Socialismphobia

[Dinahia]

It theoretically is a benevolent form of capitalism that works as a vessel in order to reach communism,the classless society.

No it's not. Communism is a socialist ideology with added ideals such as statelessness.

[New Rogernomics]

1.
a) England followed Mercantilism and protectionism; and it is still protectionist to an extent, and markets do occur in absence of government, go back to prehistory as England is just one nation-state as opposed to the global economic system.
b) Government has not instituted markets, unless you are referring to the USSR economy or command economies; which are not free market systems.
c) I said natural monopolies can occur, government itself is a monopoly (of law and order, social services,etc); corporations form monopolies through acquisition of a resource (BP, Mobil,etc) or patents (Apple, Microsoft,etc) and through getting a dominant share of the market (Nestle, Monsanto,etc). There are plenty of cases where government has supported and propped up monopolies, especially in case of state controlled enterprises.

2.

Try going back to 1066 and all that. Let's begin with the establishment of market towns... you may get the point that way.

Then also try and see if a monopoly can concur in 1066.

a) Not always, they often are exchanged and expropriated by forced agreements; bribes are common.
b) There is law and order in Somalia, usually under tribal warlords and religious leaders.

a] et alors? Does that alter the point?
b] likewise. Does that alter the point?

1) England (and Europe) was not the global economic system, nor was European economy the only way economies developed, you are missing out Asia and the Middle East in particular. Monopolies did occur, take the silk trade.

2.

a) Markets don't always demand a good be exchanged, nor are goods always exchangeable (bonds, loans, shares,etc).
b) You claimed exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order. There is law and order just not centralized law and order, though there would still be law and order under a non-state system; especially under nomadic societies.

[Camelza]

It theoretically is a benevolent form of capitalism that works as a vessel in order to reach communism,the classless society.

No it's not. Communism is a socialist ideology with added ideals such as statelessness.

Socialism is a different ideology from communism,as such you can't consider communism to be socialist,except if you're talking about libertarian socialism,but then again libertarian socialism isn't a socialistic ideology but a classless one,just like communism.

...it's confusing but that's how it is.

[Saruhan]

Mostly because of cold war propaganda and the people who killed under socialism and communism's banner

[Dinahia]

No it's not. Communism is a socialist ideology with added ideals such as statelessness.

Socialism is a different ideology from communism,as such you can't consider communism to be socialist,except if you're talking about libertarian socialism,but then again libertarian socialism isn't a socialistic ideology but a classless one,just like communism.

...it's confusing but that's how it is.

All communists are socialist. Not all socialists are communist. Understand?

[Camelza]

Socialism is a different ideology from communism,as such you can't consider communism to be socialist,except if you're talking about libertarian socialism,but then again libertarian socialism isn't a socialistic ideology but a classless one,just like communism.

...it's confusing but that's how it is.

All communists are socialist. Not all socialists are communist. Understand?

You might embarass yourself,but, please do explain this to me.

[Olivaero]

All communists are socialist. Not all socialists are communist. Understand?

You might embarass yourself,but, please do explain this to me.

Wouldn't know how he'd embarrass himself considering he's right.

[Divair]

All communists are socialist. Not all socialists are communist. Understand?

You might embarass yourself,but, please do explain this to me.

Communism is a form of socialism.

Just like how social democrats are all capitalists, but not all capitalists are social democrats.

[Souseiseki]

Maybe it's the fear of more government control (of production) leading to corruption?

Dude.

The OP just said George Orwell advocate socialism. The George that fucking wrote 1984, for Christ's sakes.

will i get warned if i say in can't tell who's being serious anymore

we've all read a homage to catalonia, the road to wigan pier and why i write, right?

[Norsklow]

Try going back to 1066 and all that. Let's begin with the establishment of market towns... you may get the point that way.

Then also try and see if a monopoly can concur in 1066.


a] et alors? Does that alter the point?
b] likewise. Does that alter the point?

1) England (and Europe) was not the global economic system, nor was European economy the only way economies developed, you are missing out Asia and the Middle East in particular. Monopolies did occur, take the silk trade.

2.

a) Markets don't always demand a good be exchanged, nor are goods always exchangeable (bonds, loans, shares,etc).
b) You claimed exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order. There is law and order just not centralized law and order, though there would still be law and order under a non-state system; especially under nomadic societies.

1) How do markets form?

2a. Again,of no consequence. the transfers must occur. Something must make transfer practicable.
2b.

You claimed exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order. There is law and order just not centralized law and order,

I realises that... but do you? Will it affect the distances over which transfers occur? Why are goods not simply exchanged in the middle of the ocean?

[Kvatchdom]

$10 says he has to Google who George Orwell is, as well as 1984.

Having read both 1984 and Animal Farm I believe Orwell is pretty much a really pesimistic,anti-authoritarian,libertarian,slightly traditionalist,anarchist,so,the thing is Orwell being an advocate of something of a rare form of libertarian socialism might be true but not in a sense most people would understand.

...he's most certainly not a socialist by the marxist definition.

He was a Marxian Socialist, who followed a less violent version of Marxism called Libertarian Socialism. So yeah, he is a socialist by marxist definition.

[Dinahia]

All communists are socialist. Not all socialists are communist. Understand?

You might embarass yourself,but, please do explain this to me.

Socialism: Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Communism: Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless, stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property.

Communism advocates socialism (common ownership of the means of production is socialism), but it's more specific that just socialism as it also advocates classlessness, statelessness, and the end of wage labour.

All socialists, including communists, advocate public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Not all socialists advocate classlessness, statelessness, and the end of wage labour. Communists do.
Therefore all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Do thou understand now?

