+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60

Thread: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

  1. Link to Post #21
    Finland Avalon Member Arak's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th May 2013
    Location
    Southern Finland
    Age
    42
    Posts
    283
    Thanks
    559
    Thanked 1,244 times in 247 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Yes Apokalypse, I also think that nordic countries did use to be quit close to perfect - before capitalist-cartel (minions of Cabal) got in power. They are now trying very hard to crumble our system with every possible way they can come up with. Sure even our system had / has some drawbacks (like ever incrasing buraucracy - it is almost ridiculous these days) but if compared to for example to the system in USA we still have things in a pretty good way. (Just last weekend I watched document "the Line" in Indieflix. It told few stories of people living in poverty at USA. And it was kinda sad to realize that there are 46 000 000 of those kinds of stories there. So I do understand that fixing propblem that huge is not an easy task.)
    Last edited by Arak; 11th February 2014 at 06:03. Reason: Typo

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Arak For This Post:

    Johnny (17th February 2014)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Australia Avalon Member
    Join Date
    23rd June 2011
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks
    243
    Thanked 3,563 times in 795 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    what's Individualism? this is new term to me but one thing pop up to my head is egos all about me not others or society because of human nature.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to apokalypse For This Post:

    Johnny (17th February 2014)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member gittarpikk's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th July 2010
    Age
    65
    Posts
    189
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 757 times in 162 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Interesting video find that just came out on Moxnews... just started viewing so cant help describe but seems to be quite relevant to the topic


    update... after a 'trot' through the video
    highly promotes a book... perhaps it is a good answer to a growing question.

    You get some insight of the mind of capitalists vs a socialist

    you will begin to spot capitalist propaganda as well as the socialist movement..

    It is obvious the MSM is pro capitalist...and relentlessly opposes any change ..

    A lot of 'unanswered questions' as to how the 'dream' is going to operate...but clear to see the alternative of capitalism is not the answer

    worth the view to get your head a bit more around a socialist mindset.
    Last edited by gittarpikk; 12th February 2014 at 03:31.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to gittarpikk For This Post:

    Johnny (17th February 2014)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Member Douglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th March 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    30
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 309 times in 96 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Why MUST it be a government enacted program! ! ?

    What is it with people?

    Does anyone really even grasp the philosophy and ideology of the founding fathers of one of the greatest nations ever founded? Oh no thats right we have a miserable federal socialized education program.
    Government should be small and based on freedom, the federal government cannot even run the postal service, they have destroyed education and in turn destroyed the U.S.
    HAVE YOU HEARD OF SOCIAL SECURITY? GREAT SYSTEM HUH?
    IF YOU LIVE IN A TRULY FREE COUNTRY THEN IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE THE SOCIAL SYSTEMS YOU WANT IN YOUR COMMUNITY.

    Ohhh humans are so smart and we care so much about human life and we need this beautiful society where everyone gets a fair chance............... soooo we are gonna levee huge amounts of taxes funnel it all to a federal programs in turn creating bureaucracies........ how many times do we have to watch this not work ? How many times do we have to go down this road ?
    Does it work on paper? ya it does, but how well has it worked in history?

    Charity starts at home and in your community..

    "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

    George Washington
    ~~ In wonderment I bow to the Cosmos ~~

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Douglass For This Post:

    Johnny (17th February 2014)

  9. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Member Douglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th March 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    30
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 309 times in 96 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Lets really look at state/federal(national) socialized programs, okay?

    They are not funded by charity, they are funded by government force and coercion.
    Slavery means the submission to a dominating influence. State run socialized programs are run by slavery.

    The only way to battle inequality that any intelligent compassionate human wants to see rid of the Earth is through true charity and true education implemented by free people in their local communities.


    I respect everyone's opinions and if I have offended anyone that was not my intent of my posts, just side effects.
    ~~ In wonderment I bow to the Cosmos ~~

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Douglass For This Post:

    Johnny (17th February 2014)

  11. Link to Post #26
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,084
    Thanks
    11,929
    Thanked 28,781 times in 4,689 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Quote Posted by apokalypse (here)
    what's Individualism? this is new term to me but one thing pop up to my head is egos all about me not others or society because of human nature.
    Perhaps a more interesting concept than individualism is personalism.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/personal/


    Personalism values the ‘physical person’ (nothing exclusively physical about it) as opposed, for example, to the ‘moral person’, which in legalese means a legal/corporate entity (nothing at all moral about it often enough).

