PDA

View Full Version : Why has the word socialist replaced communist?




Howard_Roark
04-07-2009, 04:44 PM
North Korea and Venezuela are "socialist countries"?? Shouldent they be communist? I never hear communist anymore?

Andrew-Austin
04-07-2009, 04:46 PM
Cuz it sounds more polite, if you object to socialism you must be anti-social or something.

Kludge
04-07-2009, 04:46 PM
For many years, the jean companies have been systematically decreasing the size of womens' jeans to make women feel slimmer when they wear them.

Pennsylvania
04-07-2009, 04:47 PM
Because, technically speaking they are socialist and not communist countries.

ChaosControl
04-07-2009, 04:53 PM
Kludge nailed it.

Young Paleocon
04-07-2009, 04:58 PM
the word socialist is older than communist and they are different

nate895
04-07-2009, 05:22 PM
Socialism is government control of the economy. Communism is when there is no "government" per se, but the "proletariat" decides as to who will get resources. All countries that we call (or have called) "communist" are in fact socialist, and true communism can never exist because a system without a coercive government will ultimately become anarcho-capitalist because that system is the natural order of things without a government.

brandon
04-07-2009, 05:33 PM
IMO, "socialism" is used incorrectly all the time. Most of the things described as socialism are really better described as fascist, such as bailouts, stimulus, etc.

nate895
04-07-2009, 05:34 PM
IMO, "socialism" is used incorrectly all the time. Most of the things described as socialism are really better described as fascist, such as bailouts, stimulus, etc.

Very true

But, which is better: fascism or socialism?

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Marx made no distinction between the two words, and the Russians used both socialist and communist. While they were the Communist Party they renamed the country the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Young Paleocon
04-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Fascism is basically socialism in practice.

nate895
04-07-2009, 05:47 PM
Fascism is basically socialism in practice.

And socialism is basically communism in practice. I guess that means that big government that doesn't go to the extent of "fascism" (i.e., our society) is fascism in practice?

silverhawks
04-07-2009, 05:51 PM
Why don't we simplify it all a great deal and just call it totalitarianism, as opposed to liberty.

LATruth
04-07-2009, 05:53 PM
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6589/obamanazi5181658.png

Young Paleocon
04-07-2009, 05:53 PM
Socialism isn't communism in practice, communism explicitly abolishes private property, it is however the step before communism.

Pepsi
04-07-2009, 05:54 PM
I thout that Green movement was the morden day Communists

LATruth
04-07-2009, 05:55 PM
Socialism isn't communism in practice, communism explicitly abolishes private property, it is however the step before communism.


If you listen to Micheal Badnarik's lecture on the constitution he states that we do not have private property in the sense that we think we have in the U.S., just the illusion of property ownership. :(

nate895
04-07-2009, 05:55 PM
Socialism isn't communism in practice, communism explicitly abolishes private property, it is however the step before communism.

Communism is when there is no government and the "proletariat" "democratically" decides who gets what. That simply can't happen, and any "communist" with functioning brain cells knows that, so they adopt extreme socialist systems.

pcosmar
04-07-2009, 05:57 PM
Socialism isn't communism in practice, communism explicitly abolishes private property, it is however the step before communism.

Isn't the nationalization of banks, industry , farms, etc., abolishing private property?

DamianTV
04-07-2009, 06:01 PM
The two words do not mean the same thing. However, it doesnt mean that the different definitions of both words can be applicable.

Communism: All people are forced into equality. Doctors make no more money than garbagemen. The USSR is now getting away from this.

Socialism: Complete government control. China is probably a good example, some people make more money than others and I dont think their government complains too much about that.

In respect to the United Soviet Socialist Republic, both definitions were applicable, so when people use the words and do not understand them, they use the words interchangably and further the confusion.

Young Paleocon
04-07-2009, 06:02 PM
Isn't the nationalization of banks, industry , farms, etc., abolishing private property?

No not all goods are held in common....Look none of this collectivism is perfect in practice and overlaps in many ways. If you want the nearest thing to communism look up the radical Taborites of the Hussite movement. At one point they held women in common, abolished money, and all goods were held in common. I think we can agree that isn't socialism. However, I think we can also agree that the difference between fascism/socialism/communism are irrelevant because they are economically impossible in the long run.

