What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

[apokalypse]

What's the Difference between Socialism and Communism?

i have discussion with a mate about it and he said is the same thing but communism more extreme while i considered socialism is refer to economics side rather than consist of both economics and politics like communism.

alot of people include in this forums bashing socialism, at family parties hearing family members who have experience thought Communism discussing about the ideology which they considered it's fantasy. One thing pop up to mind is contactee especially with Alex Collier who telling us about Andromeda society where they work collectivity, social ownership of resources and asset which nobody own anything.

i consider problem is not the system but the problem is human nature with egos, if we get rid of our egos then socialism or what ever ISM iyou want to called it including New World Order will work.

i still believe for socialism to work you need advancement in spirituality in which many of society like Andromeda is utopia society .

[pumashared]

no economic model is perfect and i have researched communism / capitalism and socialism. here is my conclusion of the economical models
In capitalism we have whats called a free market where anyone can create a company/ product and sell it to the customers. companies are always competing with each other in terms of customers and employees and in theory this will produce the best and most competitive scene where every party in the population wins. However if you look more into capitalism it has some severe flaws where unfortunately the free market does not work. The winners"Big corporations" hide under capitalism laws while they enforce laws on the people. I will give you an example. for example the Big ISP are actually not competing and in reality they are fighting for the same thing. The big ISP come together and pass laws regarding net neutrality because they can. in theory these companies should be competing but they arent really and the biggest losers are us the consumers.
in socialism government has much bigger rule in the companies actions and well fare. in theory this model tries to protect consumers and the employers by placing strict rules in company and new businesses. this model works better in smaller populations and with countries with strict border protection and countries with population that prefers nationalism. some successful countries have socialistic values to them like Germany. In Germany every student college is paid for by the government as long as they get good grades. compared to the United states where you have to be the top 5% in most universities to get scholarships. However the economic model of socialism has some huge problems. for example it is slower to change in some regards because of multiple rules and regulations. this is a huge problem specially for a booming population because jobs are not created as fast. the start-up scene in socialist countries is much lower than compared to countries like USA.
communism on the other hand is the extreme version of socialism. almost everything is controlled from the government. this of course has its upsides and downsides. if the politicians are fighting for the good of the people they will do the "right" thing but most often they are not. in theory the communism model should work best but in practice it runs horribly because people abuse their powers .

this is my understand of the 3 big economic models. if i made some mistakes i hope someone corrects it.

[Kryztian]

i still believe for socialism to work you need advancement in spirituality in which many of society like Andromeda is utopia society .

For civilization to work, you do need advancement in spirituality. Civilization needs not only good, fair, efficient and effective government, but a society that is educated and enlightened. No "-ism" is going to save us - it is important to understand all the "-isms" and their pros and cons, but realize that good government is a balance of things - it must recognize that too much government can smother an individual, but also, that no man is an island and we all do need it to be there to support each other, and that this does not always happen in laissez faire caplitalism.

[Ellisa]

This is a famous quote regarding the distribution of wealth. "To each according to their need--- From each according to their ability."

Ask people who said it and you will get amazing answers. Some suggest Jesus, Others suggest Buddha, Allah and other revered figures.

However it was Karl Marx, and that is what underlies the idea of Socialism/Communism. I like that idea and I don't think it also underlies the idea of Capitalism.

[ghostrider]

Socialism is government running everything and everyone has the same crumbs, no one is allowed to succeed and better themselves , communism is one person runs everything and anyone that disagrees is killed , to put fear in others to keep them in control ...

[Leon88]

Capitalism has more to do with the manipulation of the value of capital than with free market. Sure, a free market is the base on which capitalism operates, but it is not the sole property of the capitalists. The others have it too.

Socialism places the welfare society ahead of the individual, so you get free education and medical treatment for all. Things like that. Also places controls on pollution and conservation and other things like that which can't look after themselves.

Free enterprise is very individualistic - You succeed or fail as you do and if you're down no one is bothered to get you up again.

Communism is where everything belongs to the state and everyone works for the state. In theory. In practice it is a capitalism where the state owns everything and the individuals are slaves.


There is no "perfect system" which will cover up human imperfections.

[Tesseract]

It's a good question :) Give the huge volume of literature on these subjects I think it is possible to create a thousand definitions and sub-definitions.

Broadly speaking, socialism aims to ensure equality and welfare for all people in society, this is quite natural since humans are social creatures. As I have pointed out on this forum numerous times, the fact that socialism has become a dirty word is an indictment of western morality. And; shock horror, since wealth is required for basic needs and rights, socialism does concern itself with managing wealth.


Socialism achieves its goals by providing a regulatory framework, for example, that protects from exploitation people who have nothing to sell but their labour (the labour movement). It also seeks to guarantee access to education for all regardless of personal wealth, as well as health care, housing etc etc. Due to the mechanics of the socialist system the distribution of wealth is indeed prevented from becoming too heterogeneous. However it's important to remember the goal is not really about 'money' itself [capitalists often associate it with theft], it is about fairness and humanity (this is an ideology, after all). It just so happens that if all the money ends up in a few people's pockets, there is obviously not enough available elsewhere to fund hospitals and so on.



