strange question
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: strange question |
|---|---|
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:06
Profile
what IS the differance between communisim and socialism -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:13
Profile
... i am doing a report on it and i am lazy so... help -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:17
Profile
Communism - Any system of government in which a single, usually totalitarian, party holds power, and the state controls the economy. Socialism - A political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:18: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:17
Profile
Homepage
You are also double posting. There is an edit button. In communism, you have no rights, and everthing you have goes to government. In socialism, it's a little better. EDIT: Dolphin beat me to it. His post was better, too. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:18: Message edited by: N00BEN ] -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:20
Profile
i will remember to edit stuff in my next posts and also thank you that helped p.s. i am new so i get lost in the complexity in stuff [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:21: Message edited by: shadow, the ] -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:55
Profile
Homepage
Two very nice posts, both wrong. Communism is the merger of economic and political theory proposed by Marx: namely, that the oppressed classes will rise up and overthrow the oppressing classes, beginning with despotism and ending with world utopia. This is the concept of the dialectic: that class conflict drives history, and class revolution is a historical inevitability. The utopia of Marxist communism is a society in which no property exists; there is no state, because it is unnecessary; each produces as he is able and consumes as he needs; and all men are treated as equal. Now, that is the theory behind communism. The reason communism is associated with totalitarianism (Stalin, Mao, etc.) is the concept of vanguard theory, which advocates a 'temporary' dictatorship by an elite intellectual class in the name of the revolution - thus speeding up the historical inevitability of revolution and global utopia. The implications of vanguard theory are pretty steep; but since it's proven the only effective way to get a communist government into power, that means the majority of communist states have been run by authoritarian ideologues. That's the theory and historical fact of communism. Socialism, on the other hand, is a system of economic mixed government which advocates society controlling industry for the common benefit. Socialism can be authoritarian - e.g. Mussolini's incorporation of industry into the Italian state - or democratic - e.g. the modern governments of Europe, especially Scandinavia. However, the basic idea behind socialism is not to promote a distant utopia, but rather strive towards the greatest economic justice in current terms. The idea of "we're building up a good society" lends itself less well to tyrannical abuse than the idea of "we're serving a great future utopia", so socialism has generally been viewed more positively and expresed more democratically. Differences to note: most first-world countries have a major Socialist party (the U.S. and Japan being prominent exceptions), but Communist parties in democratic countries are, by and large, artifacts of history. Socialism has a greater degree of flexibility than communism; it has no ideological conflict with harmless free industry. 'Socialism' is far vaguer; by the loosest definition, e.g. mixed state and private control of the economy, most first-world governments are socialist. By more strict definitions - high tax rates, high degrees of state industry - you could well restrict socialism to Scandinavia. Communism, on the other hand, is distinct and defined by adherence to a certain ideology. A government is either Communist or it is not; there is no gray area. So in essence: socialism represents a social dogma ('the government should help the people') translated into economic policy ('the government intercedes when free enterprise's benefits are oustripped by its harms'); communism represents an ideological dogma ('revolution will produce an ideal society') expressed most commonly through an abusive and peculiar form of dictatorship ('sacrifice your freedoms today for utopia tomorrow'). The former is a common policy of government in democracy, where the latter bears more resemblance to religious fundamentalism. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:57: Message edited by: Custer XVI ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 12:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:Like getting a creationist to teach you the evolution theory... :rolleyes: Edit: Alec beat me to the punch. I might as well edit all this out again, seeing as he's the expert. ;) Edit 2: On reflection, what I posted appears to have been correct, though I didn't put it as well. To summarize: Communism is a branch of Socialism. Socialism in general refers to the idea of power being in the hands of the masses, while Communism specifically refers to an egalitarian society in which private property is abolished, and shared by all members of society. According to Wikipedia, "Marxism and communism are both very specific branches of socialism. The two do not represent socialism as a whole." [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:38: Message edited by: 402: MONIKER REQUIRES PAYMENT ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 12:45
Profile
that is alot of info. thanks to all. i should get an A for sure -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5585
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 12:47
Profile
I was really confused at first because I was thinking of Facism instead of Socialism for some reason. How does Facism relate to Communism and Socialism? It seems to me to be pretty much the opposite of communism, but I don't really understand all those govt. systems that well. -------------------- Important Information about Stuff Posts: 258 | Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 12:55
Profile
Homepage