SWATH
04-07-2009, 06:11 PM
From an email I wrote:

I thought you all might like this, from an argument I was in awhile ago. When it became clear that it was an argument over semantics I had to set the ground rules, and rule #1 was to define your terms. Conservative, liberal, socialist, what do these things even mean? I hope it helps point out how certain terms have been hijacked and now bear no resemblance to their meaning. One of the more famous accounts of semantic hijacking happened in the late 1700's when a group of people advocating a strong centralized federal government that had sovereignty over the states, began calling themselves "Federalists". Federalism means a decentralized government formed from the federation of independent states, so it was an oxymoron. The ones who actually believed in the concept of federalism became known as the anti-federalists. Anyway here is the list of pertinent terms that I thought necessary to define.
_____________________________________________

conserve = to maintain for the present that from the past, similar to the term "preserve" whereas this is to maintain for the future that from the present

conservative = one who conserves, it means nothing about an ideology other than what is traditionally ascribed to it. Since what is ascribed to it constantly changes, it means nothing tangible.

conservatism = In politics, one who advocates old ideas. Which old ideas? Slavery or liberty? Depends on what is ascribed to it. The term is an empty vessel whose contents can be expelled and refilled with whatever substance is politically palatable at the time. Traditionally, it means to conserve the old ideas of liberty and republicanism.

republic = res publica, the thing which is public, the law.

republican = one who advocates a republic, no relation to the party at all.

republicanism = to advocate a republic, whereas it is presupposed that individuals possess certain unalienable rights and that these rights are inherent, thus the law is to protect the rights of individuals from infringement by others.

democracy = demos kratien, rule of the people

democrat = one who advocates a democracy, also no relation to the party but it's meaning is more preserved here.

democratic = to advocate a democracy, whereas there is no supposition of inherent rights and the rule of the majority determines public policy.

liberty = to be free from arbitrary restraint

liberal = one who advocates liberty, no relation to the currently ascribed connotations. The original connotation, also known as classical liberalism or libertarianism, is what the term conservative used to refer to. To conserve the ideals of advocating liberty.

liberalism = to advocate liberty, again no relation at all to its current incantation.

libertarianism = to advocate liberty above all else

authority = appeal to the idea of submission to a higher body

authoritarianism = to advocate authority above all else

social = more than one equally, a plural of the individual

socialist = one who advocates equality for all

socialism = to advocate equality for all, aspiring to make all equal, whereas there is no concept of self-determination

commune = to share equally

communist = one who advocates sharing equally

communism = to advocate sharing equally, aspiring to make all properties shared, whereas there is no concept of individual ownership

total = to encompass all

totalitarian = one who advocates encompassing all

totalitarianism = to advocate an all encompassing authority above all else to which all shall submit, whereas there is no concept of individual sovereignty

sovereign = to have no higher authority

state = an arbitrary artificial authority

statist = one who advocates an arbitrary artificial authority

statism = to advocate an arbitrary artificial authority

fascis = to bundle

fascist = one who advocates the bundling of many into one

fascism = to advocate the bundling of many into one, whereas the individual is irrelevant and exists to create a sum total. The sum has relevancy whereas the parts do not. It is a hybrid of various philosophies such as socialism and statism, and which all result in totalitarianism. It is not a true ideology in that it does not have a specific endeavor, it is merely that the "privileges" of the individual are subservient to the wants of the state. Its common symbol is that of a bundle of sticks tethered together with an axe in the middle called a fasces, such as seen on the Lincoln memorial or the backdrop behind the podium in the Congress.