I don't argue with the above comments (edit: just saw Leon's post, you said it well :)), but beyond the idea that communism is a more extreme version of socialism [how can you give someone more health care than they need?], I think it's worth pointing out that communism (and marxism) have specific designs on the very concept of ownership that do not necessarily exist under a socialist doctrine (although some of them might).

A very wise old teach once gave us a very brief definition of socialism, marxism and communism - which I will try and paraphrase as I don't remember his exact words.

Socialism: A society, supported by social legislation, where people help each other out so that no one falls by the wayside, in contrast to a society where people selfishly just look after themselves (capitalism).

Marxism: the state (which is really nothing more than the collective embodiment of the people) owns basically everything [really 'the people' own everything], but the state does not own the people.

Communism: the state owns basically everything including the people.


The objectives of all three 'systems' are really the same, however, under those guidelines (and you can argue against them being correct, especially the last one :)), communism dictates a far greater level of state control than does socialism. You could alternatively phrase it that the individual loses the ability to exploit ownership to their benefit. An extreme example of the state 'owning people' would be if the society needs more aluminum to build buses, and you happen to be skilled at refining aluminum - then you will be 'given' a job at the refinery. Many socialists would object to this as it impinges on the freedom of the individual too greatly. However, as I said it is an extreme example and not one that necessarily represents what broadly happens in communist countries.

[pumashared]

Socialism is government running everything and everyone has the same crumbs, no one is allowed to succeed and better themselves , communism is one person runs everything and anyone that disagrees is killed , to put fear in others to keep them in control ...

ghostrider i respect you alot but im afraid this is not entirely true. there are alot of countries with socialistic economies that are run great and have great and happy individuals. infact it is in most socalisim countries that you get free education and subsidized healthcare.

[gittarpikk]

It is said that communism is the absolute best form of government...for all the above described reasons...
you should Google its description. Quite nice it sounds..

.....the problem is in almost all cases....communism is eventually exploited by a dictator...who then controls everything...right, wrong or indifferent

This has been stated in similar words ...so my wording may be a bit different...but the effect the same,.

I find that what is propagandized as 'freedom' in a capitalist society is not exactly freedom...nor is it close. If you have 'money' or wealth...you can do things somewhat as you like...but if you have never had money....your chances are slim to none of ever amounting to much.... and are are fodder to the 'control' freaks
.If you become disabled (regardless of the whos fault)...no one is going to help you unless you got tha money honey.

Its more of a 'chew you up and spit you out' arrangement... use you for whatever makes others money, but if that ends ...and if the elite had their 'druthers'...it would be 'off with the heads' of the 'useless eaters' so it wont negatively affect their 'bottom line'

....yeah there are those that have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and 'made it' to the top... but a lot of those were lifted on the exploited backs of others

I dunno...I haven't seen any real good 'izms' to date.

[Dennis Leahy]

There are definitions by various people that change the flavor of the answer.

The closest thing I ever heard of as a real working model of communism is a convent, but they don't quite make it to communism either, because there is a "mother superior." Real (theoretical) communism should be that "the state" owns everything, all citizens are members of the state, and so all members of the society own and equally share everything. There is no private ownership, and no hierarchical government. Contrast that with the totalitarian regimes in China, North Korea, the old USSR... none of those were (or are) actually communist countries - though they might not permit citizens private ownership of anything, and strive to equalize housing and goods to make it appear egalitarian.

Socialism - at least modern socialist thinking from a lot of socialists - would be a society where a great deal of the resources would be co-owned by the members of the state. In practical terms, it would be resource pooling and shared assets and liabilities for most resources, but not for private property. Under this concept, resources such as roads (building, maintenance, plowing), bridges, sewage treatment, potable water purification and delivery, ports, parks, public buildings, schools, fire departments and police departments, prisons...etc. would be owned by everyone (not allowed to be privatized), and resources (money/taxes) would be pooled to maintain those services and infrastructure. Up until recently, this is what had been the policy in the US, but now, more and more, roads and bridges and ports and prisons are being sold by the crooked government to the highest bidder (often foreign) and privatized - with no permission from the citizens that co-owned those assets, and no compensation given to citizens when these assets are stolen and sold-off. In my opinion, it would have been a step in the right direction if medicine and banking became socialized, but we have certainly gone the opposite direction.

Socialism does not prohibit private ownership, nor does it strive to make people uniform/homogenous. Those are myths perpetrated by some capitalists that fear ANY socialism.

One example of collectivism/cooperative versus capitalist business ownership model:

Imagine five plumbers, all independent contractors.

In communism, they might be assigned to move to various areas where plumbers are needed, they would not own their tools, and the proceeds from completed jobs would go to the state - to be pooled and used with all other income funds, and (theoretically) equally disbursed among all members of society. In my mind, communism might work in a commune, but not a lot of people in a society would actually want a lowest-common-denominator style of governance, even if the aim was egalitarian.

