NationStates

Hello everyone! I'm curious on your thoughts on which form of government is better. Arguments should be level headed and have valid proof of their claim.

There is no debate here. Communism and Socialism are apart of the same process.

Wawakanatote wrote:There is no debate here. Communism and Socialism are apart of the same process.

I disagree

Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. The two are interchangeable in some ways, but different in others.In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required. Communism frequently results in low production, mass poverty and limited advancement.Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. Workers receive what they need to produce and survive, but there’s no incentive to achieve more, leaving little motivation

Kyavan wrote:

Wawakanatote wrote:There is no debate here. Communism and Socialism are apart of the same process.

I disagree

Well, you're wrong. You're likely confusing socialism for social democracy which is a common thing. But socialism is a process which eventually leads to communism as a bridge between capitalism and communism.

Wawakanatote wrote:

Kyavan wrote:
I disagree

Well, you're wrong. You're likely confusing socialism for social democracy which is a common thing. But socialism is a process which eventually leads to communism as a bridge between capitalism and communism.

In the defense of the difference between the two. In socialism, workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. While in communism, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal.

IC, my nation would be against both, but probably more a fan of socialism because it's compatible with a strong nation-state, whereas communism (in theory anyway) is not. Communist regimes like the PRC would be seen as admirable for their orderly economic development and social control. Stalinism would be seen as misguided in its goals, but its authoritarian methods would be seen as ideal.

As for democratic or libertarian socialism, our nation is very against it because we reject all forms of egalitarianism. We believe in strict hierarchy and preserving the class system. We think abolishing private property and money is a ridiculous and unworkable goal, and abolishing the state is even more ridiculous, so we are also against anarchism.

Autarkheia wrote:IC, my nation would be against both, but probably more a fan of socialism because it's compatible with a strong nation-state, whereas communism (in theory anyway) is not. Communist regimes like the PRC would be seen as admirable for their orderly economic development and social control. Stalinism would be seen as misguided in its goals, but its authoritarian methods would be seen as ideal.

As for democratic or libertarian socialism, our nation is very against it because we reject all forms of egalitarianism. We believe in strict hierarchy and preserving the class system. We think abolishing private property and money is a ridiculous and unworkable goal, and abolishing the state is even more ridiculous, so we are also against anarchism.

IC, I couldn't agree more but we are a little more tolerant of egalitarianism and we abolished the class system after our civil war.

Kyavan wrote:

Wawakanatote wrote:
Well, you're wrong. You're likely confusing socialism for social democracy which is a common thing. But socialism is a process which eventually leads to communism as a bridge between capitalism and communism.

In the defense of the difference between the two. In socialism, workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. While in communism, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal.

The differences between socialism and communism is not meant to declare which side is "better" because they are meant to work towards he same goal, which is communism. The biggest examples of socialist countries are the USSR and China both of which improved the lives of their people greatly over their previous predecessors.

Wawakanatote wrote:

Kyavan wrote:
In the defense of the difference between the two. In socialism, workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. While in communism, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal.

The differences between socialism and communism is not meant to declare which side is "better" because they are meant to work towards he same goal, which is communism. The biggest examples of socialist countries are the USSR and China both of which improved the lives of their people greatly over their previous predecessors.

Perhaps in the short term. Under Lenin, the USSR prospered greatly under a communist regime but once he died. It was that same regime that caused mass poverty across the whole of Russia. Socialism; especially democratic socialism is every successful in countries like Norway and Sweden.Countries I might add, that haven't even explored the idea of communism.

The terms "socialism" and "communism" can mean different things and the way they are used in Marxism is not the same way everyone uses them. Important thing to keep in mind when discussing this.

Autarkheia wrote:The terms "socialism" and "communism" can mean different things and the way they are used in Marxism is not the same way everyone uses them. Important thing to keep in mind when discussing this.

Yes, but for the purposes of this debate; I am pulling examples of both forms of government from history

Kyavan wrote:

Wawakanatote wrote:
The differences between socialism and communism is not meant to declare which side is "better" because they are meant to work towards he same goal, which is communism. The biggest examples of socialist countries are the USSR and China both of which improved the lives of their people greatly over their previous predecessors.

Perhaps in the short term. Under Lenin, the USSR prospered greatly under a communist regime but once he died. It was that same regime that caused mass poverty across the whole of Russia. Socialism; especially democratic socialism is every successful in countries like Norway and Sweden.Countries I might add, that haven't even explored the idea of communism.