    The distinction between the physical person and the legal entity has been notably blurred by the idea in the US of granting full personhood to corporations. It is also being blurred these days by notions of things mechanical, cloning and artificial intelligence.

    Rather than being opposed to any form of collectivism, personalism might be seen as a branch of humanism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

    Socialism and communism I see as applying these values to society and to the community, not according to the rationalist principles of any previous or existing political system, but according to pragmatist principles yet to be implemented on any large scale. As Williams James writes in “Pragmatism”,
    Quote The import of the difference between pragmatism and rationalism is now in sight throughout its whole extent. The essential contrast is that for rationalism reality is ready-made and complete from all eternity, while for pragmatism it is still in the making, and awaits part of its complexion from the future. On the one side the universe is absolutely secure, on the other it is still pursuing its adventures.
    http://iws.collin.edu/amiller/Willia...Pragmatism.pdf


    As another philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas, says: “the perfection of man is his perfectibility”.


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Johnny (17th February 2014)

  13. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Member Dennis Leahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2011
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    65
    Posts
    6,368
    Thanks
    37,686
    Thanked 43,775 times in 5,420 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    (I think the original question of the thread was answered, and I'll allow myself to follow one of the tangents)

    Hey Douglass,

    A different viewpoint:

    To the meme of needing a "smaller government"
    We need "government" to be as big as possible, as inclusive as possible. Lincoln thought we already had "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." We never actually have had that. The Elite have always controlled the electoral paradigm - right from the beginning the rich, white, male, landowners put themselves on the ballot, subtlety excluding ordinary citizens, and overtly excluding women, blacks, and "Indians."

    Something like 80% of the US population thinks the military and military budget are too big; again about 80% want GMOs labeled. Those in positions of governance don't care what we think. They ignore us. They want a small "government", very few people in control (tyranny.) Yes, the US government has a big bureaucracy and massively too many people on the payroll, but the number of people that actually "govern" is extremely small. There are about 1500 people in the 3 branches of government that make and enforce and adjudicate policy. The Elite want a small government. They want just two parties. They control both parties, and they control the government. The Elite only have 1500 people to control - and they vetted and pre-selected them all.

    There are 320 million US citizens. In a government of the people, we would all be part of the government, and much, much, more difficult for the Elite to control 320,000,000 than 1500. So, we would actually be serving the Elite's agenda by reducing the number of people responsible for governance. (And yes, we would be serving the nation and citizens by reducing the bureaucracy, bloat, and redundancy in non-essential personnel. We also have an immense number of people taking citizen-funded government paychecks that really work for corporations and banks. Think of the FDA, USDA, and all branches of the military - all work as mercenaries for the Elite.)

    To the cynicism of a government's capabilities, and corruptibility:
    Again, the United States has never had a government of the people. The rich and powerful have always been in control. So when we say, "look at how badly government handles [______________]" <---(fill-in the blank), what we should be saying is, "look at what the Elite have ordered their minions to do." The same is said about corruptibility. We have all heard, "no matter who gets into power, they will be corrupted by having power." However, we have absolutely no basis to call that factual. We actually have Elite hand-picked people in all positions of governance. They were (at very best) not really corrupt when they walked in the door, but were firmly "in-line" with the agenda of the Elite. At worst, they were corrupt before they walked in the door - they knew damn well they had made a deal with the devil to gain position. So, we're surprised when they all further the agenda of the Elite, with collusion and corruption?

    Imagine all those 1500 positions of governance being held by ordinary citizens that were vetted NOT to have ties to the elite, and were not allowed to have investments in corporations (because those investments are a guaranteed compromise of integrity.) Imagine they have a 4 year term, and are then out, and cannot run for the position ever again. Imagine that citizens would have a real check-and-balance on those individuals while in office, and could recall those that proved not to work for the benefit of citizens (but rather for the Elite.) In other words, imagine a system where we do everything possible to disconnect the US government from the Elite, to eliminate corruption and collusion, and to connect the government to the other 320 million citizens and the environment instead of to the Elite.