These can all be summed up with the following two polar opposite philosophies, in that every political nuance can be boiled down and ultimately reduced to these basic two as they conflict on every point and are further indivisible.

individual = the self

individualist = one who advocates the self

individualism = to advocate the self, whereas the individual is sovereign and rights are innate and unalienable. Ownership is implicit such that the concept of self-ownership is concrete and unquestioned whereas one owns ones' self, self-determination is self-evident, and all rights are inherent and retained up to the point of encroachment on the equal rights of another. The polar opposite of collectivism for which there are no concessions . It is this philosophy that all the ideologies and terms highlighted in blue are compatible and synonymous with.

collect = to group together

collectivist = one who advocates the grouping of many into one or more

collectivism = to advocate the grouping of the many into one or more, a plural of the individual treated as one, whereas the individual is immaterial, groups of individuals are granted worth according to the number of individuals collected into the group. There is no concept of individual sovereignty, ownership, self-ownership in that one cannot even own ones' self, self-determination, rights or liberty. The polar opposite of individualism for which there are no concessions. It is this philosophy that all the ideologies and terms highlighted in red are compatible and synonymous with.


The terms in black have arbitrary intangible meanings and are thus meaningless for the sake of academics, however if referring to their traditionally ascribed definitions, they would be highlighted in blue.

Objectivist
04-07-2009, 06:21 PM
Watch the video in my sig, the wimp one.

Again Marx made no distinction between the two.

Both are immoral in my opinion.

Freedom 4 all
04-07-2009, 06:32 PM
When something becomes synonymous with mass murder it tends to get a different label.

Communism is now socialism
War is now peacekeeping
Blackwater is now Xe
and the list goes on...

LATruth
04-07-2009, 06:35 PM
when something becomes synonymous with mass murder it tends to get a different label.

Communism is now socialism
war is now peacekeeping
blackwater is now xe
and the list goes on...

war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength


"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible."

Howard_Roark
04-07-2009, 07:30 PM
I read over everyones comments, I still think there should be a distinction between euro socialist countries like Germany and North Korea..

Bruno
04-07-2009, 07:55 PM
It made a lot more sense to me before I read this thread. :p

I like how it is explained here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

mediahasyou
04-07-2009, 08:10 PM
All big communists called themselves socialists.


Remember the USSR called themselves socialists:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics


Dont fret about it. Words have become meaningless.

Bruno
04-07-2009, 08:24 PM
From an email I wrote:

I thought you all might like this, from an argument I was in awhile ago. When it became clear that it was an argument over semantics I had to set the ground rules, and rule #1 was to define your terms. Conservative, liberal, socialist, what do these things even mean? I hope it helps point out how certain terms have been hijacked and now bear no resemblance to their meaning. One of the more famous accounts of semantic hijacking happened in the late 1700's when a group of people advocating a strong centralized federal government that had sovereignty over the states, began calling themselves "Federalists". Federalism means a decentralized government formed from the federation of independent states, so it was an oxymoron. The ones who actually believed in the concept of federalism became known as the anti-federalists. Anyway here is the list of pertinent terms that I thought necessary to define.
_____________________________________________

conserve = to maintain for the present that from the past, similar to the term "preserve" whereas this is to maintain for the future that from the present

conservative = one who conserves, it means nothing about an ideology other than what is traditionally ascribed to it. Since what is ascribed to it constantly changes, it means nothing tangible.

conservatism = In politics, one who advocates old ideas. Which old ideas? Slavery or liberty? Depends on what is ascribed to it. The term is an empty vessel whose contents can be expelled and refilled with whatever substance is politically palatable at the time. Traditionally, it means to conserve the old ideas of liberty and republicanism.

republic = res publica, the thing which is public, the law.

republican = one who advocates a republic, no relation to the party at all.

republicanism = to advocate a republic, whereas it is presupposed that individuals possess certain unalienable rights and that these rights are inherent, thus the law is to protect the rights of individuals from infringement by others.

democracy = demos kratien, rule of the people

democrat = one who advocates a democracy, also no relation to the party but it's meaning is more preserved here.

democratic = to advocate a democracy, whereas there is no supposition of inherent rights and the rule of the majority determines public policy.

liberty = to be free from arbitrary restraint

liberal = one who advocates liberty, no relation to the currently ascribed connotations. The original connotation, also known as classical liberalism or libertarianism, is what the term conservative used to refer to. To conserve the ideals of advocating liberty.

liberalism = to advocate liberty, again no relation at all to its current incantation.