I F*CKING KNEW IT! I knew you were going to call social democracies,"democratic socialist" (a term used to describe Allende and Maduro). Neither Sweden nor Norway have a socialist economy, nor do they have a socialist market economy like China. Also, you do realize that most of the prosperity that happened in the USSR happened under Stalin's time right? Lenin's USSR was nowhere near being a prosperous nation by the time he died as his time was filled mostly by war and restructuring the USSR after civil war. Stalin's USSR (a socialist state) was the one of the only countries that didn't feel the effects of the great depression while also becoming a world superpower in around 20 years.

Wawakanatote wrote:

Kyavan wrote:
Perhaps in the short term. Under Lenin, the USSR prospered greatly under a communist regime but once he died. It was that same regime that caused mass poverty across the whole of Russia. Socialism; especially democratic socialism is every successful in countries like Norway and Sweden.Countries I might add, that haven't even explored the idea of communism.

I F*CKING KNEW IT! I knew you were going to call social democracies,"democratic socialist" (a term used to describe Allende and Maduro). Neither Sweden nor Norway have a socialist economy, nor do they have a socialist market economy like China. Also, you do realize that most of the prosperity that happened in the USSR happened under Stalin's time right? Lenin's USSR was nowhere near being a prosperous nation by the time he died as his time was filled mostly by war and restructuring the USSR after civil war. Stalin's USSR (a socialist state) was the one of the only countries that didn't feel the effects of the great depression while also becoming a world superpower in around 20 years.

Because under Stalin, the USSR was already in a depression!

Kyavan wrote:Perhaps in the short term. Under Lenin, the USSR prospered greatly under a communist regime but once he died. It was that same regime that caused mass poverty across the whole of Russia. Socialism; especially democratic socialism is every successful in countries like Norway and Sweden.Countries I might add, that haven't even explored the idea of communism.

My friend wrote a short and basic overview of socialism in Marxism, and it is as follows.

Socialism is:
- Elimination of exploiting classes
- Elimination of the capitalist mode of production
- Getting rid of M-C-M circuit
- Each according to his ability, each according to his work
- Weakening of the capitalist superstructure not completely but to some extent as the antithesis between intellectual and physical labor will remain, and in third world countries especially the antithesis between agricultural workers and industrial workers

Tell me now, have the Nords done any of these?

They certainly have not eliminated the capitalists.
They certainly have not gotten rid of the capitalist mode of production.
They still use the Money-Commodity-Money cycle.
They haven't abolished capitalist exploitation of labour.
They haven't weakened the capitalist superstructure.

Also on the subject of 'USSR poor and bad', we know this to be completely false. The USSR had perhaps the greatest industrial growth of the 20th century, managed to provide free healthcare and communal housing to those who had previously not had any, and managed to provide land to the landless peasants who were screwed over by the kulaks under the Tsarist regime.

Materials:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /01/07.htm
https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2016/08/ ... evolution/
https://mltheory.wordpress.com/the-real ... iet-union/ (Has a lot of different books to read)
https://espressostalinist.com/the-real-stalin-series/ (Another collection of sources)

Kyavan wrote:

Wawakanatote wrote:
I F*CKING KNEW IT! I knew you were going to call social democracies,"democratic socialist" (a term used to describe Allende and Maduro). Neither Sweden nor Norway have a socialist economy, nor do they have a socialist market economy like China. Also, you do realize that most of the prosperity that happened in the USSR happened under Stalin's time right? Lenin's USSR was nowhere near being a prosperous nation by the time he died as his time was filled mostly by war and restructuring the USSR after civil war. Stalin's USSR (a socialist state) was the one of the only countries that didn't feel the effects of the great depression while also becoming a world superpower in around 20 years.

Because under Stalin, the USSR was already in a depression!

Ah yes, the classic blame Stalin for improving the situation further and developing socialism by discrediting him and lying about the progress made.

Picentia is a socialist country on its way towards communism, and we reject the idea that any given country may be socialist without pursuing communism in some way or another.
Welfare programs, while desirable when sensibly implemented, do not represent socialism on their own. There are a series of measures needed which anti-communist "socialists" may consider too "mean" or "authoritarian" which constitute socialism.

The debate is moot.

Neither, and this will get locked anyways.

Debate on Sub-forum debate not at Factbook & National Informations forum