[Camelza]

You might embarass yourself,but, please do explain this to me.

Wouldn't know how he'd embarress himself considering he's right.

For all of you:

1st,communists can't be socialist as socialism is largely different because it's a fucking classless,moneyless and stateless society,so you can't actually support that AND a system with a government that tries to create an economic system were the means of production are controlled by the workers which is socialism,okay?

2nd,Now about the second part of his/her sentence ,this is part true as many socialists do like the system they advocate (socialism) and don't want to move further than that (reaching communism etc),but,again you can be a communist in theory and a socialist in practice but you can't be both in theory as well as in practice because they're fucking different ideologies.

[Divair]

Wouldn't know how he'd embarress himself considering he's right.

For all of you:

1st,communists can't be socialist as socialism is largely different because it's a fucking classless,moneyless and stateless society,so you can't actually support that AND a system with a government that tries to create an economic system were the means of production are controlled by the workers which is socialism,okay?

2nd,Now about the second part of his/her sentence ,this is part true as many socialists do like the system they advocate (socialism) and don't want to move further than that (reaching communism etc),but,again you can be a communist in theory and a socialist in practice but you can't be both in theory as well as in practice because they're fucking different ideologies.

Socialism has nothing to do with the state. It can either exist or it cannot in a socialist society. The main point of socialism is democratization of the workplace, with or without a state.

If it is without a state, a currency, and classes, it is referred to as communism.

[Camelza]

Having read both 1984 and Animal Farm I believe Orwell is pretty much a really pesimistic,anti-authoritarian,libertarian,slightly traditionalist,anarchist,so,the thing is Orwell being an advocate of something of a rare form of libertarian socialism might be true but not in a sense most people would understand.

...he's most certainly not a socialist by the marxist definition.

He was a Marxian Socialist, who followed a less violent version of Marxism called Libertarian Socialism. So yeah, he is a socialist by marxist definition.

You contradicted yourself,yes,Orwell liked Marx,but Libertarian Socialism(also known as Social Anarchy) is,slightly(especially regarding individualism) but still different from Marx's socialism,so no,he can't be a Marxist socialist by Marx's definition but a libertarian socialist.

[Camelza]

For all of you:

1st,communists can't be socialist as socialism is largely different because it's a fucking classless,moneyless and stateless society,so you can't actually support that AND a system with a government that tries to create an economic system were the means of production are controlled by the workers which is socialism,okay?

2nd,Now about the second part of his/her sentence ,this is part true as many socialists do like the system they advocate (socialism) and don't want to move further than that (reaching communism etc),but,again you can be a communist in theory and a socialist in practice but you can't be both in theory as well as in practice because they're fucking different ideologies.

Socialism has nothing to do with the state. It can either exist or it cannot in a socialist society. The main point of socialism is democratization of the workplace, with or without a state.

If it is without a state, a currency, and classes, it is referred to as communism.

There is a huge misunderstanding here,as when socialism ceases to have a state and a class system but retains it's worker-managed economy it also ceases to be socialist and it starts being communist. ...they're different systems based on the same ideals.

[Divair]

Socialism has nothing to do with the state. It can either exist or it cannot in a socialist society. The main point of socialism is democratization of the workplace, with or without a state.

If it is without a state, a currency, and classes, it is referred to as communism.

There is a huge misunderstanding here,as when socialism ceases to have a state and a class system but retains it's worker-managed economy it also ceases to be socialist and it starts being communist.

No. There can be socialist societies with states and without.

If it has a state: State socialism.
If it does not: Socialism.
If it does not AND removes classes and currencies: Communism.

[Camelza]

There is a huge misunderstanding here,as when socialism ceases to have a state and a class system but retains it's worker-managed economy it also ceases to be socialist and it starts being communist.

No. There can be socialist societies with states and without.

If it has a state: State socialism.
If it does not: Socialism.
If it does not AND removes classes and currencies: Communism.

If there are no classes then it isn't socialism but communism,a different system/society,for christ's shake!

not having classes and a currency is a huge difference,don't you think? ..you can't call them both "socialist ideologies".

[Divair]

No. There can be socialist societies with states and without.

If it has a state: State socialism.
If it does not: Socialism.
If it does not AND removes classes and currencies: Communism.

If there are no classes then it isn't socialism but communism,a different system/society,for christ's shake!

And no currencies. Yes, that's what I just said.

But if there are still currencies and classes, but no state, it is socialism.

[Dinahia]

Socialism has nothing to do with the state. It can either exist or it cannot in a socialist society. The main point of socialism is democratization of the workplace, with or without a state.

If it is without a state, a currency, and classes, it is referred to as communism.

There is a huge misunderstanding here,as when socialism ceases to have a state and a class system but retains it's worker-managed economy it also ceases to be socialist and it starts being communist. ...they're different systems based on the same ideals.

It does not stop being socialist. It's both socialist and communist, because communism is socialist.

[Camelza]

If there are no classes then it isn't socialism but communism,a different system/society,for christ's shake!

And no currencies. Yes, that's what I just said.

But if there are still currencies and classes, but no state, it is socialism.

well,yes ...why are we arguing?

[Divair]

And no currencies. Yes, that's what I just said.

But if there are still currencies and classes, but no state, it is socialism.

well,yes ...why are we arguing?

You wanted us to explain why communism is socialism

[Dinahia]

well,yes ...why are we arguing?

You wanted us to explain why communism is socialis[t]

*They're not synonyms.

[Camelza]

well,yes ...why are we arguing?

You wanted us to explain why communism is socialism

But communism isn't socialism ...they're different!

[Divair]

You wanted us to explain why communism is socialism

But communism isn't socialism ...they're different!

Communism is a variant of socialism.