In socialism, the five plumbers might decide to form a cooperative business. All 5 would equally own the business, all 5 would accept 1/5 of the liability, and accept 1/5 of the profits. They would each go to their homes (that they bought, with their own profits), own their own car, their own toothbrush, and their own guitar. (In a socialist society, pooled resources would be used to provide food and shelter for those unable or even unwilling to work - but it would not be an attempt to equalize everyone in society. Those who work harder would have more.) In my mind, socialism is about cooperation, and compassion.

In capitalism, if the 5 plumbers actually did end up in one company, there could be a partnership, but most likely, one of the plumbers (with the most savings, or best credit rating, or the most business savvy) would probably announce that they are hiring, and would hope to get all 4 of the other 4 good plumbers in the area to work for him. He would likely take the largest (initial) financial risk, and for that, he would reward himself with the lion's share of the profits (as much as he could get away with), and would pay the other 4 plumbers the very least possible - just enough to keep them in his employment and not out competing with him. Ray Croc (the founder of McDonald's) said "If my competitor were drowning I'd stick a hose in his mouth and turn on the water." In my mind, capitalism is about competition.

Dennis

[bruno dante]

Hey thanks Dennis! You made things very clear there for me. I have to confess to having only vague understandings of the differences -- certainly not enough to inspire the courage to enter an intelligent discussion on it. Appreciate this simple explanation.

[apokalypse]

There are definitions by various people that change the flavor of the answer.
Socialism - at least modern socialist thinking from a lot of socialists - would be a society where a great deal of the resources would be co-owned by the members of the state. In practical terms, it would be resource pooling and shared assets and liabilities for most resources, but not for private property. Under this concept, resources such as roads (building, maintenance, plowing), bridges, sewage treatment, potable water purification and delivery, ports, parks, public buildings, schools, fire departments and police departments, prisons...etc. would be owned by everyone (not allowed to be privatized), and resources (money/taxes) would be pooled to maintain those services and infrastructure. Up until recently, this is what had been the policy in the US, but now, more and more, roads and bridges and ports and prisons are being sold by the crooked government to the highest bidder (often foreign) and privatized - with no permission from the citizens that co-owned those assets, and no compensation given to citizens when these assets are stolen and sold-off. In my opinion, it would have been a step in the right direction if medicine and banking became socialized, but we have certainly gone the opposite direction.

thanks Dennis and posters for clearing it up! that is what on my mind for over year now, infrastructure and resource must own by public especially banks and financial institution.


The U.S. Postal Service ended the year with a $354 million loss, marking the 19th quarter of losses out of the last 21.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/07/postal-service-mail/5287211/

when i read stuff like that article about losses one question pop up in my head is why and where the losses goes to? right now more and more asset have privatize, in Australia there's a rumor going around Government going to privatize Student Loan which going to make tougher.

[Douglass]

A "free market" is just that, free..

I dont support any Federal (centralized, national government) socialist programs.

A free market allows for socialism....... why not just create socialized systems in your community?
In a free market if you want something it is up to you....so create it..

[Midnight Rambler]

Socialism is government running everything and everyone has the same crumbs, no one is allowed to succeed and better themselves , communism is one person runs everything and anyone that disagrees is killed , to put fear in others to keep them in control ...

ghostrider i respect you alot but im afraid this is not entirely true. there are alot of countries with socialistic economies that are run great and have great and happy individuals. infact it is in most socalisim countries that you get free education and subsidized healthcare.

I live in what you could call a socialist country, or socialist EU to be more precise and I agree with Ghostrider and his views. I guess it all depends on what you call education and healthcare. Kids are getting dumber and healtcare is run by the corrupt polliticians and big pharma.

The thing about the nazi's most people forget is that they were not only nationalists but National SOCIALISTS. :p

My view is that government should be small and people should be responsible for themselves. I am for a sort of 'socialist model' but without the government, but where people work together to make a better world on a small scale. Once we all do that we don't need big government.

[Cardillac]

socialism in its purest form is not bad (but which political movement in its initial form remains pure after being compromised?)- I live in a so-called Socialist State (Germany) where, for example, on the surface medical care is available to all where the poorer pay less premiums than the richer and all receive the same benefits/care in the State-run system/State-sponsored medical insurance companies; however: there are the private/corporate-owned medical insurance companies (capitalism) who cover even more treatments (even some homeopathy- or used to) than the State-sponsored but they charge the juciest premiums and their premiums can be hiked at any time (there is some supposed State regulation on this but it seems to be weaker than desired)-

my point: I think all of this money flows into the same coffers at the end of the day and the "socialist" State of Germany was compromised the minute the West financed its reconstruction after WWII-

there is no difference between socialism/communism/Nazi-ism/corporatism; just different masks on the same face, different labels for the same thing-

now add the concept of 'democracy' to this seething pan-political cauldron- but we won't go there today...

please stay well all-

Larry

[Milneman]

This is a famous quote regarding the distribution of wealth. "To each according to their need--- From each according to their ability."

Ask people who said it and you will get amazing answers. Some suggest Jesus, Others suggest Buddha, Allah and other revered figures.

