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.
Some say communism is public ownership of the means of production, some say it is public ownership of all property, and some say communism is the abolition of the notion of property entirely.
I am leaning on my discussions with residents of the former East Germany, who said communism was the political system of the eastern bloc, while socialism was the economic system of the eastern bloc. That seems more concrete to me.
Someone said equality of outcome is a facet of communism. I agree with this, but I'm open to being convinced that equality of outcome would require communism to be implemented, so equality of outcome implies communism. (Although this does not imply the converse.)
I'll tell you in few words what most people what: Equality of opportunities for people to achieve success
That's why everybody is in favor of our socialist school system
Everybody wants every kid to have the opportunity to achieve their full potential and not be held back by mistakes made by his/her parents
Communism is a political system that forbids the owning of private property and otherwise mandates a socialist economy, in which the means of production are publicly owned and administered.
Equality of outcome, or equity, is a goal of communism, as made famous by the latter half of Marx's saying, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
But is equality of outcome the same as communism? Would pursuing policies to bring about equality of outcome have the same effect as communist policies?
I am inclined to say, to an extent but it would not nearly be as oppressive or controlling as communism. Equality of outcome says nothing about ownership, and would most likely rely upon transfer payments rather than expropriation to "level the scoreboard". Private property would be allowed but any income generated from it would be heavily taxed.
I will leave my opinion at that.
Not a very well thought out one. It left out opportunities which comes before outcomes.
In a plutocracy, the short kid would be Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Hunter Biden, Chelsea Clinton, etc. The wooden box would put the kid above the others, assuming the others aren't other kids to rich or politically powerful parents.
Not a very well thought out one. It left out opportunities which comes before outcomes.
In a plutocracy, the short kid would be Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Hunter Biden, Chelsea Clinton, etc. The wooden box would put the kid above the others, assuming the others aren't other kids to rich or politically powerful parents.
It wouldn't matter what the political system was.
I think that those "short" kids you mentioned wouldn't get the wooden box -- they'd already have an escalator. And sometimes I think we do live in a plutocracy. When was the last time a President was elected who wasn't a millionaire?
No equality of outcome is welfare state -communism is you must contribute to your community or go to prison and forced labor camps
Most Americans don’t want communism they want Santa Claus
No equality of outcome is welfare state -communism is you must contribute to your community or go to prison and forced labor camps
Most Americans don’t want communism they want Santa Claus
Santa Claus goes by the name "fully automated luxury communism" among the kids these days.
Having lived in communism, I can assure you there's no equality of outcome in communism. Every society in the history of mankind developed elites with perks and privileges. The mechanisms of how those elites got to be in place is the main difference. Anyone who ever thought that those mechanisms would be more benign in communism than in capitalism was quickly cured of that idea. Unless of course their own elite status made that realization decidedly unhelpful.
Having lived in communism, I can assure you there's no equality of outcome in communism. Every society in the history of mankind developed elites with perks and privileges. The mechanisms of how those elites got to be in place is the main difference. Anyone who ever thought that those mechanisms would be more benign in communism than in capitalism was quickly cured of that idea. Unless of course their own elite status made that realization decidedly unhelpful.
^ I think this is very true. Ideology cannot transcend human nature. Although I think that behavioral conditioning can modify human nature -- and often for the better. But that's probably another topic entirely.
Having lived in communism, I can assure you there's no equality of outcome in communism. Every society in the history of mankind developed elites with perks and privileges. The mechanisms of how those elites got to be in place is the main difference. Anyone who ever thought that those mechanisms would be more benign in communism than in capitalism was quickly cured of that idea. Unless of course their own elite status made that realization decidedly unhelpful.
Some people need to read the Cliff Notes for Animal Farm which they were forced to read in school. The other part is that human nature will eventually impose itself on any political system.
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.