    "A government of the people.." It has never been our reality, but I'd sure like to try it. I'm pretty fed-up with the outcome of the Elite controlling governance.

    (This idea does NOT propose a change in the FORM of government. Just a change in the makeup of those in governance, flipping 180° from Elite-centric to citizen-centric. If there would ever be a change in the FORM of government, it would be secondary to removing the Elite from power over governance.)

    Dennis
    Last edited by Dennis Leahy; 12th February 2014 at 16:15. Reason: little typo


  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dennis Leahy For This Post:

    Arak (12th February 2014), Johnny (17th February 2014), Wind (15th February 2014)

  15. Link to Post #28
    United States Avalon Member Douglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th March 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    30
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 309 times in 96 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Ya Dennis you bring up some good points.

    I guess I can see your perspective and mine working very well together. When I say small government I mean government with very limited power.

    A Federal government with very limited power, states given powers the people of those states distinguish through democratic means, and a politically aware and active populous. Sounds pretty good to me.

    But ya your point is spot on we need 320 million (probably more like idk 220 when you subtract children) politically aware and active individuals to set this right.

    We are where we are because of our cowardice and IGNORE ance.
    Last edited by Douglass; 17th February 2014 at 08:19. Reason: typos
    ~~ In wonderment I bow to the Cosmos ~~

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Douglass For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (17th February 2014), Johnny (17th February 2014)

  17. Link to Post #29
    Australia Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th April 2010
    Posts
    6,180
    Thanks
    12,102
    Thanked 35,587 times in 5,273 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    On Political Lines (Only)

    The Definition is as follows...

    A Communist ($hits Gold) & A Socialist (Eats IT)...

  18. Link to Post #30
    Denmark Avalon Member Johnny's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th September 2013
    Age
    73
    Posts
    699
    Thanks
    10,434
    Thanked 2,241 times in 624 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Quote What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?
    A point of view: There is no difference between them. They are a perfect complements to distract us from real freedom in our life.

    Cheers Johnny

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny For This Post:

    jackovesk (17th February 2014)

  20. Link to Post #31
    United States Avalon Member Dennis Leahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2011
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    65
    Posts
    6,368
    Thanks
    37,686
    Thanked 43,775 times in 5,420 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Quote Posted by Douglass (here)
    Ya Dennis you bring up some good points.

    I guess I can see your perspective and mine working very well together. When I say small government I mean government with very limited power.

    A Federal government with very limited power, states given powers the people of those states distinguish through democratic means, and a politically aware and active populous. Sounds pretty good to me.

    But ya your point is spot on we need 320 million (probably more like idk 220 when you subtract children) politically aware and active individuals to set this right.

    We are where we are because of our cowardice and IGNORE ance.
    Very true! I am all for de-centralizing the power. Just exactly which domestic issues should be determined by federal policy is an enormous subject for another time, but let's look at a broad overview of US foreign policy. We have to remember that ALL foreign policy is formed by the federal government.

    Another way that "small government" is really a sneaky way of working against the people: congressional committees.
    Quote Posted by from the Wiki article linked above
    Congress divides its legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks among approximately 200 committees and subcommittees. Within assigned areas, these functional subunits gather information; compare and evaluate legislative alternatives; identify policy problems and propose solutions; select, determine, and report measures for full chamber consideration; monitor executive branch performance (oversight); and investigate allegations of wrongdoing.[3] While this investigatory function is important, procedures such as the House discharge petition process (the process of bringing a bill onto the floor without a committee report or mandatory consent from its leadership) are so difficult to implement that committee jurisdiction over particular subject matter of bills has expanded into semi-autonomous power. Of the 73 discharge petitions submitted to the full House from 1995 through 2007, only one was successful in securing a definitive yea-or-nay vote for a bill.
    So, let's say there is an issue - a big issue - an issue worthy of being considered for new federal legislation or revision of existing federal legislation. We already have the problem of only 535 people (theoretically) trying to represent over 300 million people. At best, we get 535 people putting their heads together and debating and investigating the subject. But this is extremely rare. What typically happens is that the bill is directed off to committee. That means, now only a handful of people (much more easily identified, lobbied, coerced, bribed, colluded) will be in charge of the bill, and can kill it, seriously dilute it, add passages that neuter it or allow the opposite of the original bill's author's intent to be injected and the intent to be subverted.

