Is there a term for someone who sits somewhere between capitalism and communism?

[mordantmonkey]

democratic socialist?

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: LoKe

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

Cuba -> Fidel Castro?

That is a authoritarian totalitarian regime. Communism is a classless society

:thumbsup: Forgot the classless society part, because I'm a dumbass. It's funny too, because I was just talking to someone about Cuba and how the middle-class have radios and the upper-class have radios and possibly a television.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PingSpike
What do you mean "somewhere between"? Socialism is between the two.

No, it is not. Communism and socialism are essentially the same thing except (1) communism advocates violent revolution as the means to power whereas socialism believes in more peaceful subversion, and (2) communism believes in a final "workers' paradise" utopia and socialism does not.

Stupid republican yank ftw.

Petty name-calling Canadian ftw?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: Vic
Fascist.

I don't think that's what I'm thinking of...

I'm thinking of something where capitalism is still predominent, but there are a lot of social policys in place to protect people.

Maybe it's socialism I'm thinking of?

In order of economic freedom: most to least --

Capitalism

Mixed economy

Fascism

Socialism

Communism

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

Yes, there has been and currently are.

There have been regimes who have come to power with the promise of communism but a communist regime has never been established. What part of classless society do you not understand?

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

Yes, there has been and currently are. The "workers paradise" utopia of communism is a myth. It's the exact same as the Pope telling people that good Catholics go to Heaven, so get back to work and ignore the tragedies of this life for you will be rewarded in the next life. Communism is the same thing: get back to work, ignore the horrors of this life, and your children will see the workers paradise. Otherwise, that violent totalitarian socialism that we see is exactly what communism is.

That's not Communism. Give it another name. If you read the roots of Communism, it's an idealistic utopia that will never exist because of human nature. I agree it's a myth in reality, but I don't agree with labeling current goverments as communist. They are not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PingSpike
What do you mean "somewhere between"? Socialism is between the two.

No, it is not. Communism and socialism are essentially the same thing except (1) communism advocates violent revolution as the means to power whereas socialism believes in more peaceful subversion, and (2) communism believes in a final "workers' paradise" utopia and socialism does not.

Stupid republican yank ftw.

Ignorant brainwashed commie Canuck FTW.

I vote Democrat.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

I think what you meant to say is there has never been a communist regime that has passed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat phase.

I dont think those in power like Stalin or Mao ever wanted to transition to a communist phase. They were perfectly happy with their authoritarian totalitarian government. Communist is a classless society. The former USSR had the elites and everyone else. In order to progress to communism there needs to be a stage of socialism to setup the communist phase. This never occurred in the USSR.

Hence the problem with communism, who wants to give up totalitarian power? Also, I don't think you are familiar with the phases of communism, that is how it was proposed to acheive utopia...

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Vic
Fascist.

That would be a social element. Capitalism is strictly economic, and communism has elements of both but is rooted in economics.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PingSpike
What do you mean "somewhere between"? Socialism is between the two.

No, it is not. Communism and socialism are essentially the same thing except (1) communism advocates violent revolution as the means to power whereas socialism believes in more peaceful subversion, and (2) communism believes in a final "workers' paradise" utopia and socialism does not.

Communism doesn't advocate violent revolution because it's a theory. Those who have used violent revolutions in the past may have hid behind the communist flag to justify their actions. Socialism is about state-owned industry, while communism is about mutual "ownership" by everyone throughout society.

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

Yes, there has been and currently are. The "workers paradise" utopia of communism is a myth. It's the exact same as the Pope telling people that good Catholics go to Heaven, so get back to work and ignore the tragedies of this life for you will be rewarded in the next life. Communism is the same thing: get back to work, ignore the horrors of this life, and your children will see the workers paradise. Otherwise, that violent totalitarian socialism that we see is exactly what communism is.

No, there has not been, nor is there now. Communism has never actually been practiced, no matter how many people want to dub Authoritarian Socialism with that term.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

Yes, there has been and currently are. The "workers paradise" utopia of communism is a myth. It's the exact same as the Pope telling people that good Catholics go to Heaven, so get back to work and ignore the tragedies of this life for you will be rewarded in the next life. Communism is the same thing: get back to work, ignore the horrors of this life, and your children will see the workers paradise. Otherwise, that violent totalitarian socialism that we see is exactly what communism is.

QFT

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

Yes, there has been and currently are.

There have been regimes who have come to power with the promise of communism but a communist regime has never been established. What part of classless society do you not understand?

Are you incapable of reading? If it is a myth that will never occur in reality (like the Christian promise of Christ returning and Heaven on Earth), then who cares? The application of communism in reality is the same as totalitarian socialism.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: miri
There has never been a communist regime.

Yes, there has been and currently are.

There have been regimes who have come to power with the promise of communism but a communist regime has never been established. What part of classless society do you not understand?

