The Nihilistic view wrote:Glasgia wrote:
The original argument was that Socialism had income equality, not Communism. Please do not shift goalposts, even if you have been proved wrong nonetheless.
As I started the topic which was Communism V Market socialisum. Communism has it thus it is the trueist form of socialism as it does not need money to operate and thus is purely about social communes (Could be small could be nation size) working together for each other, no market need is the key distributing factor between members of the group. Thus in theory it is the most egalitarian social economic philosophy.
I never said socialisum I was referring to communism. So you are shifting the goalposts.
No... You're first post makes it very clear that you are attempting to claim that Market Socialism is not true Socialism. You state, very clearly, "Your not communists so your not real socialists". I am not sure what language you are speaking, but in English that translates as a telling us we're not real Socialists.
However, I will answer you nonetheless. You make various points about Communism, all of which would be a great utopia for most Socialists. Unfortunately for you, none of those are included in Socialist economic theory. According to the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics: "A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises." I do not believe that an absence of currency, creation of social communes or destruction of market are included in the above definition, something I am fairly sure on despite my family's history of bad eyesight. None of your points even increase any of the tenants required to create a Socialist society, meaning Communism is no more Socialist then Market Socialism - But then again, it might just be plain Communist.