    If you actually look at who are on those committees (which are themselves insider political appointments), it is astoundingly obvious that they are selected for their willingness to "play ball", not for their actual expertise in the area of the committee's expertise. Just one ridiculous example would be Joe Barton, Chair emeritus of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, speaking out against wind energy. Listen to his "logic": "Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to wind energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? "

    Equally appalling committee members and committee heads can be found in virtually every committee. So, the committee process is used for gatekeeping. These committees are stacked with people that are already under the control of the industries most impacted by the committees' actions (and the actions are really shenanigans, manipulations, omissions and additions to make the bill as corporate-friendly as possible, though ofter leaving an Orwellian doublespeak title or introductory wording in the bill.)

    So, for example, a small handful of people on the Armed Services Committee (that are all in bed with the military industrial complex), will kill or drastically transform any bill that seeks to reign-in military spending. Do we really think that the Senate's Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee is going to allow a bill to revoke the charter of the Federal Reserve banks to go to the floor of the Senate? Are we expecting the House and Senate's committees regarding energy (Energy and Commerce, and Energy and Natural Resource, respectively) to clear a path to non-polluting energy technologies, abandoning oil, gas, and coal?

    I know that there are those that fear "mob rule" of anything approaching democracy, but the centralization of power into tiny parcels (such as congressional committees) is a tool used by the corporate Elite to ensure that their agenda is followed - and to hell with any other agenda that is citizen-centric and/or eco-centric. These small clusters of people are extremely easy to control, as the corporate Elite have certainly demonstrated. I see a great improvement in dissolving most or even all congressional committees, and put the topics back onto the floor of the House and Senate, back onto the shoulders of ALL of our representatives*, and handled with complete transparency (but for an infinitesimally small amount of info that is truly "national security.")

    *(Of course, I'm not actually talking about the present, Elite-pre-selected, Elite-vetted, Elite-approved, Elite-sponsored, Elite-controlled US congresspersons. They are truly a lost cause - totally corrupt. I envision a time when the US - and hopefully all countries - will actually have a government of the people, with ordinary citizens vetted NOT to have corporate ties in temporary positions of governance.)

    Dennis


  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dennis Leahy For This Post:

    johnf (17th February 2014), Johnny (17th February 2014), Ken (18th February 2020)

  22. Link to Post #32
    United States Avalon Member Douglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th March 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    30
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 309 times in 96 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Here Here Dennis were on the same team brother.

    People who fear "mob rule" actually fear ruling themselves. IMHO

    Think about how much easier democracy becomes with technology, granted with that comes a lot of serious oversight. Citizens could vote on a monthly weekly or even daily basis. I know it sounds extreme but why not?

    All we hear about is this poll says this about 78% of Americans or another poll says this about 60% of immigrants. If we can do all these polls overnight then lets just set up a secure system and start voting.
    Obviously the system would only be as good as the oversight, security, and infrastructure of the system but to me it seems very feasible.

    So on a monthly basis the citizens could be heavily influencing decisions made by there representatives.

    Just an idea, worth some thought

    C. Douglass
    Last edited by Douglass; 17th February 2014 at 18:18. Reason: typos
    ~~ In wonderment I bow to the Cosmos ~~

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Douglass For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (17th February 2014), Johnny (17th February 2014), Midnight Rambler (17th February 2014)

  24. Link to Post #33
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    3,366
    Thanks
    5,540
    Thanked 15,507 times in 2,807 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Not sure where to post this but it as CREEPY a video as I have seen... truly scary.