However it was Karl Marx, and that is what underlies the idea of Socialism/Communism. I like that idea and I don't think it also underlies the idea of Capitalism.

Except: who determines what ability and need are?

[Milneman]

Guys, in this discussion something is missing that needs to be included, and in fact may have been mis-interpreted as socialism when in fact it's what could be better called a mixed economy, or interventionism. Namely, what I would assert that 80-90% of Western-style governments actually are. These are societies where the government regulates controls over money, industry, and now I wonder about political opinion and democracy here (?) and as such, give the idea of a democratic capitalist society when in fact they are far closer to what a socialist/communist society would be. Believe it or not, I think that right now the United States and Canada are far closer to mixed economy/interventionist types of government than capitalist or socialist. Here's why: one of the biggest philosophical straw men to come up in the last decade is the idea of the 99% vs the 1%. This, I believe, is a straw man because the masses, namely you me and joe tax payer are meant to think/believe we live in a capitalist society, when in fact many of us have very socialist ideas that conflict with what the government tells us to be true, namely we have a right to this and a right to that. The government who has been creating these controls at the behest of corporations that naturally want to make money, but in a truly capitalist society would have to create a superior product to get our money to make that profit, instead only have to pay certain people to bend regulations in their favor to make money. Hence, one example would be how a corporation could release hardware or software that does not function properly without constant updates, or simply breaks down before it even starts to work (Anyone get a playstation 4 lately?).

True capitalism doesn't rule out the idea of socially dependant individuals. It creates circumstances where people can be taken care of that require it, but it also justifies the power of employment and self determination where socialism in fact does create a greater amount of back doors. This will not be a popular statement to many people, but it is none the less true. I am aware personally of at least six people in my social circle over the past 20 years who have been able to use the welfare system to not only get a home for themselves, but to furnish that home, and to collect income from renters who should, by the rules, not be able to rent because of the regulation of government housing...ie: if you're on assistance, you don't get people to rent out a room from you for added income. I've met individuals who have had university educations paid in full because they were able to go to a doctor and claim they were suicidal, only a few months later then be able to say they felt a change in education would help them emotionally. This is not to say there are individuals that need the help provided by the system. My dad's family lived through the great depression here in Saskatchewan. This could be argued as the place were modern Canadian socialism was born, where people on one side of the country who had excess food sent it by train out west for people who couldn't eat. You worked where you could, doing what you could, and your neighbours helped you out not out of a sense of moral duty alone, but because your neighbours knew that one day they might need your help. True socialist values come from a healthy capitalist mentality.

There are no true socialist countries today, and arguably no capitalist countries either.

One final note. Communism is not the extreme end of socialism. That, my friend, is actually fascism. A lot of people assume that fascism is in fact a right-wing capitalist driven idea when in fact it is the extreme of radical socialist beliefs. Take a look through history at some of the "great" fascist states, look at the government policy and you'll be surprised to discover how similar National Socialist policy was to a lot of current socialist policy in western-style mixed economy countries today.

Socialism can work provided it is balanced by a set of ethical beliefs agreed upon and participated in by every member of the social community without exception.
Capitalism can work provided it is balanced by a set of ethical beliefs agreed upon and participated in by every member of the social community without exception.
A Mixed Economy/Interventionism cannot work for the members of the society because in the long term, members of the society who have a capitalist centered ethic will conflict with those members of the society who have a socialist centered ethic. The only ones who win in this style of economy/system are those who set the controls, and those who pay those in control to set the controls in their favor. Is a revolution necessary? Absolutely it is. But we should be very cautious in determining how that revolution should end up looking like by looking back at how Marxist-driven revolutions always end in a worse-case situation that either dies as a communist society or becomes a highly class-driven imperialist system as seen in Maoist countries like China and North Korea.

Read "Atlas Shrugged" for a good idea on a possible revolution. The people who think simply go on strike by no longer thinking, allow the system to completely collapse, and then come back to rebuild.

Your milage may vary. ;)

[Douglass]

Socialism is government running everything and everyone has the same crumbs, no one is allowed to succeed and better themselves , communism is one person runs everything and anyone that disagrees is killed , to put fear in others to keep them in control ...

ghostrider i respect you alot but im afraid this is not entirely true. there are alot of countries with socialistic economies that are run great and have great and happy individuals. infact it is in most socalisim countries that you get free education and subsidized healthcare.

I live in what you could call a socialist country, or socialist EU to be more precise and I agree with Ghostrider and his views. I guess it all depends on what you call education and healthcare. Kids are getting dumber and healtcare is run by the corrupt polliticians and big pharma.

The thing about the nazi's most people forget is that they were not only nationalists but National SOCIALISTS. :p

My view is that government should be small and people should be responsible for themselves. I am for a sort of 'socialist model' but without the government, but where people work together to make a better world on a small scale. Once we all do that we don't need big government.

Couldnt have said it better myself Mdnte Rmblr

There is nothing about a free market and capitalism that says you cant create socialist or communal systems on your own.

We do not need Big Government we need Big Individuals!
We need educated people who accept the responsibility of themselves and communities.