Socialism is achieved mainly through the present system of government, elections etc. Communism is outside the present system designed to kill it rearrange everything major upheaval. Socialism is often the ideal while communism is the practical application. -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 13:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Judging by the photo thread, Dolphin is female. (Sorry for the jeer off topic) Why are you doing the report, shadow, the? EDIT: 500 posts. Halfway there. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 13:32: Message edited by: Sprung Spring ] Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 13:33
Profile
Homepage
Fascism, to answer Evil_tim's question, is the totalitarian, nationalistic, censorship/propaganda-loving, opposite of socialism. It has the government completely control the economy, along with über-strict social control. Just think Nazi Germany, because that's a fairly good example. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 13:58
Profile
Homepage
Oops, sorry Dolphin. :o SS, I'd wager he's doing the report for school. ;) -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 15:19
Profile
Nazism is a shortened form of national socialism-- in other words dictatorial socialism. We created the label fascism to differentiate the bad guys (national socialists) from the good guys (democratic socialists- French, Scandinavians, etc.). It was a nice piece of propaganda on our part. I applaud the labelling ;) . My mistake Mussolini created the label. Fascism; a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Not all socialism is bad. There is the democratic socialism of the Scandinavian which is fairly benign and leads to some of the highest living standards in the world. Communism is basically a form of dictatorship in its current form. Somehow, the leaders of the party took over the idea of proledic-- the dictatorship of the proletariat and twisted it in a bad way. During the cultural revolution, they basically told everyone that it is the duty of the party member to watch over every member of the countryside to make sure they are acting correctly and report any infractions to the party. Their job was to look for "bourgeoise" elements so they could be rooted out. Unfortunately, what was described as bourgeoise was most of the educated intellectuals (engineers, teachers, etc.)... The higher up the chain of command the more susceptible you were to proledic as well as the more you could enforce the ideal. Thus every member of the party effectively became a small dictator against the individual. A wonderful sophism was put forward it is the democratic right of the masses to make decisions for the individual. Because there were too many nonconformists-- they had to be reeducated to understand proledic in relocation camps. The USSR, China and other not so notable states such as Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, Tanzania and Laos all claimed to be the "dictatorship of the proletariat," none ever claimed to have achieved communism. In communism there would be no government. [ Friday, May 20, 2005 01:37: Message edited by: Duke of Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5585
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 15:36
Profile
quote:I thought nazis were facist, and sincee facism is the opposite of socialism, how can they be both? Do they have some of the ideals of socialism that facism isn't against? Does socialism have any ideals that facism isn't against? -------------------- Important Information about Stuff Posts: 258 | Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 17:50
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, both fascism and socialism involve a strong centralised government. And while fascism is inherently hierarchical as far as political power goes, it doesn't necessarily imply a particular economic ideology; Nazi economic policies were for the most part moderately socialist, and in fact not entirely dissimilar to those of social democratic nations such as the modern UK. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 17:52: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 18:59
Profile
'Fascist' was not a propaganda label invented by socialist democracies. It was the name of Mussolini's political party, the fascisti. I believe the name was drawn from the Latin 'fasces' (a bundle of rods which symbolize state authority, having been carried, wrapped around a ceremonial axe, by the lictors who attended high magistrates in the Roman republic). Mussolini seized power in Italy several years before Hitler become German Chancellor, and even though the military power of Nazi Germany soon eclipsed Fascist Italy, Hitler always acknowledged Mussolini's primacy in exploiting popular anxiety to thrust authoritarian nationalism upon a weak democracy. Somewhere I heard the differences between various politico-economic ideologies explained something like this. Suppose you are a farmer and you have a cow. Under capitalism, you own the cow, and the government takes some of the milk in taxes. Under communism, the government owns the cow, and it lets you drink some of the milk. Under fascism, you own the cow, and the government kills you for the milk. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 19:07: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 19:43
Profile
Homepage
Alec already summed this up, but some people seem to have missed it. Communism does not imply a totalitarian or even authoritarian government. In fact, the ultimate goal of communism is far closer to anarchy. In practice, however, communist regimes have always been imposed from above by an authoritarian government (I would even say fascist, although the label fascism never seems to be used in tandem with communism). That's part of the reason for communism's terrible reputation today. While it presents a utopian vision, the implementations have been almost uniformly horrific or at least distasteful. Socialism tends to pick up a bad reputation from communism, as socialist principles are the basis of communism. Socialism isn't necessarily communist, though, and others have already pointed out successful examples of fairly socialist countries. A government or party can call itself socialist without being socialist just like it can call itself democratic without being democratic. I think South America can provide stunning examples of both, often simultaneously. —Alorael, who thinks of economic policy on a scale from purely socialist to purely capitalist. No country that he can think of is all one or the other, but some clearly lean to one side. America is rather capitalist, Scandinavian countries tend to be more socialist. As the political compass test will show you, that scale has nothing to do with authoritarian/libertarian policies. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Friday, May 20 2005 09:02