libertarianism = to advocate liberty above all else

authority = appeal to the idea of submission to a higher body

authoritarianism = to advocate authority above all else

social = more than one equally, a plural of the individual

socialist = one who advocates equality for all

socialism = to advocate equality for all, aspiring to make all equal, whereas there is no concept of self-determination

commune = to share equally

communist = one who advocates sharing equally

communism = to advocate sharing equally, aspiring to make all properties shared, whereas there is no concept of individual ownership

total = to encompass all

totalitarian = one who advocates encompassing all

totalitarianism = to advocate an all encompassing authority above all else to which all shall submit, whereas there is no concept of individual sovereignty

sovereign = to have no higher authority

state = an arbitrary artificial authority

statist = one who advocates an arbitrary artificial authority

statism = to advocate an arbitrary artificial authority

fascis = to bundle

fascist = one who advocates the bundling of many into one

fascism = to advocate the bundling of many into one, whereas the individual is irrelevant and exists to create a sum total. The sum has relevancy whereas the parts do not. It is a hybrid of various philosophies such as socialism and statism, and which all result in totalitarianism. It is not a true ideology in that it does not have a specific endeavor, it is merely that the "privileges" of the individual are subservient to the wants of the state. Its common symbol is that of a bundle of sticks tethered together with an axe in the middle called a fasces, such as seen on the Lincoln memorial or the backdrop behind the podium in the Congress.

These can all be summed up with the following two polar opposite philosophies, in that every political nuance can be boiled down and ultimately reduced to these basic two as they conflict on every point and are further indivisible.

individual = the self

individualist = one who advocates the self

individualism = to advocate the self, whereas the individual is sovereign and rights are innate and unalienable. Ownership is implicit such that the concept of self-ownership is concrete and unquestioned whereas one owns ones' self, self-determination is self-evident, and all rights are inherent and retained up to the point of encroachment on the equal rights of another. The polar opposite of collectivism for which there are no concessions . It is this philosophy that all the ideologies and terms highlighted in blue are compatible and synonymous with.

collect = to group together

collectivist = one who advocates the grouping of many into one or more

collectivism = to advocate the grouping of the many into one or more, a plural of the individual treated as one, whereas the individual is immaterial, groups of individuals are granted worth according to the number of individuals collected into the group. There is no concept of individual sovereignty, ownership, self-ownership in that one cannot even own ones' self, self-determination, rights or liberty. The polar opposite of individualism for which there are no concessions. It is this philosophy that all the ideologies and terms highlighted in red are compatible and synonymous with.


The terms in black have arbitrary intangible meanings and are thus meaningless for the sake of academics, however if referring to their traditionally ascribed definitions, they would be highlighted in blue.

Like the bundles on the back of a dime, or the large wooden bundles hanging in Congress?

SWATH
04-07-2009, 08:43 PM
Like this?

http://bennettcarnahan.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/fasces.jpg
http://www.jamaicahighschool.org/HIST/WWIIMEM/fasces.jpg
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:MIvFcF25u_sSuM:http://z.about.com/d/usmilitary/1/0/T/Z/Image76.gif
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/130105fasces3.jpg
http://media.nowpublic.net/images//db/e/dbebfa9d55acf64a654769f2b9299983.jpg
http://freedomfightersforamerica.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/congress_fasces.195230645_std.jpg
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bush_speech_fasces.jpg
http://home.att.net/%7Ecarman_family_history/image/henry.jpg

Brian4Liberty
04-07-2009, 08:51 PM
Watch the video in my sig, the wimp one.

Again Marx made no distinction between the two.

Both are immoral in my opinion.

I think you are right. I believe I read where Marx came up with the word "communism" because he had disagreements with other socialists. I think the divide was that the Royalty was co-opting socialism.

Imperial
04-07-2009, 08:52 PM
I think communists are socialists but socialists are not necessarily communists.

AutoDas
04-07-2009, 08:58 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/US-TaxCourt-Shield-BW.svg/120px-US-TaxCourt-Shield-BW.svg.png

LATruth
04-07-2009, 10:44 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/US-TaxCourt-Shield-BW.svg/120px-US-TaxCourt-Shield-BW.svg.png

says it all...

akihabro
04-08-2009, 02:53 AM
Read my signature. That's why. And everyone knows how evil communism was and it was shut down, except in N.Korea and Cuba.

