• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Socialism Versus Communism

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
my government teacher is useless and considers them both the same and bashes them heavly. I know that socialism is a less extreme version of communism. can someone explain the differance between true socialism and true communism. i know most communist countries are dictatorships but i talking about true communism.
 
Communism does not believe in private property rights whatsoever (except for token personal items, like your clothing, toothbrush, etc.) and is characterized by central government planning of the economy, single party rule, and (often) an inbred urge to proselytize the "proletariat revolution." Government sees itself as properly controlling both the economic and social elements of its citizens.

Socialism is a less extreme form. No central economic planning, although the state does take a much more active and severe role in setting economic boundaries, limitations, and rules where it sees fit than do capitalist systems (which are traditionally more laissez faire). Governments see no inherent problems in controlling the lives of its citizens in the social sphere in ways which would appall more "liberal" governments (liberal being used in the classic sense here, rather than the more recent sense of a left wing political viewpoint).

In short, both socialism and communism see limiting freedoms and exerting control over the lives of its citizens as the proper role of government (communism in both economic and social spheres, socialism in primarily the social sphere), which is the antithesis of the liberal philosophy of government.
 
Socialism = Canada, Norway, France, and many other European countries.
Communism = now defunct USSR, Cuba, China (in a kind of hybrid form).

The modern countries implementing socialist policies demonstrate perfectly well how a country can be prosperous and successful while not incarcerating insane %s of their own population and not leaving the less-fortunate to starve and prostitute themselves on the streets. I won't get started on the idiocy of turning people away from medical services because they lack private insurance.

The track record of Communism is a little more sketchy.

Tell your government teacher to go back to his bunker and hunker down since according to his world view, there are millions of commies massed on our Northern border right now...
 
You can't compare the two. One is an economic system, the other is a political system.

At its base, socialism is an economic system that is at the other end of the continuum from capitalism. Socialism favours the collective and focuses on government based solutions to make sure that basic neccessities (health, education, etc...) are provided for all.

At its base, Communism is a political system at the other end of the spectrum from democracy. Communism is a one party political system where individuals who belong to that party can elect party representatives. Democracy favours multiple political parties and allows citizens to elect representatives from different parties.

Using the above, we can define different countries along both axes - i.e., the U.S. is on the extremes for both capitalism and democracy; Canada is in the middle economically leaning closer to capitalism, and is on the extreme for democracy; Scandinavian countries are in the middle economically leaning closer to socialism and are extreme for democracy; China is in the middle economically leaning strongly to socialism and on the extreme for communism.

Simplified of course, but a good intro for dummies... 😉

N
 
Tell your government teacher to go back to his bunker and hunker down since according to his world view, there are millions of commies massed on our Northern border right now...
Bring it on, eh?
 
The modern countries implementing socialist policies demonstrate perfectly well how a country can be prosperous and successful while not incarcerating insane %s of their own population and not leaving the less-fortunate to starve and prostitute themselves on the streets. I won't get started on the idiocy of turning people away from medical services because they lack private insurance.

Where to even begin with this post.... sigh....

First of all, even if you adjusted for drastically different population figures, you can't really compare a homogenized society like Norway to a heterogenous society like the U.S.

Secondly, "prosperous and successful" are relative terms, and dependent on the relative value the observer places on various competing social and economic goals and ambitions. A 35-hour workweek (European style) might be a higher good for one person than another, who might consider the vastly better opportunity for an entrepeneur in the U.S. to be a higher good.

while not incarcerating insane %s of their own population

I guess for countries like China and Cuba, communist/socialist countries both, and without the rule of law, gulags and political re-education camps aren't really considered "incarceration." As for other socialist paradises, one can very fairly make the argument that while the U.S. has a higher rate of violent crime, petty crime like pickpocketing is a pandemic problem in socialist countries. The U.S. also has the (ill-conceived, IMHO) war on drugs which grossly inflates our incarceration rates. Again, your choice.

leaving the less-fortunate to starve and prostitute themselves on the streets.