[Arak]

Here in Finland we still live in somewhat socialistic "social democracy" - we have have free education (even at university level), healthcare, decent welfare, free roads and bridges and some free services (but also very many bonusses to corporations, if we only would not be so shy: http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-has-a-shyness-problem-2014-2). Everyone is taken care of and given same opportunities (in theory atleast). This is ofc very expensive system to maintain so our taxes are quite huge and that has not been problem until recently... Due globalisation our industry has been transfered to asia and people are losing jobs > no taxes = problems. I really dont know how much longer we can maintain our system this way. That is kinda sad. It used to rock.

[apokalypse]

Here in Finland we still live in somewhat socialistic "social democracy" - we have have free education (even at university level), healthcare, decent welfare, free roads and bridges and some free services (but also very many bonusses to corporations, if we only would not be so shy: http://www.businessinsider.com/finland-has-a-shyness-problem-2014-2). Everyone is taken care of and given same opportunities (in theory atleast). This is ofc very expensive system to maintain so our taxes are quite huge and that has not been problem until recently... Due globalisation our industry has been transfered to asia and people are losing jobs > no taxes = problems. I really dont know how much longer we can maintain our system this way. That is kinda sad. It used to rock.

i think the system hijacked by capitalist-cartel(what ever you want to called it), i have a friend in denmark which considered to be socialist country where everything have been paid through high taxation just like what you mention about finland. I do think and believe countries like denmark or findland should be the model and ground based for testing...just hate the attacking on public sector, if doesn't work then get rid of it.

[Arak]

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.)

[apokalypse]

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.

[gittarpikk]

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
6_lXAbi6OKY

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.

[Douglass]

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

[Douglass]

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.

[araucaria]

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/

(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”,

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/William%20James%20-%20Pragmatism.pdf


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

[Dennis Leahy]

(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

[Douglass]

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.

[jackovesk]

On Political Lines (Only)

The Definition is as follows...

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

[Johnny]

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 :)

[Dennis Leahy]

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees).


Congress divides its legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks among approximately 200 committees and subcommittees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_subcommittee). 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] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees#cite_note-House_Rules-3) While this investigatory function is important, procedures such as the House discharge petition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

[Douglass]

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

[Delight]

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

uBMIh8HQ1ns

[Satori]

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

[Dennis Leahy]

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.

[onawah]

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.

[Baby Steps]

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.

[shaberon]

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.

[TomKat]

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

[Frank V]

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?

[onawah]

In Dark Journalist's most recent talk, this one with Egyptologist Carmen Boulter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-HX_riyPF4
...starting at 30 minutes in, they begin to discuss the civilization of Atlantis where, Carmen says, "if it wasn't good for everybody, it wasn't good at all".
She is attempting in her new 5 part documentary series "The New Atlantis" to demonstrate how the Atlantean culture really was based on and operated under that philosophy, and how that differs from "the catastrophe that we have now".
They agree that researchers cannot afford to neglect the quest to discover the truth about Atlantis, apart from myths and misinformation, because our own times are so different and dysfunctional in comparison.
There is lots of information available about it from ancient artifacts and buried memories, but we haven't discovered how to interpret it as yet.
Some of the more specific statements Carmen makes about Atlantean culture is that there was no money, no discrimination, no patriarchy, and narcissists were not tolerated, but were isolated until they were cured.
(I'm still listening, but will add more notes if it is relevant to this discussion.)

[Dennis Leahy]

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

A troop of monkeys and a pod of dolphins are two examples of some form of "socialism" - far predating humans. Proto-humans gathering together in a clan is an example of socialism. Most human families on Earth operate under a form of "socialism", and it is likely the major reason for the proliferation and survival of humans - the species with the longest period of helplessness/ability to survive alone. Even carnivorous lone-hunter animals do not eat the entire kill of prey, but rather socially share the kill with their family unit.

It's a word that has obviously been turned upside-down and inside-out by narrative control managers, purposely. (And, obviously, they are very good at their job of Orwellian Doublespeak. Just think of the implication that a worldwide online gathering spot for people who believe they are awake and discerning - Project Avalon - has a huge percentage of members that have accepted the narrative control managers re-branding and redefining of the word "socialism" - to mean the opposite of what it actually is.)

Why do you think those in control of the narrative have demonized the word "socialism" and have obscured and flipped its actual meaning? Might Occam's Razor apply here - that the oligarchs' ownership of everything that had once been shared would make any concept, any ideology of sharing into their worst nightmare? Who stands to lose if sharing becomes a cornerstone of accepted ideology?

Marx and Lenin have taken their turn at re-programming the word, for their use.

The word "apples" really does mean apples, no matter how many times some narrative control manager insists that it means "oranges." Words really do have meanings, no matter what some narrative control manager gets you to believe. Enjoy that orange-colored citrus fruit and call it an apple if you want to, but only your mind was altered, not reality.

[TomKat]

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?

History bears him out. And I would add "and communism soon becomes indistinguishable from fascism" (ask a Russian or Chinese).