Bruno
04-08-2009, 05:29 AM
Yes, Swath, like those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_symbolism

sailor
04-08-2009, 05:33 AM
North Korea and Venezuela are "socialist countries"?? Shouldent they be communist? I never hear communist anymore?

What makes you think Venezuela is Communist?

acptulsa
04-08-2009, 06:16 AM
Because communists are smarter than anarchists. Communism gained a reputation for failure, so every time they change a few details to make it look better on paper, they have enough sense to change the name, too.

weslinder
04-08-2009, 06:23 AM
Venezuela isn't communist or socialist. It's a fascist country. And like most fascists, Chavez is a radical populist. There are many, many similarities between Chavez and Mussolini and Huey Long.

demolama
04-08-2009, 07:53 AM
Communism is where there is no state... no one is in charge... everyone shares and shares alike..... there has never been a Communist country... ever

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-08-2009, 11:13 AM
Socialism is government control of the economy. Communism is when there is no "government" per se, but the "proletariat" decides as to who will get resources. All countries that we call (or have called) "communist" are in fact socialist, and true communism can never exist because a system without a coercive government will ultimately become anarcho-capitalist because that system is the natural order of things without a government.

While you may be right, the foundation of the government of the United States was established by natural law. Natural laws during that time reduced down to physical conclusions because the epistemological social-sciences had yet to be ushered in by Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant was a peer of our Founding-Fathers after all. For example, the time for George Washington was February1732 – December 1799 while Kant's time was April 1724 – February 1804.
So, why do we waste our time discussing the European political sciences of socialism and communism? The Europeans have yet to arrive at their outward destination while our Founding-Fathers declared that we have arrived at an inward one.
Our Founders made this declaration not as official rulers but while acting on the part of the people. Rather than destory all tyranny as politics in Europe still attempts to do, our future government would incorporate it as an evil necessary to serve the people.
While the modern science of theory has since eroded politics to question whether there is any difference between the life of a human being and that of a faceless bug, the science of natural law viewed the life of man as centrally important while his and her contentment existed as the ideal.

torchbearer
04-08-2009, 11:17 AM
North Korea and Venezuela are "socialist countries"?? Shouldent they be communist? I never hear communist anymore?

There is an important reason.
We called the russians of the USSR communist. They were apart of the communist party. But the technical description of their government was closer to pure socialism.
They were a union of soviet socialist republics.

Ingorance is the reason people attribute communism with USSR. The party name is not the actual government type.

Our government is similar to the one USSR. It is a socialist/fascist/collectivist government.

A hippie commune or a monestary is a communist form of government.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-08-2009, 11:48 AM
There is an important reason.
We called the russians of the USSR communist. They were apart of the communist party. But the technical description of their government was closer to pure socialism.
They were a union of soviet socialist republics.

Ingorance is the reason people attribute communism with USSR. The party name is not the actual government type.

Our government is similar to the one USSR. It is a socialist/fascist/collectivist government.

A hippie commune or a monestary is a communist form of government.

*Our Founding-Fathers declared that all men, both male and female, were created equal (This goes all the way back to Socrates when he pondered how every human soul reduced to perfection and yet each human-being is born into this world unequal. If every male and female has a soul, then they have a soul which reduces to perfection and therefore they are born equal. The point being made here is that this isn't just a fabulous ideal but was a sound established fact based on rational inductive reasoning).
A natural-right was established by natural law. Natural laws were physical conclusions which reduced down like DnA to become that which is unalienable (bipartisan) in every American.
So, once again, why do we even discuss European nonsense?

*President Obama uses the term "the founding-fathers" to belittle them and to seperate and raise himself above their level. While our Founding-Fathers established the United States on a great history which went back for thousands of years, modern politicians President Obama included have establish their present day policies not on a long established history but on the basis of their own natural greatness.

torchbearer
04-08-2009, 11:51 AM
*Our Founding-Fathers declared that all men, both male and female, were created equal (This goes all the way back to Socrates when he pondered how every human soul reduced to perfection and yet each human-being is born into this world unequal. If every male and female has a soul, then they have a soul which reduces to perfection and wo they are born equal. The point being made here is this isn't just a fabulous ideal but was an established fact based on rational inductive reasoning).
A natural-right was established by natural law. Natural laws were physical conclusions which reduced down like DnA to become that which is unalienable (bipartisan) in every American.
So, once again, why do we even discuss European nonsense?

