Neither socialism or communism allow for private ownership of land or companies. These things are owned either by the people or the state. This is the dictionary definition of these terms. These terms are frequently interchanged depending on where you look for a definition, there isn’t much difference between the two. When individuals can not own private property, their self sufficiency is gone, they become completely dependent on the benevolence of others for their existence, and others ALWAYS means the government and it’s enlightened leaders. THIS is communism.
The “socialist” countries in Europe aren’t really socialist. They all allow for private ownership of resources such as land and companies, the owners of these resources are allowed to engage in Capitalism, making a PROFIT. however, everyone in these socialist countries, especially the companies are very heavily taxed, which supports their so called socialism. Without the support of the tax money from the private companies, these countries economies would collapse. This so called socialism is not socialism. It’s a capitalist nanny state that only exists through very high taxes imposed on private businesses. Socialism by itself leads to economic destruction because no matter how many times you libs say it, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO WORK FOR FREE AND SEE THE FRUIT OF THEIR LABOR CONFISCATED AND GIVEN TO OTHERS WHO DON’T DESERVE IT!!! NEVER, EVER, EVER!!! What exactly do you think is meant by those candidates pushing for a universal basic income for EVERYONE whether they choose to work or not??
We can see the result of socialism and communism in Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba.
Every nation that called or calls itself Communist begins with and continues with socialism and every last one was quickly transformed into an oppressed, poverty stricken hell hole. Venezuela is a good current example. The closer a country gets to real socialism, the more broke that country becomes.
The idiots pushing socialism in our country are engaging in the same tactics of the dictatorships of communism. They can’t win by force (yet), so they are conditioning the people slowly to accept the tenets of communism. They are removing everything of substance and consequence from our consciousness and society. They are eroding and a diminishing our rights enumerated in the constitution. They are creating an attitude of entitlement ( which leads to dependence). They are stripping us of a national identity, diminishing every idea worth fighting for and stupifying the population into such a state of ignorance and apathy that our youth will never even realize what they are “voting” away.
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I’m not saying that Communism is realistic possible any time soon. I’m not a Marxist or a Communist. As a far off post-scarcity utopia, I think it might be nice… Think Star Trek. But I don’t think its realistic any time soon nor do I think the Marxist-Leninst philosophy of forcing it is a going to help. The only way Communism will come to pass is through a slow democratic process. When it comes to the far off future and democracy then I see no reason to assume the slow dismantling of the government wouldn’t be possible. A proper and good government is of the people, after all.
As for what it would look like, I don’t know… if I were to take a guess, I would assume it would involve government programs and services being shut down as they are no longer needed eventually just leaving the decision apparatus in tack. That would then shut down as everyone would be self-governed through altruism. Maybe? I mean, this is sci-fi ■■■■ at this point… which further underlines the fact that socialism and communism are different. Socialism, assuming the public is behind it, is workable… Communism, not so much.
Yes. I have… I’m trying to avoid confusion by asking you for specifics. For example, would you put the Democrats pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy as something that if enacted will lead inexorably to communism?
I was a huge Star Trek fan. That being said, scarcity is not due to scarcity. It’s a product of human nature. There will always be plenty of people who want much more than they could ever need, and are willing to take it by force from others. That’s the biggest problem I have with socialism. There’s never been a time throughout all of recorded history when there weren’t conquerors and dictators who just wanted to share their benevolence with their neighbors. But for some reason, the neighbors are always compelled to insist these “leaders” keep their benevolence to themselves. This is our nature. Yes, we can do altruistic things. We can help our neighbor, we can volunteer in some capacity. We are capable of charity, but as long as their are people who contribute nothing, then eventually, even the most giving of people will stop giving. That’s when Socialism fails, and it doesn’t take long.
Have European countries enacted permanent higher progressive taxes than we have? Yes they have and those higher taxes have been in place for multiple decades. Are they all communist? Not one.
Why do you fixate on one single thing and ignore everything else that was included with it? The context of taxes in my posts is the demonizing of wealth and rich people, which has often been used to stir up support for revolution. The resentment generates support for taxing and even seizing their property.
Are European countries Communist?? I’m guessing you’ve got to be in the same age group as F.T. Do they teach history any more in public schools? We’re you born before 1989? If so, couldn’t have been much before that, otherwise you wouldn’t have had to have such ancient and irrelevant history ignored in your education because you would remember it. Google it…
Dude, we all are aware of the history of communism in Europe. But relevant to today, you say the Democrats are pushing issues that lead to communism.
I would submit that the exact things the Dems support, high taxes on wealthy, gun control, socialized medicine, higher minimum wages, better safety nets…
All are endemic in European countries today and have been for a very long time. Because it has been a long time, it appears your theory that it always leads to communism is unsupported by the evidence.
Now, you could change your theory in light of evidence or you can continue with your theory despite the evidence not supporting it.