The only person starving on the streets of the U.S. are anorexic supermodels. Malnutrition is not a problem of note in this or any western country. And i seem to remember seeing both panhandlers and prostitutes all over Europe, so that's a bunch of crap also, unless the only part of Europe you've seen is EuroDisney.

I won't get started on the idiocy of turning people away from medical services because they lack private insurance

Again, you're full of crap. It's a legal requirement for anyone in the U.S. who needs immediate medical attention to be provided it when a medical professional is available. A doctor or hospital turning away patients with legitimate and severe medical needs would be de-certified and possibly tossed in jail. True, the U.S. doesn't have universal healthcare, so you can't have the taxpayer pay for your doctor visit to have your bunions looked at, but then again we don't have six month waits for treatment either.

Care to try again?
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
The modern countries implementing socialist policies demonstrate perfectly well how a country can be prosperous and successful while not incarcerating insane %s of their own population and not leaving the less-fortunate to starve and prostitute themselves on the streets. I won't get started on the idiocy of turning people away from medical services because they lack private insurance.
Where to even begin with this post.... sigh....
Glad you took a shot - your arguments are better thought out and less kneejerk than many Americans who can't distinguish between Communism and Socialism like the original poster's government teacher (who is part of a socialist institution himself if he's a public school teacher).

First of all, even if you adjusted for drastically different population figures, you can't really compare a homogenized society like Norway to a heterogenous society like the U.S.
I completely agree that heterogeneity makes a society harder to run in a harmonious manner. To discuss the merits of additional socialized institutions in the U.S. (beyond public education and some other limited government services) you would need to take America's demographic characteristics into account. As for whether you can make comparisons, of course you can - just acknowledge that there are fundamental differences and that any comparison will be imperfect. Political science isn't a science of perfect experiments with accurate control groups. Are you implying that it is pointless to look at the political and economic systems of foreign countries to learn general lessons about good government? I hope not.

Secondly, "prosperous and successful" are relative terms, and dependent on the relative value the observer places on various competing social and economic goals and ambitions. A 35-hour workweek (European style) might be a higher good for one person than another, who might consider the vastly better opportunity for an entrepeneur in the U.S. to be a higher good.
Good point about people valuing different elements of their life as prosperity and success. My opinion is that if someone is happy with their lot in life - good for them. Those who bash socialism heavily (with statements like "it never works") are usually very much stuck in a value system that includes little else besides an individual's monetary net worth - who could blame them for having such strong hatred for anything besides pure capitalism.


I guess for countries like China and Cuba, communist/socialist countries both, and without the rule of law, gulags and political re-education camps aren't really considered "incarceration." As for other socialist paradises, one can very fairly make the argument that while the U.S. has a higher rate of violent crime, petty crime like pickpocketing is a pandemic problem in socialist countries. The U.S. also has the (ill-conceived, IMHO) war on drugs which grossly inflates our incarceration rates. Again, your choice.
You could also very easily bring in the heterogeneous population into the discussion here. My point is that without an adequate social safety net (or mental health services for that matter) you get a larger percentage of people who decide (not intelligently, granted) that their only choice for survival is crime. In the end, our prisons become our 'safety net' and we are worse off because more innocent people are harmed in the intermediate steps. I would rather be subjected to higher taxes than be a victim of a violent crime. Bringing up China and Cuba is a weak attempt to 'win' this point - since you know crime and punishment stats in Canada, Sweden, Norway, etc. put the U.S. in a very poor light.

The only person starving on the streets of the U.S. are anorexic supermodels. Malnutrition is not a problem of note in this or any western country. And i seem to remember seeing both panhandlers and prostitutes all over Europe, so that's a bunch of crap also, unless the only part of Europe you've seen is EuroDisney.
The only part of the US you've seen is Disney World if you think there is no malnutrition problem among America's poor. Your anecdotal evidence touches me - come back with some hard statistics if you want to make me care. Google is your friend. (or maybe not if you want to continue believing America's homeless population lives a comfortable life)

I won't get started on the idiocy of turning people away from medical services because they lack private insurance
Again, you're full of crap. It's a legal requirement for anyone in the U.S. who needs immediate medical attention to be provided it when a medical professional is available. A doctor or hospital turning away patients with legitimate and severe medical needs would be de-certified and possibly tossed in jail. True, the U.S. doesn't have universal healthcare, so you can't have the taxpayer pay for your doctor visit to have your bunions looked at, but then again we don't have six month waits for treatment either.
Crass attitudes like yours are the reason why so few uninsured in the U.S. get basic preventative care, which in the end would save the medical system a lot of money from the preventable incidents incurred due to your "immediate" attention laws. If the US spent as low of a % of medical costs on administrative costs as Canada, the difference would be enough to insure every uninsured person in America. I went to the bathroom quite recently thank you, although I have no idea what that has to do with socialism or communism.

The major roadblock the US has from getting universal health care, in my opinion, is the residual hatred we have for communism (as a nicely demonized enemy for so many years) and the general lack of ability to distinguish between the concept of socializing services where empathy makes more sense than ruthless capitalism and the general concept of communism/socialism being almost as bad as satan worshiping.

Care to try again?
Beyond this reply? No. I would rather watch some football. It appears there are enough leftists at AT to handle whatever else you feel like getting worked up about.

I appreciate your cognizant points, and am glad for the discussion. I don't appreciate the personal insults, and I'm sorry that I retaliated to some extent (although I'm too lazy to edit them out).

 
Again, you're full of crap. It's a legal requirement for anyone in the U.S. who needs immediate medical attention to be provided it when a medical professional is available. A doctor or hospital turning away patients with legitimate and severe medical needs would be de-certified and possibly tossed in jail. True, the U.S. doesn't have universal healthcare, so you can't have the taxpayer pay for your doctor visit to have your bunions looked at, but then again we don't have six month waits for treatment either.

Where to even begin with this post.... sigh....


It's a legal requirement for anyone in the U.S. who needs immediate medical attention to be provided it when a medical professional is available.
True . . . and false. It is a legal requirement to provide medical care for emergent conditions but that judgement is left to authorities (hospital administrators) that have a vested interest in denying as much as care as they can get away with. When you consider that it's uncompensated care for the poor that is likely to be curtailed and that these people often have little access to legal representation, patient advocates, etc . . . then invariably these people will get substandard care. Personally, I can say in less than 10% of cases where I've been involved would I say the ED provided inadequate care solely due to a patient's ability to pay.

A doctor or hospital turning away patients with legitimate and severe medical needs would be de-certified and possibly tossed in jail.
Uhh NO . . . there are a myriad of patients with legitimate and severe medical needs that are turned away on a regular basis. Emergency (tension pneumothorax, myocardial infarction, severed limb, gun shot wound, fractured femur/pelvis, shock, meningitis, seizure, diabetic ketoacidosis, malignant hypertension) means intervention is required immediately to prevent permanent morbidity or mortality. Chronic renal failure, various cancers, hypertension, diabetes are all legitimate medical needs but doctors and hospitals can deny care through the ED or their clinics.

True, the U.S. doesn't have universal healthcare, so you can't have the taxpayer pay for your doctor visit to have your bunions looked at, but then again we don't have six month waits for treatment either.
There are less than 6000 licensed child psychiatrists in the United States. If your child has significant behavioral, emotional, mental illness the typical wait for a child psychiatrist is measured in months . . . likely six months or more if your area mental health authority is typical.

PS Hallux abducto valgus (bunion) is typically preventable by wearing appropriate shoes (including orthotics for the flat foots) but alas our lack of universal healthcare means some podiatric or orthopedic surgeon will collect a $2K surgery fee (total costs will exceed $4K) . . . of course you will have to wait six months for treatment (Medicare/Medicaid) unless you have excellent insurance . . . then you only have to wait two months.
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
my government teacher is useless and considers them both the same and bashes them heavly. I know that socialism is a less extreme version of communism. can someone explain the differance between true socialism and true communism. i know most communist countries are dictatorships but i talking about true communism.

Schadenfroh

Just read the link and Google the subject for more info. You can make up your own mind with enough info. Or go to your library and ask about books on both subjects.

I just hope that if you're in the USA they don't report you for asking 'cause asking about Socialism or Communism might put you on Asscroft's list of subversives.

After all, the USA is no longer a democracy. We're now a patriotactocracy. 🙂


PS

Have you ever read George Orwell's "Animal Farm"? It's a good critique of how people ruined Communism. And it's very applicable to how some people are ruining democracy today as well.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
In case it's not mentioned . . . read The Communist Manifesto . . . early Fidel Castro might be useful as well.

Man, if he asks for THAT in a US library he's DEFINITELY on Asscroft's list! 😉
 
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Have you ever read George Orwell's "Animal Farm"? It's a good critique of how people ruined Communism. And it's very applicable to how some people are ruining democracy today as well.

i read it in seventh grade, not as an assighment but for fun. call me geeky. excellent book
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Have you ever read George Orwell's "Animal Farm"? It's a good critique of how people ruined Communism. And it's very applicable to how some people are ruining democracy today as well.

i read it in seventh grade, not as an assighment but for fun. call me geeky. excellent book

You're inquisitive. You apparently recognize other's bias in the "education" system and are willing to question authority.

You're not geeky. You're on the road to enlightenment. 😉
 
Ashcroft can kiss my booty . . . you might be hard-pressed to find it at some of these conformist bookstores like Borders but I guarantee Barnes & Noble has a 4.95 paperback.
 
wow, you realy seem to have a bad teacher there, I suggest you try asking other students what they feel about this and if enough feel the same way you do then perhaps you should all talk to the principle
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
my government teacher is useless and considers them both the same and bashes them heavly. I know that socialism is a less extreme version of communism. can someone explain the differance between true socialism and true communism. i know most communist countries are dictatorships but i talking about true communism.

Pretty sad when a teacher can't even define the terms of the debate in his own field of "expertise". Now I understand the axiom "those who can do do. those who can't teach" , seems pretty relevent in this case.

Socialism is exclusivly an economic system where workers, not private owners, would own and control the means of production: factories, farmland, machinery, and so on. In democratic elections, workers would vote for 1) their supervisors, 2) their representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service, and 3) their representatives to a central congress representing all the industries and services.

Commumism is a dictictorial governmental and economic system in which all property is public, not private. That is, resources are shared by everyone controlled by a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite.


Some have called Socialism "the ultimate" democracy since it's democratic in every facet of life including the workplace, Socialists argue that the workplace is one of the last bastions of dictatorship still in existence in Western society. While Communism under Soviet Union or China, the working class oppressed by a new bureaucratic class and police state. Very different.

Socialism has never been tried except in employee owned firms like SouthWest Airlines. The biggest impedmemt is how do you make the transition of capital and ownership to the workers from the capitalistic dictictorial system without opression of the minority owners. It's a paradox which leads to another dictatorship and sometimes communism.

Edit: here is some exhaustive information you may want to point this teacher to, but it does seem he is beyond the pale and too devoid of intellectual pursuit to open his mind up:

There can be no socialist society until a majority of workers understand and want it. Only then will the baseless fears of socialism's critics become as absurd as the quaint old fears of the Victorians that electricity in all homes would lead to dangers which society would be unable to handle

Socialism In-Depth
 
Communism, socialism.. whatever.

My understanding that the original concept of Communism started off as a politically charged philospohy.

Every once of a while you have a revolution. Then a another and another thurough out history. Each revolution reduces the ruling class to rubble, and puts a new one in it's place until those rulers corrupt and are again usuped. Each time this happens, the rulers become poorer and the peasents become richer. So eventually you may reach a state of being were the the rulers are esentually the peasents and everybody groups together with no money or strife and every one is equal. This is a communist state. The ideal communist state. No rulers no nothing, just groups of people working towards equality.

Which is of course a impossiblity or at least attain this purity within a hundred thousand years at the rate things were going in the late 19 century and early 20 century.

So what do you do? The rulers were the problem or so it seemed, they had plenty and the people had nothing. So you have a revolution, but after that you have anarchy and caos. So you create a govermental class based on "servents" of the state and the will force a ideal communist state. The way the government is orginized is a socialism.

This is of course complete rubbish but that's what people were told was happening during the russian resolution and the dissolvement of the weak democratic state that was put up imediately afterwards. What was realy going on was a political group saw a opertunity to destroy a weak and corrupt empire and put themselves in place. They just told people what they wanted to hear and after they gained control of the country and military they took the weapons away from the people. As people began figuring out what was happening Stalin and freinds simply killed off entire populations of people to stay in control. After that they kept control of the population by being completely unpredicatable and ruthless and kept them in a state of fear so hardcore that noone dare appose them. This lasted thru the cold war. If you pointed out a flaw in the government or current state of affairs you could be rewarded as a genius and give a nice house and a fat pension or a appointment in the communist party. However if someone else did the same thing the next day they could be arrested and executed as a enemy of the state. That person, his freinds and family could be executed or sent of to siberia. Completely random. Everyone was a potential spy or turn-coat so people couldn't organize or figure out what was happening.

This happens in every communist state, because communism is a lie and this is just the sort of thing that happens when you let other people control you. Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, East Germany, Korea, Cambodia. It all happened the only difference was the scale and brutality of what happened.

This is why people were freaking out about communism for the past 50 years.

In Europe the practice a different form of Socialism called Democratic Socialism. They believe that they can vote and tell highly educated leaders what they want and the leaders will figure out the best ways to go about accomplishing this fact. If you don't want poor, you create welfare. If you like the enviroment you make it illigal to work. If you want more money you raise taxes and have the government give it to you.

In America it was oringinally designed to have a crippled government and let people figure out how best to live there lives. Instead of trying to get the government to accomplish things they wanted you have to figure out things on your own and trust in God. If you want less poor you give to charities. If you care about the enviroment you have the cities and states create parks and you go plant trees or do recycaling and try to convince others. If you want more money you go and work for it. If you want a job you go find one. etc etc.

Socialism is based opon the notion that the average person is kinda of a peasent, sort of uneducated surf. If left to there own devices you generally get unhealthy, lazy and just generally selfish. People who strive to make money and establish businesses are generally doing it just because they want more then most everybody else. So you need a strong government to keep things in line and watch out for the common good.


I mine opinion I trust most everybody else. I know there a few jerks and such, but you just have to watch out for youself and other people around you. It's important to be educated so that you make proper decisions and don't waste your efforts.

The results stand out for themselves in my mind. Americans are hard working people, we give out more in money in charity around the world then anybody else. For instance North korea, which you don't hear about, we give billions of dollars every year in food aid to that country. Even though their goverment sh*ts on us every chance they get, but the people are more important then anywere else. Our creativity leads to more technological break throughs then anywere else (exept per capita japan is more technologically advanced), drugs we create are making people live longer and curing many deseases. Our ecomony is more active and provides more opurtunities then anywere else, and there is much more chance for personal advancement.

Of course people think that this is greed and the average american is a kind of stupid pig or something. But to me this is just success. But it's going away now. Socialism is a very sexy idea and seems like a easy way out. It seems easy just to FORCE change and decide for others what is better. So eventually we will end up like Europe with a entrentched elite.

I think that people have a hard enough time deciding what's best for themselves. The idea that putting a small group of human beings in charge of a population is a error and fraught with danger. Nobody is that smart to be successfull in their own lives and then go out and tell millions of other people what they should do with their time and money.

People who say its all about greed and money are full of it. Money is just a reflection of time spent in labor. This time is my life and I should be the one to decide what's best for me. I don't like other people telling me what I should do with my time and who deserves my help. It's up to me to be the judge of my own life. I am not going to go around telling people what to do and I expect the same respect from others. I believe that people are generally good and will go out their way to help others. etc etc etc.

All this has severe religous and philosophical overtones and people get very freaky about it. In one thought proccess, we are all created spiritual creatures are a equal. We have been put on this earth for a purpose. In the other camp, all this is god-stuff is BS, a trick. The only people worth paying attention to are the government and you must make everyone equal. You replace one of the "people's opiate" (religon) with another. (a brave new future of equality thru a social elite forcing everyone to be equal).


Hehe. I guess I got of subject there for a while. But the definitions of communism and socialism have been twisted over time and are difficult to discuss.

 
Originally posted by: drag
Communism, socialism.. whatever.

My understanding that the original concept of Communism started off as a politically charged philospohy.

Every once of a while you have a revolution. Then a another and another thurough out history. Each revolution reduces the ruling class to rubble, and puts a new one in it's place until those rulers corrupt and are again usuped. Each time this happens, the rulers become poorer and the peasents become richer. So eventually you may reach a state of being were the the rulers are esentually the peasents and everybody groups together with no money or strife and every one is equal. This is a communist state. The ideal communist state. No rulers no nothing, just groups of people working towards equality.

Which is of course a impossiblity or at least attain this purity within a hundred thousand years at the rate things were going in the late 19 century and early 20 century.

So what do you do? The rulers were the problem or so it seemed, they had plenty and the people had nothing. So you have a revolution, but after that you have anarchy and caos. So you create a govermental class based on "servents" of the state and the will force a ideal communist state. The way the government is orginized is a socialism.

This is of course complete rubbish but that's what people were told was happening during the russian resolution and the dissolvement of the weak democratic state that was put up imediately afterwards. What was realy going on was a political group saw a opertunity to destroy a weak and corrupt empire and put themselves in place. They just told people what they wanted to hear and after they gained control of the country and military they took the weapons away from the people. As people began figuring out what was happening Stalin and freinds simply killed off entire populations of people to stay in control. After that they kept control of the population by being completely unpredicatable and ruthless and kept them in a state of fear so hardcore that noone dare appose them. This lasted thru the cold war. If you pointed out a flaw in the government or current state of affairs you could be rewarded as a genius and give a nice house and a fat pension or a appointment in the communist party. However if someone else did the same thing the next day they could be arrested and executed as a enemy of the state. That person, his freinds and family could be executed or sent of to siberia. Completely random. Everyone was a potential spy or turn-coat so people couldn't organize or figure out what was happening.

This happens in every communist state, because communism is a lie and this is just the sort of thing that happens when you let other people control you. Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, East Germany, Korea, Cambodia. It all happened the only difference was the scale and brutality of what happened.

This is why people were freaking out about communism for the past 50 years.

In Europe the practice a different form of Socialism called Democratic Socialism. They believe that they can vote and tell highly educated leaders what they want and the leaders will figure out the best ways to go about accomplishing this fact. If you don't want poor, you create welfare. If you like the enviroment you make it illigal to work. If you want more money you raise taxes and have the government give it to you.

In America it was oringinally designed to have a crippled government and let people figure out how best to live there lives. Instead of trying to get the government to accomplish things they wanted you have to figure out things on your own and trust in God. If you want less poor you give to charities. If you care about the enviroment you have the cities and states create parks and you go plant trees or do recycaling and try to convince others. If you want more money you go and work for it. If you want a job you go find one. etc etc.

Socialism is based opon the notion that the average person is kinda of a peasent, sort of uneducated surf. If left to there own devices you generally get unhealthy, lazy and just generally selfish. People who strive to make money and establish businesses are generally doing it just because they want more then most everybody else. So you need a strong government to keep things in line and watch out for the common good.


I mine opinion I trust most everybody else. I know there a few jerks and such, but you just have to watch out for youself and other people around you. It's important to be educated so that you make proper decisions and don't waste your efforts.

The results stand out for themselves in my mind. Americans are hard working people, we give out more in money in charity around the world then anybody else. For instance North korea, which you don't hear about, we give billions of dollars every year in food aid to that country. Even though their goverment sh*ts on us every chance they get, but the people are more important then anywere else. Our creativity leads to more technological break throughs then anywere else (exept per capita japan is more technologically advanced), drugs we create are making people live longer and curing many deseases. Our ecomony is more active and provides more opurtunities then anywere else, and there is much more chance for personal advancement.

Of course people think that this is greed and the average american is a kind of stupid pig or something. But to me this is just success. But it's going away now. Socialism is a very sexy idea and seems like a easy way out. It seems easy just to FORCE change and decide for others what is better. So eventually we will end up like Europe with a entrentched elite.

I think that people have a hard enough time deciding what's best for themselves. The idea that putting a small group of human beings in charge of a population is a error and fraught with danger. Nobody is that smart to be successfull in their own lives and then go out and tell millions of other people what they should do with their time and money.

People who say its all about greed and money are full of it. Money is just a reflection of time spent in labor. This time is my life and I should be the one to decide what's best for me. I don't like other people telling me what I should do with my time and who deserves my help. It's up to me to be the judge of my own life. I am not going to go around telling people what to do and I expect the same respect from others. I believe that people are generally good and will go out their way to help others. etc etc etc.

All this has severe religous and philosophical overtones and people get very freaky about it. In one thought proccess, we are all created spiritual creatures are a equal. We have been put on this earth for a purpose. In the other camp, all this is god-stuff is BS, a trick. The only people worth paying attention to are the government and you must make everyone equal. You replace one of the "people's opiate" (religon) with another. (a brave new future of equality thru a social elite forcing everyone to be equal).


Hehe. I guess I got of subject there for a while. But the definitions of communism and socialism have been twisted over time and are difficult to discuss.

your logic is some flawed -- for ex. Finland is a socialist country but is considerd the most technologic advanced country in the world.

for the rest, nice post

 
Screw purchasing Communist Manifesto at a store.
Hey there's nothing wrong with a little capitalism in a thread about socialism and communism . . . buy the book . . . it makes a great conversation piece . . . with intelligent people.

Nice post, Zebo.
 
Originally posted by: Czar
wow, you realy seem to have a bad teacher there, I suggest you try asking other students what they feel about this and if enough feel the same way you do then perhaps you should all talk to the principle

That teacher is a dang hypocrit, first, she bashes socialized medicine, then the next day she starts talking about how great the state hospitals were. So i said "werent the state hosipitals socialized medicine?" and she gave me the most vile look i have ever seen and she did not reply.
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: Czar
wow, you realy seem to have a bad teacher there, I suggest you try asking other students what they feel about this and if enough feel the same way you do then perhaps you should all talk to the principle

That teacher is a dang hypocrit, first, she bashes socialized medicine, then the next day she starts talking about how great the state hospitals were. So i said "werent the state hosipitals socialized medicine?" and she gave me the most vile look i have ever seen and she did not reply.

I get similar reactions when I mention my 35+ days layed up in a Naval Air Station hospital in pensacola FL, which 14 broken bones and half the skin missing from my body as the best hospital care I ever recieved period. And I've been in tens of private hopitals for other trauma.


Nevertheless, schadenfroh, you are mistakingly slandering liberalism when you refer to socialism in this state hospital case. Liberals belive in checks and balances like strong labor unions and democratic government and government services while still maintaining auto-cratic and even private control of the businesses. This is in no way similar to Socialism please see my post earlier which empowers workers.


In fact the term "socialized medicine" is a slanderous misnomer incited by the right as to not support heathcare for all.
 
Originally posted by: drag
If you like the enviroment you make it illigal to work. If you want more money you raise taxes and have the government give it to you.
...
If you care about the enviroment you have the cities and states create parks and you go plant trees or do recycaling and try to convince others. If you want more money you go and work for it. If you want a job you go find one. etc etc.
Normally my sarcasm detector would be going off here, but it may be failing. If you seriously believe those generalized misconceptions...
rolleye.gif
 
Back
Top