*President Obama uses the term "the founding-fathers" to belittle them and to seperate and raise himself above their level. While our Founding-Fathers established the United States on a great history which went back for thousands of years, modern politicians including President Obama establish their present policy not on long established history but on the basis of their own natural greatness.

This is an example of a failure to communicate.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-08-2009, 11:59 AM
This is an example of a failure to communicate.

I am not failing to communicate. I do understand that most in here are lost in European politics while not understanding that American politics is based on a totally different science.

torchbearer
04-08-2009, 12:01 PM
I am not failing to communicate. I do understand that most in here are lost in European politics while not understanding that American politics is based on a totally different science.

If I can't understand what you say, then our attempt at communication has failed.
We need to work on a language we can both understand so that our conversation will have meaning to us both.

sailor
04-08-2009, 12:08 PM
A state can be called Communist for the sake of conversation if the party in power is a Communist party and if the stated goal of that state is to reach Communism.

Venezueala is not Communist. It is neither ruled by a Communist party, nor do they anywhere state a desire to reach Communism.



BTW, Interesting enough Lenin was very careful about this. He never reffered to Soviet Union as a Communist country, only Communist-ruled. But then he couldn`t have seeing he was pursuing Capitalist-like NEP.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-08-2009, 12:12 PM
If I can't understand what you say, then our attempt at communication has failed.
We need to work on a language we can both understand so that our conversation will have meaning to us both.

If an African-American attempted to compare voo-doo with the formal-culture established by our Founding-Fathers, I would give him or her the same argument. The people in Africa are still looking for an outward solution to their political problems while the formal declaration made by our Founding-Fathers established that the people of the United States have already arrived. We all have an equally perfect soul within us as Americans and this means we are all born, both king and peasant alike, with a business agenda.
I would also make the same argument with Hispanic, Asian and Native Americans. If we really want to preserve our American heritage against such invading minor cultures, we need to preserve it against European culture as well.
That is what Ralph Waldo Emerson was all about.

Howard_Roark
04-08-2009, 12:24 PM
Wow, I am amazed 47 replies to my to my question. Clearly I have hit a fuse here. I just watched http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950 and at 24 minutes it defines communism as complete control of the capital in an economy. Clearly, North Korea is communist under that definition.

When you think of communism, you think of enemies of America, its a very powerful negative term in the USA which fought the cold war and vietnam ect. My theory is that the liberal media has replaced it with the much more acceptable term socialism.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-08-2009, 12:30 PM
Wow, I am amazed 47 replies to my to my question. Clearly I have hit a fuse here. I just watched http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950 and at 24 minutes it defines communism as complete control of the capital in an economy. Clearly, North Korea is communist under that definition.

When you think of communism, you think of enemies of America, its a very powerful negative term in the USA which fought the cold war and vietnam ect. My theory is that the liberal media has replaced it with the much more acceptable term socialism.

I do think this is an important European issue. Please move it over to a more appropriate European forum.

Howard_Roark
04-08-2009, 12:33 PM
I do think this is an important European issue. Please move it over to a more appropriate European forum.

What? My question was in reference to North Korea and Venezuela..

Pennsylvania
04-08-2009, 12:39 PM
it defines communism as complete control of the capital in an economy. Clearly, North Korea is communist under that definition.


Under that definition, yes, North Korea would be considered communist. However, North Korea cannot be considered communist by Marx's descriptions of a communist society which explicitly excludes the State.

sailor
04-08-2009, 12:41 PM
Also North Korea doesn`t consider itself Communist nor do they want to be Communist. They claim they have their own thing going ("Juche") which supposedly transcends punny Communism.

Howard_Roark
04-08-2009, 12:43 PM
Under that definition, yes, North Korea would be considered communist. However, North Korea cannot be considered communist by Marx's descriptions of a communist society which explicitly excludes the State.