Profile
yes i am doing a report and i will probibly get an A :) so this is enough info -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, May 20 2005 09:33
Profile
Saying that communism doesn't imply totalitarianism amounts to a word game, in my opinion. Do we use the term to refer to actual government systems, or to theoretical proposals that may not be realizable even in principle? Either choice of language seems reasonable to me, so no-one should accuse anyone else of fallacy just for taking the opposite one. And either way the actually important facts are undisputed, that Marx promised a utopia which has never been realized in practice. It can be argued (as recently by Martin Malia) that the totalitarianism is an unacknowledged but inevitable consequence of Marxist-Leninist principles. In which case the utopian elements in Marxism are simply the shiny red skin on the poisoned apple, and only serve to elevate it from being dangerous to being deadly. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Friday, May 20 2005 10:12
Profile
Note that the vanguard is Leninism, not Marxism; Marx would have never approved of the Russian Revolution. As Alec mentioned, he believed in the dialectic. Russia skipped over the industrial capitalist stage, which more or less negated any chance of developing the communist state. The issue is that Marx used a phrase like 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which has been corrupted into meaning 'dictatorship of the vanguard party'. Even basic reading of Marx's writings suggests that Marx meant nothing of the sort; instead, he appeared to be describing a state socialism, ruled by the workers. This makes sense when you consider that Marx's final goal was the 'withering away' of the state. In this way, Marxism can be considered an anarchist philosophy. That leads me into my main point: socialism neither suggests nor demands a powerful state, or a state whatsoever. The term 'socialism' has been slowly perverted into meaning 'command economy', which leads directly to the paradox of Hitler (a 'national socialist') persecuting socialists in his territory. Fascism is actually rather clearly defined. Here's where it differs from socialism: * Fascism insists on the supremacy of the state, to which all citizens are subject. Socialism is not necessarily statis. * Fascist states are by definition bellicose (but not necessarily genocidal) and nationalist (but not necessarily racist). Socialist thought has been sometimes pacifist and often internationalist. * Fascist states are ruled by a dictator or a militarist clique or junta. Dictatorships and juntas are by definition non-socialist. Fun fact: Mussolini referred to fascism as "corporatism", and suggested that it involved the fusing of industrial corporations into the state. Marx never went into specifics about communist society or how he thought it would be created. He simply predicted its creation and explained it in economic terms. Hayek tried to connect socialism and totalitarianism, too. The flaw in his theory was that he only considered statist socialism. We associate communism with all kinds of oppression and terror. We blithely ignore the oppression and terror in non-communist states as a matter of course. Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Friday, May 20 2005 10:53
Profile
quote:I don't know how strict your teacher is about this, but you should be sure to properly cite any source which you use for your paper. Anything which is not common knowledge (and if you're not sure, then it's not) should be referenced: you have to describe where you got it. And not to say that Alec's info isn't reliable, but you might want to look this stuff up in an authoritative source; I don't know if your teacher would give much credence to something cited 1 Kyras, Alec. "strange question," Spiderweb Software Boards. May 19, 2005, <http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=1;t=002443> -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Friday, May 20 2005 11:01
Profile
i will say that i interveiwed someone (which i kind of did) and thanks for all your help people [ Friday, May 20, 2005 11:03: Message edited by: shadow, the ] -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Friday, May 20 2005 11:24
Profile
How whiney, we hate a lot of political systems in the United States. Middle Eastern theocracy, various forms of socialism, dictatorships, communism, etc. I'm guessing there is a kind of love/hate relationship with fascism and monarchy in the United States. Quite a few people like Spanish and Latin American style fascism in the United States. Franco was our friend for a long time, so was Marcos and Peron. I don't like them, but many people here admire their strong image. President Bush in many ways reminds me of a Latin American dictator in his style and presentation. We also like to read about the British royals which I find mildly ridiculous. I find it amusing that people like to create wacky ideas about what Marx would have believed. Russia and China probably were not even on Marx's mind when he wrote the communist manifesto. China and Russia were not industrial states when their Marxist revolutions occurred, but they are and were the largest Marxist states. Apparently communism seems to be more readily adopted by non-industrialized societies. Part of the reason China is the one large surviving communist state is that they have adapted many non-Marxian ideas. The primary one being the idea of "Continuous Revolution"-- the party must continually purge itself and introduce new ideas in order to reach the ideal status. Occasionally China goes through spring times. Thus there are many factions and continuous purging within the state. This allows change and new ideas to be introduced unlike Russian Communism which collapsed. Leninism, Trotskyism, and the various isms are slowly dying out. [ Friday, May 20, 2005 11:29: Message edited by: Duke of Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Friday, May 20 2005 12:50
Profile
nicely said Duke of toast -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2