  25. Link to Post #34
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,263
    Thanks
    5,153
    Thanked 8,280 times in 1,212 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    There is no difference, but in degree. By design, socialism portends communism. Which is a totalitarian form of collectivism. Fascist in many ways even.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Sammy (26th February 2020)

  27. Link to Post #35
    United States Avalon Member Dennis Leahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2011
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    65
    Posts
    6,368
    Thanks
    37,686
    Thanked 43,775 times in 5,420 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    There is no difference, but in degree. By design, socialism portends communism. Which is a totalitarian form of collectivism. Fascist in many ways even.
    This is an example of why it has become nearly impossible to use the word "socialism" in an intelligent conversation. Your definition is 100% wrong, as are the declarations that socialism portends communism or is fascist. Look above at the post I made about 5 years ago, describing socialism and communism, and debate it. Fascism is corporate control of government, the exact opposite of citizens controlling their own government.

    The Global Overlords (call them what you will) are actively privatizing all resources on planet Earth, funneling the ownership of all resources (and humans are simply "human resources", to them) into their hands. This is the opposite of socialism, where everyone shares ownership and control of those resources, and shares governance. The ultimate goal of these oligarchs/fascists is to own everything and control everyone. Control of everyone by a few overlords is totalitarianism; everyone having an equal say in controlling ourselves and our resources describes socialism/egalitarianism. The overlords fear socialism because it goes directly against their agenda of total control/domination of the world and their private ownership of everything. This isn't rocket science.

    The "New World Order" is totalitarian control and ownership of everything by a few people. How can people NOT get that? How can people say they are against the agenda of the New World Order and yet SUPPORT its agenda? The agenda of the New World Order is the complete opposite of socialism.

    People can be somewhat forgiven for defining socialism in Orwellian Doublespeak - you've been cleverly brainwashed and programmed heavily for at least the past 70 years to equate socialism with totalitarianism, while the clever overlords that injected that meme have steadily accumulated formerly public (or humanity's) resources, and steadily gained control over all humans, as well as controlling our governments (which, again, is the definition of fascism.)

    The USSR was never socialist for one minute, and China is not and never was actually communist - they use those words improperly, purposely, to hide the real form of totalitarian state that was/is actually practiced. Socialism also isn't the opposite of capitalism - every transaction of goods and services could be capitalism within a socialist society. (Even barter is really capitalism, it just dispenses with the money/token and uses the value of the goods or services directly.)

    This issue of the Global Overlords, the New Word Order, fooling so many people into decrying socialism and thus supporting the totalitarian takeover of the world by the Global Overlords really pisses me off, and I would expect people gathered together at Avalon to have figured this ruse out.


  28. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Dennis Leahy For This Post:

    Frank V (17th February 2020), Gracy May (17th February 2020), Justjane (17th February 2020), Ken (18th February 2020), lloyds (21st February 2020), Mashika (17th February 2020), onawah (17th February 2020), shaberon (17th February 2020), Wind (18th February 2020)

  29. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    12,049
    Thanks
    28,460
    Thanked 52,225 times in 10,521 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Socialism is what the matriarchal cultures of old practiced, as Mariah Gimbutus has revealed through her considerable research.
    (See: http://www.carnaval.com/goddess/ )
    It seems very natural that a society should be based on the assurance that everyone's basic needs be met, and that that is the primary goal of a society.
    Such societies were peaceful, non-competitive, cooperative and did not wage war.
    Those were much simpler times, assuredly, while these times are much more complex.
    But what we can come away with after acquainting ourselves with such a culture is the realization that humankind really is capable of forming such societies, even though we have been conditioned into thinking that we are inherently incapable of such peaceful co-existence, and therefore must be ruled.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Delight (17th February 2020), Dennis Leahy (17th February 2020), Frank V (17th February 2020), Ken (18th February 2020), shaberon (17th February 2020), Wind (18th February 2020)

  31. Link to Post #37
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,466
    Thanks
    15,377
    Thanked 6,872 times in 1,343 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Every society is to a degree socialist if you take Dennis' broad definition - an activity undertaken collectively rather than in a multi provider competitive regime.

    For example, states brought in a central state owned tax administration, including income tax, and the main reason was to pay for wars and the interest on war loans.

    The more capitalist oriented societies still have huge burocracies to adminster the law, including vital regulation of business, one of the prime aims being to prevent private enterprise from creating monopolies.Often roads and infrastructure is still seen by these societies as a collective service provided to society by the state, for general social benefit and to facilitate effective wealth creation in the private sector.

