A parable of socialism. (Amish, claim, capitalist, billion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is more how totalitarian communism works. In "socialist" places like Sweden, people do not share cars, homes, sporting goods etc. They have their own. As for services like health care and education. , they do share hospitals and schools, which is how you would imagine it to work, as it is unrealistic that everyone would have their own hospital and a school.
The ultimate goals of Communism is no government. Sounds like the opposite of totalitarian.
Stalin, Mao, etc... did not create or lead socialist countries.
Socialism can be defined in a nutshell as "government ownership of the means of production." Sometimes this is necessary, as with parks, roads, the military etc. but when not necessary, it is best avoided. Here's a kind of parable that I noticed at work the other day.
No, in communism the government owns all means of production, in socialism only strategic or nationally critical industries (like arms manufacturers or sometimes automakers) are owned by the government while the vast majority of the means of production are privately owned. BTW parts, roads, etc... Are not means of production.
Please for the love of god at least wiki these terms before you post nonsense threads so you'd at least have some vague idea of what the terms you're using mean.
No, in communism the government owns all means of production, in socialism only strategic or nationally critical industries (like arms manufacturers or sometimes automakers) are owned by the government while the vast majority of the means of production are privately owned. BTW parts, roads, etc... Are not means of production.
Please for the love of god at least wiki these terms before you post nonsense threads so you'd at least have some vague idea of what the terms you're using mean.
In Communism the state withers away. There is no government.
This is all theory as communism has never ever existed
Your talking about Marx's theoretical 19th century POST-communist utopia. Which was supposed to come AFTER communism (but which not a single person other than Marx ever believed in). And this doesn't change the fact that the OP is grossly misusing terms which he obviously has no idea of the definition to.
Your talking about Marx's theoretical 19th century POST-communist utopia. Which was supposed to come AFTER communism (but which not a single person other than Marx ever believed in). And this doesn't change the fact that the OP is grossly misusing terms which he obviously has no idea of the definition to.
The ultimate goals of Communism is no government. Sounds like the opposite of totalitarian.
Stalin, Mao, etc... did not create or lead socialist countries.
I did not say that. I said they led totalitarian communist countries, which is what the OP "parable" describes, where no one has any personal possessions, and everyone shares everything whether they like it or not.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 09-26-2012 at 11:14 AM..
That is more how totalitarian communism works. In "socialist" places like Sweden, people do not share cars, homes, sporting goods etc. They have their own. As for services like health care and education. , they do share hospitals and schools, which is how you would imagine it to work, as it is unrealistic that everyone would have their own hospital and a school.
You misunderstand what I said. I define socialism as gov't (or collective if you prefer) ownership of the means of production, while still allowing private ownership of the goods produced. "Communism" is collective ownership of everything, and has rarely existed in practice.
People can quibble over my definition, replacing "collective" with "workers" or whatever, but my definition is pretty standard and pretty well accepted. Here's the word from left-leaning, distinquished economic historian R. Heilbroner:
Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century
Socialism kills incentive. We in America lead because we had freedom to create ideas.. The government did not dictate to the masses and own it all.
If we have a free society with less regulation , there will be an incentive to create because the government can't hinder, stop or direct the creators to invent, innovate or advance.
We need these freedoms and the less government intrusion the better. Regulation can kill an economy. Government is in all of our business today. They want to take it all over from the EPA , to school loans, healthcare, taxing as they see fit and we don't own our own bodies anymore. The government will have the decision in our health care.
Try to deal with the government. It isn't easy. A big government entity looking over every facet of our life is not the way to go.
You misunderstand what I said. I define socialism as gov't (or collective if you prefer) ownership of the means of production
Then you are making up nonsensical definitions which are totally at odds with the standard English definitions you will find in any dictionary. Why not educated yourself, learn what the terms actually mean, and then use them properly? That way you won't look so foolish and uneducated.
You misunderstand what I said. I define socialism as gov't (or collective if you prefer) ownership of the means of production, while still allowing private ownership of the goods produced. "Communism" is collective ownership of everything, and has rarely existed in practice.
People can quibble over my definition, replacing "collective" with "workers" or whatever, but my definition is pretty standard and pretty well accepted. Here's the word from left-leaning, distinquished economic historian R. Heilbroner:
I was talking about your "parable" where no one owned their carts, and my whole point was to say that is an example of totalitarian communism which equates to collective ownership of everything.
It seems you started talking about one thing, and then you continued talking about something else. At this time I do not know what this discussion is about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
