What is the difference between communism and socialism?
- Thread starter kabatura
- Start date
I'm no expert on the topic nor do I care to be, but I think one main difference is in Socialism while the government has a lot of control over production and distribution, people own and control private property and under communism there's really no private property. The state basically owns everything. I guess socialism is communism light.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
communism is when the government tells you what to do and how to do it without regard to how you feel or how you would vote on it. if you break the rules you can be killed and you are not supposed to leave.
think hitler, sadam etc
also think kings from the very very old days
socialism is when you choose to be apart of a community that sets rules based on how all of you think and feel is appropriate and then you follow them. you are supposed to be able to leave if you no longer agree with the rules set.
think of hippie communities that each do a job to help out.
also think of lost dharma initiative
also think jim jones
sometimes these socialism places sound the the perfect utopia sort of place, but then it is not what it is all cracked up to be
again think jim jones when he talked everyone to going off to live at the community, then became communist on them and would not let them leave and then made them all die!!
think hitler, sadam etc
also think kings from the very very old days
socialism is when you choose to be apart of a community that sets rules based on how all of you think and feel is appropriate and then you follow them. you are supposed to be able to leave if you no longer agree with the rules set.
think of hippie communities that each do a job to help out.
also think of lost dharma initiative
also think jim jones
sometimes these socialism places sound the the perfect utopia sort of place, but then it is not what it is all cracked up to be
again think jim jones when he talked everyone to going off to live at the community, then became communist on them and would not let them leave and then made them all die!!
Centaurion
Master Don Juan
Norway = socialism
USSR = communism
USSR = communism
The not being able to leave thing is interesting.
From what I hear in the Canadian socialized health care system there are waiting lists for everything and its a pain to get anything done.
In Norway, is the transportation a pain to deal with? Like, "I would like to take a trip to wherever" "No problem, just put in your application for a ticket and we will let you know if it goes through in six weeks"
The only place I've really been was Rwanda and I know it was like pulling teeth to get a visa to go somewhere and often times you would get rejected for seemingly no reason. But I don't really know what you would practically call the Rwandese gov't.
From what I hear in the Canadian socialized health care system there are waiting lists for everything and its a pain to get anything done.
In Norway, is the transportation a pain to deal with? Like, "I would like to take a trip to wherever" "No problem, just put in your application for a ticket and we will let you know if it goes through in six weeks"
The only place I've really been was Rwanda and I know it was like pulling teeth to get a visa to go somewhere and often times you would get rejected for seemingly no reason. But I don't really know what you would practically call the Rwandese gov't.
Please stop calling national health care as 'socialized' health care. It is not how it is referred to in the countries that have it, and is just a boogie term designed to scare auto-patriots with its connotations to communism..
The US has a national education system, does anyone refer to it as 'socialised' education?
The US has a national education system, does anyone refer to it as 'socialised' education?
penkitten
Master Don Juan
i also don't think we understand what exactly they mean by waiting for health care.
here is why: some one in canada may say it is hard to get into see the doctor because of the wait.
did they wait two hours to be called because so many people are there that day or did they wait six weeks for an appointment??
then compare that to united states and someone who has no insurance because they can not afford it. will they ever get an appointment without a way to pay? drs and hospitals are not supposed to turn you away from care due to your inability to pay, but before you can be seen, you must go up and tell them how you will pay. if you tell them you have nothing, some really do turn you away, while others make you make a payment agreement right then and there on what you can pay today and continue to pay before your name is even called. many people will not even bother to go to a doctor due to this financial burden. so how long will it take to be seen? they will never be seen if they do not go.
if they do happen to find a clinic that will take them, they wait for hours and hours to be called.
here is why: some one in canada may say it is hard to get into see the doctor because of the wait.
did they wait two hours to be called because so many people are there that day or did they wait six weeks for an appointment??
then compare that to united states and someone who has no insurance because they can not afford it. will they ever get an appointment without a way to pay? drs and hospitals are not supposed to turn you away from care due to your inability to pay, but before you can be seen, you must go up and tell them how you will pay. if you tell them you have nothing, some really do turn you away, while others make you make a payment agreement right then and there on what you can pay today and continue to pay before your name is even called. many people will not even bother to go to a doctor due to this financial burden. so how long will it take to be seen? they will never be seen if they do not go.
if they do happen to find a clinic that will take them, they wait for hours and hours to be called.
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] It is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[4], although socialist historians say they are older.[who?][citation needed] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist and are growing in importance since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where humanity is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxism-Leninism, Socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist
Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where humanity is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxism-Leninism, Socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist
Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. [2] This control may be exercised on behalf of the state, through a market, or through popular collectives such as workers' councils and cooperatives. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments.
The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late–19th century working class movement. During this period, the term "socialism" was first used by European social critics, who spoke against capitalism and private property. Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, wrote that socialism would be achieved through class struggle and a proletarian revolution.[3] Marxism has had a lasting influence on most branches of socialism.
Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries and Marxists and non-Marxists. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies, while libertarian socialists advocate cooperative worker ownership of the means of production. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that controls all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[4] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late–19th century working class movement. During this period, the term "socialism" was first used by European social critics, who spoke against capitalism and private property. Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, wrote that socialism would be achieved through class struggle and a proletarian revolution.[3] Marxism has had a lasting influence on most branches of socialism.
Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries and Marxists and non-Marxists. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies, while libertarian socialists advocate cooperative worker ownership of the means of production. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that controls all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[4] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Peace and Quiet
If you currently have too many women chasing you, calling you, harassing you, knocking on your door at 2 o'clock in the morning... then I have the simple solution for you.
Just read my free ebook 22 Rules for Massive Success With Women and do the opposite of what I recommend.
This will quickly drive all women away from you.
And you will be able to relax and to live your life in peace and quiet.
No, that is Stalinism.penkitten said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
No, that is either a dictatorship or imperialism.
No, that is either a monarchy or Feudalism
No, that is Communalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism
penkitten
Master Don Juan
how can that be when you just saidTruman181 said:
stalinism is communist based on what you said.Truman181 said:
True Communism as the definition I provided, has no classes or government. Stalinism is the form of Communism adopted by Stalin after Lenin's death.
"Stalinism" refers to the brand of communist regime that dominated the Soviet Union, and the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence, during the leadership of Joseph Stalin. The term usually defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was "Marxism-Leninism theory", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a theoretician, in contrast to Marx and Lenin, and prided himself on maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet Union and the future Socialist world. Stalinism is an interpretation of their ideas, and a certain political regime claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society, as with the transition from "socialism at a snail's pace" in the mid-twenties to the rapid industrialization of the Five-Year Plans. Sometimes, although rarely, the compound terms "Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism" (used by the Brazilian MR-8), or teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin, are used to show the alleged heritage and succession. Simultaneously, however, many people who profess Marxism or Leninism view Stalinism as a perversion of their ideas; Trotskyists, in particular, are virulently anti-Stalinist, considering Stalinism a counter-revolutionary policy using Marxism to achieve power.
The main contributions of Stalin to communist theory were:
Stalinism has been described as being synonymous with totalitarianism, or a tyrannical regime. The term has been used to describe regimes that fight political dissent through violence, imprisonment, and killings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Basically Stalinism was Stalin's own corrupt version of Communism (which is what Communism in the USSR came to be) in which Stalin himself became the dictator in a Totalitarian state.
"Stalinism" refers to the brand of communist regime that dominated the Soviet Union, and the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence, during the leadership of Joseph Stalin. The term usually defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was "Marxism-Leninism theory", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a theoretician, in contrast to Marx and Lenin, and prided himself on maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet Union and the future Socialist world. Stalinism is an interpretation of their ideas, and a certain political regime claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society, as with the transition from "socialism at a snail's pace" in the mid-twenties to the rapid industrialization of the Five-Year Plans. Sometimes, although rarely, the compound terms "Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism" (used by the Brazilian MR-8), or teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin, are used to show the alleged heritage and succession. Simultaneously, however, many people who profess Marxism or Leninism view Stalinism as a perversion of their ideas; Trotskyists, in particular, are virulently anti-Stalinist, considering Stalinism a counter-revolutionary policy using Marxism to achieve power.
The main contributions of Stalin to communist theory were:
Stalinism has been described as being synonymous with totalitarianism, or a tyrannical regime. The term has been used to describe regimes that fight political dissent through violence, imprisonment, and killings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Basically Stalinism was Stalin's own corrupt version of Communism (which is what Communism in the USSR came to be) in which Stalin himself became the dictator in a Totalitarian state.
Ingeniarius
Don Juan
OK, I think there's a large gap in the common knowledge about political science here on the board, so without much further ado, I will shortly post explainations of important terms already mentioned by some posters. These terms were explained to me in school and college by professors and teachers (although pol. sc. is not) my major.
The "inventor" or "founding figure" of the soc. / com. political system is a man called Karl Marx born in Trier, Germany in 1818. At the time he quite literally worte the book on com./soc., called the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
In 1848 Germany had revolution going on, trying for the umpteenth time to overthrow the local princedom rule (Germany did not emerge as a united nation-state until 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War with the Proclamation in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles).
Marx's basic hypethesis is that history is a struggle between the ruled and rulers: In ancient times, these were slave and master, in the Middle Ages vassal and monarch, in modern times, entrepreneur and worker.
It may seem weird to most Americans, but during the 19th century, Europe was not a cool place to live. Most factories were owned by a privileged few (most often noblemen and some professionals such as doctors, lawyers etc. who had invested their money) who employed under terrible conditions a large mass of workers, who they treated very badly in terms of benefits, working hours and pay.In fact, 87% of all assets in Britain were owned by less than 5% of the population in 1900. Workers gradually came to the conclusion that a) they deserved human working conditions b) some benefits such as health insurance
c) better pay so they did not have to eat garbage for example. (see Manchester capitalism)
The workers founded trade unions to go on strike and achieve better conditions, basically as they do today.
Of course the owners were not really cool with that, as they would have less income, and so they hired thugs to beat down the worker's movement and spy on them. They beat up whoever was a unionist and fired him so that his family had nothing to eat.
Well, some workers came to the conclusion that Marx was right and that they were in a historic struggle to end one era and move on to the next. They considered themselves as the modern slaves ruled by their masters the factory owners. Marx's hypothesis was that the old government had to be overthrown and new living conditions created, as apparently the free capitalist society promoted the extortion of large masses by a privileged few.
This is not democracy they were fighting, as Britain for example had universal male suffrage since about 1830. They were fighting an economic system which promoted the extortion of the masses.
Marx was of the opinion that the workers who supplied the labor and the captitalists who supplied the capital were equal economic partners. As such (the theory goes) the state was to control both capital and labor, ensuring that the balance be held.
Socialism (coming from being social, i.e. nice and sweet) was a period of transition between capitalism and communism (coming from common, such as equal). Communism in its extreme form called for the abolition of the state as a whole and all would live happily ever after.
This of course did not really work out.
Soc./Com. viewed itself as a truth, meaning everyone against it was commiting a sin. This is important to know as the truth gives everyone a reason to use unpleasant means to an end, such as a secret police, abduction, murder, torture, labor camps and other methods of repression.
The first real socialist/communist state was the Union of Socialist Soviet Republice (USSR). Soviet is a Russian word consisting of the word Socialist and Council. The aim of the USSR was to distribute all assets equally by having the state hold all assets as state property, and as the people make up the state, everybody owns everything as the state owns it.
In reality however, nobody had anything as the state had it all.
The state then established a secret police and stuff (see above) to keep everybody in control and then have the new ruling class (state and party functionaries etc.) have a fine life while the others still had nothing.
I am going to omit the spread of socialism due to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, when the Russians conquered Berlin and Eastern Europe on their way there.
The socialist/communist political system failed eventually as the state went bankrupt and the people were still poor and not free.
--------------------------
The difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism. Communism calls for the abolition of the state as a whole, all property being evenly distributed.
capitalism --> socialism --> communism
--------------------------
Countries with "socialist" health care have a regulated medical industry. Core aspects of this are:
- having a health insurance is compulsory by law, and if you cannot afford one due to unemployment etc, the state provides it for that time.
- doctors and hospitals get their money from the insurance
- nobody dies at home at 30 after selling their house and having their parents spend their money on bills.
Of course some countries have special rules, as the system is sometimes abused.
In some countries, people have to:
- elect a doctor or hospital of their choice to visit for a prelim. diagnosis before directly seeing a specialist so that doctors see what they are doing. Usually this is a family doctor you see first and then take your medical file and history and see a specialist when needed, remember that specialists take a lot of money.
- elect their own health insurance. Some countries insure everyone by higher taxes, some countries such as Germany allow everyone to choose between local state or company health insurance or a private carrier.
- pay up front
- have the insurance pay directly
- pay part/part for extras
- pay after treatment
As you can see by these examples, a "socialist" health care is in fact a highly regulated medical industry.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
All of this is a very crude summary of facts and historical events. It is not perfect and not meant to be, as you would need books and books of paper to explain it all. It is to provide a very very basic insight into the OPs question and common misconceptions.
The "inventor" or "founding figure" of the soc. / com. political system is a man called Karl Marx born in Trier, Germany in 1818. At the time he quite literally worte the book on com./soc., called the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
In 1848 Germany had revolution going on, trying for the umpteenth time to overthrow the local princedom rule (Germany did not emerge as a united nation-state until 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War with the Proclamation in the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles).
Marx's basic hypethesis is that history is a struggle between the ruled and rulers: In ancient times, these were slave and master, in the Middle Ages vassal and monarch, in modern times, entrepreneur and worker.
It may seem weird to most Americans, but during the 19th century, Europe was not a cool place to live. Most factories were owned by a privileged few (most often noblemen and some professionals such as doctors, lawyers etc. who had invested their money) who employed under terrible conditions a large mass of workers, who they treated very badly in terms of benefits, working hours and pay.In fact, 87% of all assets in Britain were owned by less than 5% of the population in 1900. Workers gradually came to the conclusion that a) they deserved human working conditions b) some benefits such as health insurance
c) better pay so they did not have to eat garbage for example. (see Manchester capitalism)
The workers founded trade unions to go on strike and achieve better conditions, basically as they do today.
Of course the owners were not really cool with that, as they would have less income, and so they hired thugs to beat down the worker's movement and spy on them. They beat up whoever was a unionist and fired him so that his family had nothing to eat.
Well, some workers came to the conclusion that Marx was right and that they were in a historic struggle to end one era and move on to the next. They considered themselves as the modern slaves ruled by their masters the factory owners. Marx's hypothesis was that the old government had to be overthrown and new living conditions created, as apparently the free capitalist society promoted the extortion of large masses by a privileged few.
This is not democracy they were fighting, as Britain for example had universal male suffrage since about 1830. They were fighting an economic system which promoted the extortion of the masses.
Marx was of the opinion that the workers who supplied the labor and the captitalists who supplied the capital were equal economic partners. As such (the theory goes) the state was to control both capital and labor, ensuring that the balance be held.
Socialism (coming from being social, i.e. nice and sweet) was a period of transition between capitalism and communism (coming from common, such as equal). Communism in its extreme form called for the abolition of the state as a whole and all would live happily ever after.
This of course did not really work out.
Soc./Com. viewed itself as a truth, meaning everyone against it was commiting a sin. This is important to know as the truth gives everyone a reason to use unpleasant means to an end, such as a secret police, abduction, murder, torture, labor camps and other methods of repression.
The first real socialist/communist state was the Union of Socialist Soviet Republice (USSR). Soviet is a Russian word consisting of the word Socialist and Council. The aim of the USSR was to distribute all assets equally by having the state hold all assets as state property, and as the people make up the state, everybody owns everything as the state owns it.
In reality however, nobody had anything as the state had it all.
The state then established a secret police and stuff (see above) to keep everybody in control and then have the new ruling class (state and party functionaries etc.) have a fine life while the others still had nothing.
I am going to omit the spread of socialism due to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, when the Russians conquered Berlin and Eastern Europe on their way there.
The socialist/communist political system failed eventually as the state went bankrupt and the people were still poor and not free.
--------------------------
The difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism. Communism calls for the abolition of the state as a whole, all property being evenly distributed.
capitalism --> socialism --> communism
--------------------------
Countries with "socialist" health care have a regulated medical industry. Core aspects of this are:
- having a health insurance is compulsory by law, and if you cannot afford one due to unemployment etc, the state provides it for that time.
- doctors and hospitals get their money from the insurance
- nobody dies at home at 30 after selling their house and having their parents spend their money on bills.
Of course some countries have special rules, as the system is sometimes abused.
In some countries, people have to:
- elect a doctor or hospital of their choice to visit for a prelim. diagnosis before directly seeing a specialist so that doctors see what they are doing. Usually this is a family doctor you see first and then take your medical file and history and see a specialist when needed, remember that specialists take a lot of money.
- elect their own health insurance. Some countries insure everyone by higher taxes, some countries such as Germany allow everyone to choose between local state or company health insurance or a private carrier.
- pay up front
- have the insurance pay directly
- pay part/part for extras
- pay after treatment
As you can see by these examples, a "socialist" health care is in fact a highly regulated medical industry.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
All of this is a very crude summary of facts and historical events. It is not perfect and not meant to be, as you would need books and books of paper to explain it all. It is to provide a very very basic insight into the OPs question and common misconceptions.
Hooligan Harry
Senior Don Juan
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 45
Communism?
Soviet Union
Cuba
Socialism?
Australia
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Iceland
Have a look at what countries provide the best standard of living and quality of life and you will find that it is the socialist countries. They outdo all of Western Europe and the USA according to numerous studies. There are more then a few social indicators that point to this and you consistently see the same countries ranking highly.
Socialism is putting the herd ahead of the individual. Its about trying to limit the wage gap and class gap. In Australia for example, a janitor can own a home and send his kids to college, although his wife will probably need to work. A general manager of a listed company will earn enough for his wife to stay at home, but chances are he is going to live next door to the janitor. There is very little that separates people here. Taxation is high but services provided by Government are generally good. It leads to more equality.
To really become wealthy you need to be either self employed or a highly skilled specialist. IE: Your contributions need to be substantial.
Te ironic thing is that the average Australian is wealthier then the average American and he works fewer hours. I you really want to understand the differences, have a look at the way they govern those countries and manage their tax revenues.
Soviet Union
Cuba
Socialism?
Australia
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Iceland
Have a look at what countries provide the best standard of living and quality of life and you will find that it is the socialist countries. They outdo all of Western Europe and the USA according to numerous studies. There are more then a few social indicators that point to this and you consistently see the same countries ranking highly.
Socialism is putting the herd ahead of the individual. Its about trying to limit the wage gap and class gap. In Australia for example, a janitor can own a home and send his kids to college, although his wife will probably need to work. A general manager of a listed company will earn enough for his wife to stay at home, but chances are he is going to live next door to the janitor. There is very little that separates people here. Taxation is high but services provided by Government are generally good. It leads to more equality.
To really become wealthy you need to be either self employed or a highly skilled specialist. IE: Your contributions need to be substantial.
Te ironic thing is that the average Australian is wealthier then the average American and he works fewer hours. I you really want to understand the differences, have a look at the way they govern those countries and manage their tax revenues.
Just because a woman listens to you and acts interested in what you say doesn't mean she really is. She might just be acting polite, while silently wishing that the date would hurry up and end, or that you would go away... and never come back.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Ingeniarius
Don Juan
I believe that most people have not understood exactly what the difference between a social state and socialism is. Socialism understands itself to be a historic truth (see my post above), and a principal element is the abolishment of the free market economy in favor of a planned economy, in which the government sets the prices and supply/demand dynamic.Hooligan Harry said:
The countries you labeled as "socialist" are not socialist at all, for example nobody would question the right to property or the market economy. However, as Harvard professor Mankiw put it (he wrote a good book on basic economics), sometimes the market results can be improved by government influence.
Government influence does not mean complete government control, but rather that the government can for example, influence a university's decision on what students to admit (not the richest but the best), or offer health care to the unemployed that normally would be sick and suffer from their illness.
I hope I have made the difference between a socialist state and a state that provides ample social services clearer. Labeling any one of those states mentioned before as "socialist" is a factual error.
Whether this leads to more equality is questionable, as many citizens pay for services they harldy use (unemployment insurance for doctors, state pension for a hedge fund manager, a nurse that pays for the medical school her boss's son goes to, energy tax for a person who hardly heats or cools because of costs etc.)
A true communist society is where everyone is totally equal. Doctors, garbage men, and everyone in between all receive the same compensation. I believe the theory states that money is not even necessary. Everyone just gets what they need.
The theory is great; no poverty, everyone is equal. Unfortunately, the flaw in the theory is that it involves human beings.
I'm not a historian, but I believe the theory in Russia was that the first step in a path towards communism meant taking over all possessions, so they could then disperse them. They did things like consolidate farming, from many small lands to a few larger groups.
Also as stated above, the flaw in the theory is that it involves humans. If you were greedy and were not on board with the idea, you ruin everything. In Russia, the solution was to kill those people.
The theory is great; no poverty, everyone is equal. Unfortunately, the flaw in the theory is that it involves human beings.
I'm not a historian, but I believe the theory in Russia was that the first step in a path towards communism meant taking over all possessions, so they could then disperse them. They did things like consolidate farming, from many small lands to a few larger groups.
Also as stated above, the flaw in the theory is that it involves humans. If you were greedy and were not on board with the idea, you ruin everything. In Russia, the solution was to kill those people.
bbestar
Banned
THANK YOU Truman181
You cleared up a lot of nonsense I was reading on this thread.
Non of these movements could not become powerful with out one thing. Money, financial backing and I doubt pockets of people with little money could not start a revolution that change every aspect of their culture and country. I have a feeling that a hidden entity with enormous financial power backed these leaders of communism, and the Nazis.
The huge financial transfer of wealth from the 1929 stock market crash may have fueled the revolutions that were to take part in later years. This isn't just a natural course of history, it is man made artificial depression's, wars, and conflicts controlled by the human heart. We all play a part because we all have that natural tendency to hate, kill, lust, and become greedy.
It starts with each of us asking God to forgive us, each and everyone of us to take full responsibility for what is happening now. If we change what is in our heart, to love, forgive, accept ourselves and others, to make things right, It may change the heart of our leaders, our government and those who financial control governments, bankers and etc.
You cleared up a lot of nonsense I was reading on this thread.
Non of these movements could not become powerful with out one thing. Money, financial backing and I doubt pockets of people with little money could not start a revolution that change every aspect of their culture and country. I have a feeling that a hidden entity with enormous financial power backed these leaders of communism, and the Nazis.
The huge financial transfer of wealth from the 1929 stock market crash may have fueled the revolutions that were to take part in later years. This isn't just a natural course of history, it is man made artificial depression's, wars, and conflicts controlled by the human heart. We all play a part because we all have that natural tendency to hate, kill, lust, and become greedy.
It starts with each of us asking God to forgive us, each and everyone of us to take full responsibility for what is happening now. If we change what is in our heart, to love, forgive, accept ourselves and others, to make things right, It may change the heart of our leaders, our government and those who financial control governments, bankers and etc.
Ingeniarius
Don Juan
Actually the USSR was established in 1917, some time before the stock market crash. The Eatern Bloc was established because the Red Army fought the Wehrmacht back to Torgue in Germany. They occupied the countries in Eastern Europe along the way to pave the way for a similar political system, the intention being to create vassal states of the USSR.
The Nazis financed themselves through state debt, which they later planned to pay back by winning the war and looting occupied countries. However, they exploited the economic situation by financing state work programs, the most famous being the Autobahns, thus adding greatly to their popularity.
The Nazis financed themselves through state debt, which they later planned to pay back by winning the war and looting occupied countries. However, they exploited the economic situation by financing state work programs, the most famous being the Autobahns, thus adding greatly to their popularity.