    Once some collective provision is accepted, the debate becomes which model is the most effective at delivering the goods or services to people in the most cost effective, efficient way. in the more left leaning democracies, the view tends to be that rail transport, power generation, telephony, other utilities etc are natural monopolies. this means that they function best as a monopoly, but placing that within the private sector will lead to excessive pricing, so public ownership is best.

    One of the most important arenas for this on going debate over maximising utility is in health care, where the privately provided model leads to the situation in the USA, which is a shining example of corrupt crony capitalism charging excessively to provide ever less actual service. This is typical of what happens in any industry where the private sector accrues excessive self serving power over the regulators that are supposed to defend the collective interest.For me, healthcare is a clear example of an industry best provided publicly or with a public infrastructure that purchases services from a functioning competitive market, then provides these services collectively.

    You do not hear democratic socialists suggesting public ownership of agriculture, tech manufacturing, or bakeries. that idea has been tried and did not work well.

    So is democratic socialism a creeping communist plot? within our bloated self serving public burocracies, there are always voices saying that we need more money to provide this or that. it can become bloated and inefficient, and this tendancy is to be guarded against, and the debate should be nourished by accountability and transparency to minimise corruption.

    In the private sector such self serving wealth destruction is evident, and the defence is the same. We need funtioning responsible journalists and regulators.

    The ideal model is a healthy symbiosis between the two, with a healthy on going public debate as to how to manage this, innovate and improve.
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 19th February 2020 at 20:59.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (17th February 2020), Frank V (17th February 2020), shaberon (17th February 2020)

  33. Link to Post #38
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    1,628
    Thanks
    2,362
    Thanked 5,337 times in 1,375 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Quote Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

    The Global Overlords (call them what you will) are actively privatizing all resources on planet Earth, funneling the ownership of all resources (and humans are simply "human resources", to them) into their hands. This is the opposite of socialism, where everyone shares ownership and control of those resources, and shares governance.
    Perhaps one day we will kill each other for a glass of water.

    I suggest the term Synarchy is historically correct, particularly if you look at what Aldous Huxley called the plan for World War Two. It is not exactly "a" faction, but I think it could be shown to be a collusion with the Fabians in the London School of Economics. At that point you had actual power to enact a global control scheme. The so-called eastern Communists are just another branch of it. And so we have seen Russia purge a lot of that by now.

    Fascism is more or less Mussolini's term that got carried around. But yes, it chiefly indicates corporate control of government, which previously was Oligarchy: visible overlords or people that were known to be rich and powerful, which, the replacement by Synarchy meant that: they were largely unknown who they were or what they did. And one could perhaps say practically invisible until Ezra Pound got Eustace Mullins to dig deeply into the Library of Congress. Pound was an avid Fascist in the sense that, the Germans kicked out the bank and made lawful money that belonged to the state; and they call themselves National Socialists. The Synarchists set it up so that Germany would be counter-attacked and submit itself into the new imperialism, which was, itself, mostly French. So, despite both being autocrats, it does not seem like the Synarchists and Nazis were on the same side. Synarchy simply had persons of German origin, some of whom may have appeared to be Nazi members. At Nuremburg, I. G. Farben employees barely got a slap on the wrist, and this is supposedly the company behind the gas holocaust.

    "Control of resources" is likely more fundamental to this scheme than money. Some of the wealthiest people have not got much cash; some have no income.

    Matriarchy typically meant the women owned the land and managed how the men worked on it, which, I believe, is still current in Yunnan, China.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (17th February 2020)

  35. Link to Post #39
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    974
    Thanks
    261
    Thanked 3,609 times in 830 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Vladimir Lenin said, "The goal of socialism is communism." So it's kind of an academic question.

  36. Link to Post #40
    Administrator Frank V's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2014
    Location
    Here, there and over yonder
    Posts
    904
    Thanks
    9,946
    Thanked 6,025 times in 859 posts

    Default Re: What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

    Quote Posted by TomKat (here)
    Vladimir Lenin said, "The goal of socialism is communism." So it's kind of an academic question.
    That was his interpretation of Karl Marx' philosophy. What makes you think it would have been a correct one?
    Last edited by Frank V; 18th February 2020 at 12:06. Reason: punctuation

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to Frank V For This Post:

    Ken (18th February 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts