Isn't the difference between Communism and Socialism like the difference between water and wetness?

[livingwordunity]

Well, the history of what things were about and what actually happened isn’t important to everybody.

There are enough examples of socialist governments that we can look at today and in recent history that show that socialism generally leads to tyranny. Just look at Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. And look at socialists like Jim Jones. The contradiction of socialism or communism is that although everyone is supposed to be “equal”, there is a ruling class that is created to ensure that everyone is “equal”. The bad fruit of socialism still smells to this day.

 

[Kaninchen]

There are enough examples of socialist governments that we can look at today and in recent history that show that socialism generally leads to tyranny. Just look at Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. And look at socialists like Jim Jones. The bad fruit of socialism still smells to this day.

Does only socialism lead to tyranny?

 

[livingwordunity]

Does only socialism lead to tyranny?

No. But it’s one of the most sure ways to get to tyranny. The contradiction of socialism or communism is that although everyone is supposed to be “equal”, there is a ruling class that is created to ensure that everyone is “equal”.

 

[Kaninchen]

No. But it’s one of the most sure ways to get to tyranny. The contradiction of socialism or communism is that although everyone is supposed to be “equal”, there is a ruling class that is created to ensure that everyone is “equal”.

You’re talking to somebody who grew up in a world with real socialists and communists all around - not somewhere over the ocean but at the next desk.

 

[Tigg]

Socialism is a means to achieve Trickle Up Poverty.

Communism is the means to protect the political elites from the effects of Socialism.

**LOVE IT! **

 

[Tigg]

The following quote is from President Eisenhower’s speech given in 1965 after his secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, spoke with the communist leader of Russia: Nikita Khrushchev. Benson reported;

"As we talked face to face, he (Khrushchev) indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declared in substance;

You Americans are so gullible. No you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands!"(Knapp, Fabian Socialist Window).

 

[livingwordunity]

The following quote is from President Eisenhower’s speech given in 1965 after his secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, spoke with the communist leader of Russia: Nikita Khrushchev. Benson reported;

"As we talked face to face, he (Khrushchev) indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declared in substance;

You Americans are so gullible. No you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands!"(Knapp, Fabian Socialist Window).

I think socialism is the gateway to communism. That’s why every communist is a socialist.

 

[StudentMI]

I think socialism is the gateway to communism.

Communism, in Marxist theory, is essentially anarchism. There is no government. The idea was that, once capitalism had enlarged the productive capacities of a society, socialism was the next step. Socialism would even out the living standards of all, through the force of the state, and once that was done and all were equal, there would be no need of the state and it would ‘wither away.’ Communism was the goal, not the policy, except in several circumstances: under war communism in the USSR, which was a disaster; I think the Great Leap Forward attempted it, and failed horrifically; and under the Khmer Rouge… enough said.

Actually, one criticism at the time of the Bolshevik revolution was that Russia was not capitalist. It had to first go through capitalism and then socialism would be possible. Lenin criticized this as doctrinaire rubbish, and proceeded with his plans.

One could argue that communism was the policy of the USSR and China, and certainly the Khmer Rouge. I can’t remember the specific policies and all that at the moment.

 

[Mark121359]

“I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them”…Margaret Thatcher

 

[CaptFun]

The title of this thread delights me so much, it is hard to improve upon the effect with further commentary.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQkSiPt-74bjPRjaP6M1a9enduYTh0BnNwH6sUvy27Gu6c7G6K

My delight is short lived when I recall the results of these twin frauds of philosophy.

 

[CaptFun]

Mark121359:

Quote:
“I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them”…Margaret Thatcher

youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw < Thatcher’s 2 minute tutorial

 

[WildCatholic]

Communism, in Marxist theory, is essentially anarchism. There is no government. The idea was that, once capitalism had enlarged the productive capacities of a society, socialism was the next step. Socialism would even out the living standards of all, through the force of the state, and once that was done and all were equal, there would be no need of the state and it would ‘wither away.’ Communism was the goal, not the policy, except in several circumstances: under war communism in the USSR, which was a disaster; I think the Great Leap Forward attempted it, and failed horrifically; and under the Khmer Rouge… enough said.

Actually, one criticism at the time of the Bolshevik revolution was that Russia was not capitalist. It had to first go through capitalism and then socialism would be possible. Lenin criticized this as doctrinaire rubbish, and proceeded with his plans.

One could argue that communism was the policy of the USSR and China, and certainly the Khmer Rouge. I can’t remember the specific policies and all that at the moment.

You mention about communism being anarchism. That is what true communism is. In my opinion the Russians didn’t really practice it. Marx himself was for freedom of expression and while he hated religion I don’t think (please correct me if i’m wrong) state atheism. He felt people should be free to express themselves. He just believed in socialist collectivism and ownership by the people.

I’ve always thought that the main problem with communism and socialism is you can’t do it in large groups, and by this, I mean more than a 100 or so people. In a sense you could argue the apostles were “communists” (I can’t think of a better term) in that they shared everything in common, but I think the difference is it’s people entering into it freely. If a small group wants to live collectively that is their choice. Communism simply forces it on people

 

[Tigg]

I think socialism is the gateway to communism. That’s why every communist is a socialist.

It’s a kissin’ cousin, for sure!

 

[Tigg]

In a sense you could argue the apostles were “communists” (I can’t think of a better term) in that they shared everything in common, but I think the difference is it’s people entering into it freely. If a small group wants to live collectively that is their choice. Communism simply forces it on people

Before someone takes this and runs afoul with it, I’d just add that in the Christian sense, “communism” (I loathe the very word) is virtuous in that the apostles did not consider any material goods to be theirs - they only used what they needed and encouraged their communities to share and share alike for the common good. It was not coerced nor completely controlling nor destructive of any personal liberties.

 

[SamH]

Socialist are communist that can’t commit.

 

[WildCatholic]

Before someone takes this and runs afoul with it, I’d just add that in the Christian sense, “communism” (I loathe the very word) is virtuous in that the apostles did not consider any material goods to be theirs - they only used what they needed and encouraged their communities to share and share alike for the common good. It was not coerced nor completely controlling nor destructive of any personal liberties.

And to me, that type of “communism” isn’t wrong, but its because its in a small group, and it’s voluntary. It doesn’t involve a government in any way. Its just people who live and work and share things together. I think collectivism might be a better word to describe it. But certainly the apostles weren’t Marxist type communists

 

[SamH]

And to me, that type of “communism” isn’t wrong, but its because its in a small group, and it’s voluntary. It doesn’t involve a government in any way. Its just people who live and work and share things together. I think collectivism might be a better word to describe it. But certainly the apostles weren’t Marxist type communists

There’s a little more to Marxism than ownership rights.