Kris Kristofferson "When you're headin' for the border, Lord, you're bound to cross the line."

[TomKat]

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

A troop of monkeys and a pod of dolphins are two examples of some form of "socialism" - far predating humans. Proto-humans gathering together in a clan is an example of socialism. Most human families on Earth operate under a form of "socialism", and it is likely the major reason for the proliferation and survival of humans - the species with the longest period of helplessness/ability to survive alone. Even carnivorous lone-hunter animals do not eat the entire kill of prey, but rather socially share the kill with their family unit.

Yes, a family is a kind of socialism. Authoritarian and undemocratic. Forget John Locke and generations of political theory. Forget individual dignity and freedom. Expand "family" out to 300 million people. Put the power hungry sociopaths and authoritarian do-gooders at the top. Leave everyone else to fight over their table scraps. It was a great system until it went broke in 1989. Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

[johnf]

Any "ism" taken too far becomes a fascism as far as I understand things.
Fascism can be interpreted as rule of law, that seems to be it's original aim.

However increase the level of coercion, and limit personal choice too far and you get

Nazi Germany type fascism, the same is true of capitalism, socialism, democracy, etc.
I was hesitant to include democracy at first but as I thought further about it I found that
giving everyone a say on everything is impossible, and too much of this, strangles commerce, and makes the system very vulnerable to covert control. Imagine an app where every vote in congress has to be
voted on by every citizen, in that system whoever has the best hacking system would win!, as well as slow down the process considerably.

All these things are words, and there are as many definitions of these words as there are people.
They are symbols that point to pretty nebulous and mercurial objects. In the words of the immortal "Greybeard"
of "Enlightenment and related matters" fame, the finger that points to the moon is not the moon.
Each of these words that describe how to manage human affairs on a large scale point to a certain set of tools.
The nature of the job of managing the affairs of nations, changes over time so this calls for a very wide selection of tools to be made as freely available as possible.


John

[Dennis Leahy]

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

A troop of monkeys and a pod of dolphins are two examples of some form of "socialism" - far predating humans. Proto-humans gathering together in a clan is an example of socialism. Most human families on Earth operate under a form of "socialism", and it is likely the major reason for the proliferation and survival of humans - the species with the longest period of helplessness/ability to survive alone. Even carnivorous lone-hunter animals do not eat the entire kill of prey, but rather socially share the kill with their family unit.

Yes, a family is a kind of socialism. Authoritarian and undemocratic. Forget John Locke and generations of political theory. Forget individual dignity and freedom. Expand "family" out to 300 million people. Put the power hungry sociopaths and authoritarian do-gooders at the top. Leave everyone else to fight over their table scraps. It was a great system until it went broke in 1989. Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

hahahahaha love it! Pretzel logic and a quote from the ruling class!

We're getting closer and closer to the end of the 'Monopoly' game, the ruling overlords have appropriated all the land and resources, a small cluster of ruling families have accumulated all the wealth, and 'ol Margo is worried about the ruling overlords running out of money! Those poor bastards! hahahahaha It's a hilarious quote, and should be cross-posted to the "laugh once a day" thread. I know I got a good chuckle.

[TomKat]

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

A troop of monkeys and a pod of dolphins are two examples of some form of "socialism" - far predating humans. Proto-humans gathering together in a clan is an example of socialism. Most human families on Earth operate under a form of "socialism", and it is likely the major reason for the proliferation and survival of humans - the species with the longest period of helplessness/ability to survive alone. Even carnivorous lone-hunter animals do not eat the entire kill of prey, but rather socially share the kill with their family unit.

Yes, a family is a kind of socialism. Authoritarian and undemocratic. Forget John Locke and generations of political theory. Forget individual dignity and freedom. Expand "family" out to 300 million people. Put the power hungry sociopaths and authoritarian do-gooders at the top. Leave everyone else to fight over their table scraps. It was a great system until it went broke in 1989. Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

hahahahaha love it! Pretzel logic and a quote from the ruling class!

We're getting closer and closer to the end of the 'Monopoly' game, the ruling overlords have appropriated all the land and resources, a small cluster of ruling families have accumulated all the wealth, and 'ol Margo is worried about the ruling overlords running out of money! Those poor bastards! hahahahaha It's a hilarious quote, and should be cross-posted to the "laugh once a day" thread. I know I got a good chuckle.

You look old enough to remember when Gorbachev and his wife came to the US in the mid-80s and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people's money buying clothes on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills.

[Dennis Leahy]

...

You look old enough to remember when Gorbachev and his wife came to the US in the mid-80s and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people's money buying clothes on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills.

(from post #35 in this thread) "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."

If you honestly want to figure out what I'm talking about, maybe you need to think of the hyphenated word "citizen-centric" as opposed to "corporate-centric", and think in terms of what every living being needs to survive, and think of sharing that. Start with the air. Who owns the air? Do you and I, or do a handful of rich assholes? Next, go to potable fresh water: who's resource is it anyway? Stop thinking just of money and failed (probably mostly designed to fail) so-called "socialist" implementations of monetary relief.

