Godstud wrote:
Wow.
Communism vs. Socialism
In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism" but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Capitalism, Socialism and Communism
Most people have only a vague understanding of the differences between communism and socialism and, incorrectly, these two terms are often used interchangeably. Marx and Engels in their critique of capitalism pointed out that ruthless competition and heartless pursuit of money are immoral as they create exploitation of the masses by the very few privileged ones. As an alternative, they envisioned a classless society, without hierarchy, without currency, without personal property, where people would work in harmony, resolve their problems in friendly discussions, produce enough goods and services, and where each would contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. This community-centered form of social order is called communism.
In the classic view of communism, a communist society was the ultimate goal and destination for humankind. Followers of classic communism realized that it would be impossible to switch to communism directly from a capitalistic system they deemed immoral.
They believed that society needed time for transition. During that transition, called socialism, the representatives of people should be in charge of the means of production, and guide the society toward communism.
Being a revolutionary leftist, I'd like to *clarify* one part here -- it would be representatives of *workers*, *specifically*, and not 'people' in general, in charge of the means of mass industrial production since it's the *workers* who are doing the work.
This is the orthodox treatment. (I prefer a 'communist gift economy' structure myself.)
In a soviet democracy, voters are organized in basic units, for example the workers of a company, the inhabitants of a district, or the soldiers of a barracks. They directly send the delegates as public functionaries, which act as legislators, government and courts in one. In contrast to earlier democracy models according to Locke and Montesquieu, there is no separation of powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy
---
This was the essence of the very existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They had their Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but the longer they were in power, the less they talked about transition to communism. In China, their communist party ended up leading the transition to capitalism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henryk-a- ... 23486.html
In each respective country, the system was *Stalinism* / *Maoism*, by that point, and not workers-of-the-world socialism.
Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Seriously, Godstud?? The context of my post makes it clear I meant socialists and communists are the same AS conservatives in their unwillingness to compromise -- or, for that matter, to know facts that prove their beliefs are false.
< irrelevancies snipped >
The revolutionary leftist 'unwillingness to compromise' is for *technical* reasons, ultimately, because the economic systems of capitalism and workers-of-the-world socialism are *mutually contradictory* -- either economics is done according to *exchange values* (capitalism), or else it's done according to *use values* (socialism), with intentional conscious decision-making over what goes where, and why.
Trajan wrote:
The problem I have with conservatism is the realization that it advocate tough love and so will never be popular with the masses, who want things like blood, sex and bread.
Oh. I thought you said 'bloody sex, and bread'.
= )
Random American wrote:
The main problem with modern day conservatives in my view is they're too kleptocratic and seem to only care about protecting corporate power and influence.
Their touchstone is the bourgeois American Revolution, and they see those emergent conditions -- including the use of slave labor -- as being *acceptable*, along with what grew out of it, which already existed in Britain's empire -- *corporations*.
It's *ironic* that the original American revolutionaries had *protested* corporate goods-dumping, but today's conservatives are *fine* with corporate monopolies now that they're *American* corporate monopolies. Go figure.
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "no taxation without representation", that is, to be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. In addition, the well-connected East India Company had been granted competitive advantages over colonial tea importers, who resented the move and feared additional infringement on their business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party