I don't understand, communist China and the USSR obviously had a government. I think this is semantics, communism is just a more extreme version of socialism.

sailor
04-08-2009, 12:43 PM
I just watched http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950 and at 24 minutes it defines communism as complete control of the capital in an economy. Clearly, North Korea is communist under that definition.

By this definition Tito`s Yugoslavia for example wasn`t Communist.

Howard_Roark
04-08-2009, 12:45 PM
I think if the government controls the majority >51% of capital then its communist.

sailor
04-08-2009, 12:46 PM
I don't understand, communist China and the USSR obviously had a government. I think this is semantics, communism is just a more extreme version of socialism.

No thats not really right. In Marxist orthodoxy Communism is the blessed holly era that we are going to reach after a thousand year old rule of Socialism on Earth. Where there will be no property, no families, no countries, no religion... (What John Lennon is singing about in Imagine.)

torchbearer
04-08-2009, 12:46 PM
I think if the government controls the majority >51% of capital then its communist.

by your definition, how could a hippie commune also be considered communal in design?

sailor
04-08-2009, 12:47 PM
I think if the government controls the majority >51% of capital then its communist.

That`s kind of arbitrary definition in my view. But I suppose it has its uses.

Pennsylvania
04-08-2009, 12:54 PM
I don't understand, communist China and the USSR obviously had a government. I think this is semantics, communism is just a more extreme version of socialism.

In marxist ideology, Communism is the type of stateless, partyless, classless society that would follow state socialism. These countries were all "communist" in that they wished for communism as their eventual goal, but none ever achieved communism, nor anything close to communism.

Communist China and the USSR, therefore, were always socialist countries in how they actually operated, and never communist.

AuH20
04-08-2009, 12:55 PM
I don't understand, communist China and the USSR obviously had a government. I think this is semantics, communism is just a more extreme version of socialism.

Communism controls the means of production, while contemporary socialism is predicated on subtly penalizing the most sucessful through the complexity of the tax code. At least, communism is out front about its goals, as opposed to this shady game we play with the socialists. They keep pushing the needle little by little under the cover of night.

yoshimaroka
04-08-2009, 01:07 PM
In marxist ideology, Communism is the type of stateless, partyless, classless society that would follow state socialism. These countries were all "communist" in that they wished for communism as their eventual goal, but none ever achieved communism, nor anything close to communism.

Communist China and the USSR, therefore, were always socialist countries in how they actually operated, and never communist.

This.

acptulsa
04-08-2009, 01:17 PM
In marxist ideology, Communism is the type of stateless, partyless, classless society that would follow state socialism. These countries were all "communist" in that they wished for communism as their eventual goal, but none ever achieved communism, nor anything close to communism.

Communist China and the USSR, therefore, were always socialist countries in how they actually operated, and never communist.

I do believe this is more accurate than my perception, which was iirc gleaned in a public propaganda school. That held that socialism was an economic system, while communism was more of a governmental system. Which sounds more like the prevailing attitude they were propigating at the time (communism=tyranny) than actual fact.

tonesforjonesbones
04-08-2009, 01:19 PM
g edward griffins documentaries are GREAT if you go to freedom force international he has them all posted...he is an expert on communism, socialsim and fabianism...totalitarianism/ collectivism. tones

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
04-08-2009, 02:18 PM
g edward griffins documentaries are GREAT if you go to freedom force international he has them all posted...he is an expert on communism, socialsim and fabianism...totalitarianism/ collectivism. tones

So, he is an expert on European culture then?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident (to be understood not on the level of our partisan minds but on the level of our collective, bipartisan conscience to the very foundation of the soul with each soul reducing to perfection), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, (this means both male and female have been endowed with "certain unalienable Rights" because each are human beings created with a soul that reduces to the same perfection), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (all people, whether king or peasant are born with a business agenda).


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People of the United States (Our Founding-Fathers acted on the behalf of the lowly people), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (in order so that we can divorce tyranny and remarry ourselves to a more perfect government), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America (because they acted on the behalf of the people, our Founding-Fathers established a Civil-Purpose above all legal-precedents whether they be of the past traditions that persecuted us or of any future occurence that might arise to endanger our posteriety).

This is not European.