When you look at land, it becomes even more obvious. Who owns the land you and I are on? (And, how about the mineral rights?) Chase the deed back through all the hands it passed through to the original person who made a declaration, "this is MY land!", and removed it from the commons. When I got to this planet (this time), about 66 years ago, every piece of valuable (arable, homestead-able, resource-rich, with accessable water) land on Earth was already deeded to someone. I'll bet the same is true for you. I don't know doodly squat about the Canadian constitution (or if you have one - aren't you controlled by an archaic monarchy across the pond?), but I can tell you that the US constitution was written by white-skinned male landowners, to codify that they possessed the land. That "all men are created equal" line isn't in the US Constitution, (just in the Declaration of Independence "preamble" which holds no legal power, deliberately) either in word or in spirit. I'm not really sure how we (collectively) should handle the land issue, but I do know that 8 billion people ceding control over all valuable land to the ultra-rich and their descendants, and allowing them to rent it back to us isn't the solution.

[TomKat]

...

You look old enough to remember when Gorbachev and his wife came to the US in the mid-80s and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people's money buying clothes on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills.

(from post #35 in this thread) "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."

You traffic in ideals, but in the real world, Communism + human nature = unfathomable tyranny.
To quote Chris Matthews, "You know, I have my own views of the word 'socialist,'" Matthews said. "They go back to the early 1950s. I have an attitude about them. I remember the Cold War. I have an attitude towards Castro. I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War, there would have been executions in Central Park, and I might’ve been one of the ones getting executed, and certain other people would be there cheering, OK? So, I have a problem with people who took the other side."

[Satori]

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

To quote from None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, circa 1972:

"[Karl] Marx went on to state that when the dictatorship of the proletariat had accomplished these three things [elimination of rights to private property, dissolution of the family unit and destruction of religion] throughout the world, and after some undetermined length of time (as you can imagine, he was very vague on this point), the all powerful state would miraculously wither away and state socialism would give way to Communism. You wouldn't need any government at all. Everything would be peace, sweetness and light and everybody would live happily ever after. But first, all Communists must first work to establish SOCIALISM.

***

"Socialism would be the bait...the excuse to establish the dictatorship. Since dictatorship is hard to sell in idealistic terms, the idea had to be added that the dictatorship was just a temporary necessity and would soon dissolve of its own accord. You really have to be naive to swallow that, but millions do.

"The drive to establish SOCIALISM, not Communism, is at the core of everything the Communists and the Insiders do. Marx and all of his successors in the Communist movement have ordered their followers to work on building SOCIALISM. If you go to hear an official Communist speaker, he never mentions Communism. He will speak only of the struggle to complete the socialization of America. If you go to a Communist bookstore you will find all of their literature pushes this theme. It does not call for the establishment of Communism, but SOCIALISM." pp. 13-14 (all emphasis in original)

On a related note, the authors also stated that:

"If you want a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government." p. 19. And, also: "If you wish to establish national monopolies, you must control national governments. If you wish to establish international monopolies or cartels, you must control a world government." p. 48

Hence, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that: Socialism portends communism, the goal of which is communism at the world level by means of control of national and international governments. That is the program developed and being carried out by the socialist/communist movement.



"

[Dennis Leahy]

TomKat and Satori, can you see why I say that the word "socialism" is virtually meaningless now?

Can you take a step deeper than semantics (and comparisons using totalitarian regimes pretending to be "socialist"), and look at the reality that "the commons", which should be the birthright of all humans, has been stolen from 7.999 billion people, and into the hands of 0.001 billion people (the global financial "elite.") Call it, "the rest of us, ism", if need be. I'm not defending Marx, I'm defending the rest of humanity besides the financial elite, and saying we have been robbed, and that we deserve to share what what has been stolen from us.

[TomKat]

TomKat and Satori, can you see why I say that the word "socialism" is virtually meaningless now?

Can you take a step deeper than semantics (and comparisons using totalitarian regimes pretending to be "socialist"), and look at the reality that "the commons", which should be the birthright of all humans, has been stolen from 7.999 billion people, and into the hands of 0.001 billion people (the global financial "elite.") Call it, "the rest of us, ism", if need be. I'm not defending Marx, I'm defending the rest of humanity besides the financial elite, and saying we have been robbed, and that we deserve to share what what has been stolen from us.

Totalitarian regimes pretending to be socialist vs. what? Utopian ideals pretending to be possible?
Yes the Commons are commonly stolen, and it doesn't matter whether the theft is done in the name of socialism, communism, capitalism or fascism.

[Dennis Leahy]

TomKat and Satori, can you see why I say that the word "socialism" is virtually meaningless now?

Can you take a step deeper than semantics (and comparisons using totalitarian regimes pretending to be "socialist"), and look at the reality that "the commons", which should be the birthright of all humans, has been stolen from 7.999 billion people, and into the hands of 0.001 billion people (the global financial "elite.") Call it, "the rest of us, ism", if need be. I'm not defending Marx, I'm defending the rest of humanity besides the financial elite, and saying we have been robbed, and that we deserve to share what what has been stolen from us.