Have you read Das Kapital or the Communist manifesto? My guess is no.

 

[darkamulets]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Socialism.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Vic
Are you incapable of reading? If it is a myth that will never occur in reality (like the Christian promise of Christ returning and Heaven on Earth), then who cares? The application of communism in reality is the same as totalitarian socialism.

But it's not the actual application of communism. It may be an attempt to move toward it, but it's never actually been applied.

And while I may agree with your views on Christianity, can we try to leave religion out of this? It'll just end up muddling things up when someone gets offended.

 

[SampSon]

Libertarian?

 

[BigToque]

Here is what I want:

People choose who is to be in power through elections (democracy)
citizens are in control of the market (capitalism)
state is in charge of health care, education, policys used to protect those who cannot work, etc.
society is not totally centered on making profit at any expense. welfare of others is a major consideration.

In many ways it's similar to the way the USA/Canada are and I think it's great, but we are far to driven by the dollar in my opinion.

Is there a term for what I'm thinking of?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: BigToque
Here is what I want:

People choose who is to be in power through elections (democracy)
citizens are in control of the market (capitalism)
state is in charge of health care, education, policys used to protect those who cannot work, etc.
society is not totally centered on making profit at any expense. welfare of others is a major consideration.

In many ways it's similar to the way the USA/Canada are and I think it's great, but we are far to driven by the dollar in my opinion.

Is there a term for what I'm thinking of?

Europe.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Libertarian?

That's a mix of social and economic positions.

I suppose the best term for the OP's question would be to call someone a "mixed economist." I'm guessing by capitalism he means laissez-faire capitalsm, since he's using communism as the other extreme.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PingSpike
What do you mean "somewhere between"? Socialism is between the two.

No, it is not. Communism and socialism are essentially the same thing except (1) communism advocates violent revolution as the means to power whereas socialism believes in more peaceful subversion, and (2) communism believes in a final "workers' paradise" utopia and socialism does not.

Socialism was laid out by Marx and Lenin as the intermediate phase a government/society will progress through from capitalism to the "purest" form of economy, communism.

Capitalsm -> Socialism -> Communism

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: Vic
Are you incapable of reading? If it is a myth that will never occur in reality (like the Christian promise of Christ returning and Heaven on Earth), then who cares? The application of communism in reality is the same as totalitarian socialism.

But it's not the actual application of communism. It may be an attempt to move toward it, but it's never actually been applied.

And while I may agree with your views on Christianity, can we try to leave religion out of this? It'll just end up muddling things up when someone gets offended.

You are missing the point. Just because no one has ever made it to utopia does not mean that they are not trying to practice communism. A better way to express your argument would be to say that no one has ever achieved the final goal of communism, which is utopia.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: Vic
Are you incapable of reading? If it is a myth that will never occur in reality (like the Christian promise of Christ returning and Heaven on Earth), then who cares? The application of communism in reality is the same as totalitarian socialism.

But it's not the actual application of communism. It may be an attempt to move toward it, but it's never actually been applied.

And while I may agree with your views on Christianity, can we try to leave religion out of this? It'll just end up muddling things up when someone gets offended.

It's impossible to leave religion out of a thread about communism because, with its Hegelian mystic belief in the workers paradise, communism IS a religion. With The State as God. This is why communists typically give the appearance of being anti-religious. Really, they are just at war with other religions.
In several of his essays, Eric Blair (pen name George Orwell) discussed this at great length. Excellent reads. And he was a liberal socialist.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
You are missing the point. Just because no one has ever made it to utopia does not mean that they are not trying to practice communism. A better way to express your argument would be to say that no one has ever achieved the final goal of communism, which is utopia.

The promise of communism is used to subvert the proletariat class into doing the work of the people who wish to gain power under the guise of communism. Once in power, there is no movement toward communism but rather a establishment and then consolidation of power by the current regime who is only in place because of a false promise of communism.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Democrat? :evil:

:heart:

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: SampSon
Libertarian?

That's a mix of social and economic positions.

I suppose the best term for the OP's question would be to call someone a "mixed economist." I'm guessing by capitalism he means laissez-faire capitalsm, since he's using communism as the other extreme.

Mabey "yuppie douche0bag" would work too?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BigToque
Here is what I want:

People choose who is to be in power through elections (democracy)
citizens are in control of the market (capitalism)
state is in charge of health care, education, policys used to protect those who cannot work, etc.
society is not totally centered on making profit at any expense. welfare of others is a major consideration.

In many ways it's similar to the way the USA/Canada are and I think it's great, but we are far to driven by the dollar in my opinion.

Is there a term for what I'm thinking of?

Democratic socialism

Essentially a mixed economy very heavily mixed to the socialism end. Fascism without the nationalism and the cult of personality.