc."
No, not him. As I said, Google some up. There are some side splitters.
The Russians have a very good sense of humor, and a lot of their jokes were aimed at their system. Some of the jokes, though, are so specific to the particular, technical absurdities of communism that Westerns don't get them.
Here's a sampling. http://www.johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm
One of the most bizarre, which isn't a joke, was related by Gorbachev. He had the Soviet Bloc run a massive propaganda campaign claiming that Reagan's economics were forcing the American elderly to eat cat food, and they ran the campaign throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe before realizing the damage that had been done. The reaction on the streets was "In America, they make special food just for cats!"
Of couse, as the Chinese have shown, communism kind of works when it abandons socialism as an economic model.
The Russians have a very good sense of humor, and a lot of their jokes were aimed at their system. Some of the jokes, though, are so specific to the particular, technical absurdities of communism that Westerns don't get them.
Here's a sampling. http://www.johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm
One of the most bizarre, which isn't a joke, was related by Gorbachev. He had the Soviet Bloc run a massive propaganda campaign claiming that Reagan's economics were forcing the American elderly to eat cat food, and they ran the campaign throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe before realizing the damage that had been done. The reaction on the streets was "In America, they make special food just for cats!"
Of couse, as the Chinese have shown, communism kind of works when it abandons socialism as an economic model.
^ Ironically, it seems the Chinese have actually transcended socialism and have legitimately begun to implement legitimate communism -- e.g. communal ownership of resources and businesses -- in highly decentralized communes that are increasingly run on a businesslike, for-profit foundation.
Of course, that's probably an oversimplification. The only thing that's ever been certain about Chinese communism is that even the Chinese find it weird and confusing.
Of course, that's probably an oversimplification. The only thing that's ever been certain about Chinese communism is that even the Chinese find it weird and confusing.
You seem to be under the recurring delusion that other people cannot read your previous posts.
The alternative being that you actually believe the dictum "I HAVE read several books and articles written by these people" to be credible, despite some of the positions you supported.
You seem to include me in the category that thinks socialism in certain sectors is not desirable.
If so, allow me to correct the misconception:
I think that in the sectors grouped together under the umbrella term 'social democracy', socialism is quite successful - far better than capitalism - as long as the money spent in these sectors comes from somewhere else.
Also, taxation should have 'socialist' undertones - specifically, the taxation system should be conceived so as to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth in too few hands - which will inevitably lead to the accumulation of political power to those few hands and to oligarchy (and the attendant generalized socialism and poverty for the majority of the population).
So are you ready to quote an article or essay written by a Nobel Laureate which has anything at all to do with any of the positions I supposedly supported? Or are you just going to keep dropping the names of people you assume would agree with you if only they were here?
No, he's including you in the category that has no idea what socialism is.
Which you don't.
Without government ownership it isn't Socialism. If it was only control, then any government regulation would qualify as Socialism and that's just ridiculous.
And he was wrong.
Your obvious illiteracy in economics means you're barely qualified to read up on the basics, newtype. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Start with the introduction and try to work your way down from there, yes?
My "obvious illiteracy" explains why you didn't notice when I quoted this very same page a week ago? And I even posted an excerpt so you could see I wasn't just making things up: the entry states pretty clearly that socialism is defined by state OWNERSHIP of the means of production, not merely control.
You've said MANY times "Everyone here can read what you've posted." Maybe YOU should start doing that too, yes?
One of the common factors affecting all known attempts at implementing socialism is an incredibly high number of political murders over the definition and meaning of "socialism", often called "purges". Now you can see why.
We know that Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems and not political ones. You can have Socialist Democracies and Capitalist Dictatorships.Well, in contrast, if anyone has ever asked, "Is this true capitalism?", which is doubtful, the response was probably, "No idea, but it seems to be quite profitable!"
Your obvious illiteracy in economics explains how you, despite already having quoted the page - and, presumably, having read it -, proved unable to comprehend what is repeatedly made blatantly obvious there.