Totalitarian regimes pretending to be socialist vs. what? Utopian ideals pretending to be possible?
Yes the Commons are commonly stolen, and it doesn't matter whether the theft is done in the name of socialism, communism, capitalism or fascism.

Good. I'm glad to see that you recognize that there is (was) a commons, and that it has been stolen - even if we cannot agree on what to call some sort of movement or ideology for 99.999% of humans to take back the commons.

[Satori]

TomKat and Satori, can you see why I say that the word "socialism" is virtually meaningless now?

Can you take a step deeper than semantics (and comparisons using totalitarian regimes pretending to be "socialist"), and look at the reality that "the commons", which should be the birthright of all humans, has been stolen from 7.999 billion people, and into the hands of 0.001 billion people (the global financial "elite.") Call it, "the rest of us, ism", if need be. I'm not defending Marx, I'm defending the rest of humanity besides the financial elite, and saying we have been robbed, and that we deserve to share what what has been stolen from us.

Hmm.

I did not mean to hit a nerve and I was not directing my post to anyone in particular. I am no fan of Marx by any means. My post was written in response to the title of this thread and to follow up on a point with some quotes from a book that many people have found insightful and important.

Personally I do not put any weight on isms of any variety, save perhaps individualism.

The commons, as I understand your meaning DL, I agree it has been lost, or more accurately, stolen. The degree to which the “commoners” bear any responsibility for this is worth pondering.

[Dennis Leahy]

I wonder how many members of Avalon have seen this film:

The Power Principle (http://metanoia-films.org/the-power-principle/)
Source: watch free at: http://metanoia-films.org/the-power-principle/

If you have not, or have not in a while, I highly recommend it as an exposé of US foreign policy in general ("patriots", take note, so you can figure out just exactly what policies of the US government you hinge patriotism upon), and a great exposé of how the USA has deliberately assigned a false label of "communist!" to heads of state who were trying to protect their countries from corporate exploitation and theft - all orchestrated to take over sovereign foreign governments for US corporate gain.

It's a truly sobering look at US foreign policy, and you'll never be able to see the word "communist" again without being savvy to the propaganda that has been performed by oligarchs and their agents to manipulate public perception.

A conclusion that I don't see in the movie is that the greatest fear of the oligarchs (the few who want to possess and control the Earth) is any ideology with "sharing" as a foundational tenet. Think about that concept.

[Dennis Leahy]

Be sure to watch part II and part III of The Power Principle. (link in previous post.)
Part II is focused on Propaganda.
Part III is subtitled "Apocalypse."

Probably most of us have been exposed to tidbits of what this documentary assembles together and exposes, but (just like the general populace has been exposed to actual tidbits of the truth about 9/11, and has had those bits and pieces coated with subsequent propaganda like the ruling elite's microphages, and neutralized), you probably need to fortify your mind with a comprehensive dose of the truth. Do NOT watch this documentary (and do NOT read Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the United States") if you want to hold on to the engineered perception from the propagandists and just ignorantly accept and repeat the lies you were fed as truth. The truth is uncomfortable. Don't seek the truth if you know you prefer the comfortable lies and being part of the matrix.

[onawah]

Sanders & Socialism: Debate Between Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman & Socialist Economist Richard Wolff
DemocracyNow
Feb 24, 2020

Democracy Now!

"As Bernie Sanders’s runaway win in Nevada cements his position as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, the Democratic Party establishment and much of the mainstream media are openly expressing concern about a self-described democratic socialist leading the presidential ticket. His opponents have also attacked his ambitious agenda. Last week during the primary debate in Las Vegas, Bernie Sanders addressed misconceptions about socialism. Invoking the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Sanders decried what he called “socialism for the very rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”

For more, we host a debate on Bernie Sanders and democratic socialism, featuring two well-known economists. Paul Krugman is a New York Times op-ed columnist and author of many books, including his latest, “Arguing with Zombies: Economics, Politics, and the Fight for a Better Future.” One of his recent columns is headlined “Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Socialist.” Richard Wolff is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and visiting professor at The New School. He is the founder of Democracy at Work and hosts the weekly national television and radio program “Economic Update.” He’s the author of several books, including “Understanding Socialism.” "

z6J3ROV4IPc

(I'm not sure if this will add anything to the discussion, but if nothing else, it may highlight some misconceptions....)

[Corfitz]

Having no real idea, but giving an uneducated answer and living in Denmark, I'd say that the democracy here has aspects of socialism (which I really don't mind - I'm getting paid to study as I'm writing this.) I really enjoy the safety net social welfare, social education etc. provides. I think it's fascinating to listen to the debates at this moment, as I can totally understand that many find it unfair to pay for other peoples' disadvantages/accidents/educations. I just enjoy the heck out of living in it. When all is said and done; other people's (right) education and welfare makes life better for everyone involved - even if it's out of everybody's pocket.

[Kamikaze]

delete it all.

[Dennis Leahy]

communism=potato
socialism=ennui
left=photon
right=bellicosity

My opinions of what the words mean, and opinions are always correct, so there.

Here we go again...