Socialism vs Communism! - Page 2

Originally posted by: angie.4u

land for housing would come under "useful thing",  so would land for agriculture. Land is limited and can be awarded to only one party. Here starts the conflict.

There is no conflict issue ...if there is a efficient management strategies,they can make changes...😊

Socialism is mostly based on the proletariat to gain ownership over the bourgeoisie, and that all the nation's resources be shifted from the urban areas to the peasants in the countryside, and by everything I mean everything, industrialization, ownership of land, as seen in early Soviet ideology or perhaps even Maoism with the Great Leap Forward etc...

"

Japanese Capitalism:
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

"


OH YEAH! GOTTA CATCH EM ALL, POKEMON!  🤡

Most economic models are based on perfect market scenarios. Capitalism is based on perfect competition. The flip side is that usually some consumers or suppliers unfairly dominate. Communism is based on perfect distribution is. The flip side is that not everybody works the same, wants or needs the same.

Personally, I feel public and private sectors are necessary in economies.  The public sector fosters infrastructure and stability. The private sector fosters innovation and growth.

A for profit company will not invest in rural infrastructure, community services, health care and education as there is no profit in it. A non-profit or government won't invest in the risks that promote innovation and growth. We need both.

We need governments and public agencies to have oversight over the market to minimize unethical, unfair activity and ensure fair trade and fair compensation. We need restructuring in public sectors to minimize bureaucracy, corruption and promote competency and growth.

I try to be moderate, but I tend to lean left due to my sympathies towards public education and working class causes.

Isn't India still a socialist country? As the Indian politics love to talk about reform but at the same time they like spending more money. The lack of debate over the virtues of wasteful policies is striking in the world's largest democracy.  Aren't all the politician sworn to socialism based on the Indira Gandhi Rule to the 42nd Amendment. Will Indian ever successfully ventured into being a capitalist country? 

Originally posted by: night13

Isn't India still a socialist country? As the Indian politics love to talk about reform but at the same time they like spending more money. The lack of debate over the virtues of wasteful policies is striking in the world's largest democracy.  Aren't all the politician sworn to socialism based on the Indira Gandhi Rule to the 42nd Amendment. Will Indian ever successfully ventured into being a capitalist country? 

 

Socialism and communism both based on principle that the economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism as proposed by Marx was new and different reformed economic system directly from capitalism to end the role of capitalist class to bring new economic reform to form a new classless society. Socialism was principle that displaced capitalism and communism emerged from it. Communism was developed from socialism was merge of Lenin and Marx principles, and was higher stage of socialism with political system included in centralized control along with economic system. Socialism was based on economically classeless society whereas communism stresses on both economically classlessness and politically statelessness society.

Socialism basic principle is from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution Whereas Communism From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Communism was far more conservative version of socialism which reflect more control of state on political and economic system. All three socialism, communism, and pure capitalism have their negatives and positives. Comparing all, I support more capitalism and support public ownership but on limited scale in some sector. Private ownership brings more prosperity and growth than too communism examples are South and North Korea.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Is this your thesis Paper then?
http://wikiality.wikia.com/The_People%27s_Republic_of_Madison

<I am secret writer for Wikipedia <lol!> my subject was the tea party of Madison!>

PS: Whoever thought of Sodom on the Lake. I love the name.

To address your points/questions

1. Yes, socialism is more close to communism. It is left of center.

2. Socialism actually is not against private ownership. Private enterprise can still exist under socialism. Capitalism tends to discredit labor and communism tends to discredit capital. Socialism tries to balance the two. There is more emphasis on collective enterprise like cooperative farming, employee owned businesses. However, socialism does tend to lean unfairly in favor of labor. I personally prefer socialism that is more towards the center than far left of center.

3. As a teenager I was very conservative and staunchly capitalistic. As I grew up I discovered several serious flaws and unfair practices in capitalism. I feel ethically and morally better about my own consciousness being more liberal (socially and fiscally). Thats not to say other world views don't have their merit.

<This is where you and me meet...club liberal...a mind that is able to imagine itself believing anything is possible! :)>

4. China's problem is authoritarian government, people have no say. India's problem is corruption. USA's problem is corporations lacking governance (USA is mostly capitalistic with some social welfare programs). European nations like France, Germany, the Nordic nations and Canada are examples of functional socialism balanced with market economies.

<I leave this to a open discussion, cause you have hit the points on which I opened this thread!>

Originally posted by: kuls11

Socialism and communism both based on principle that the economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism as proposed by Marx was new and different reformed economic system directly from capitalism to end the role of capitalist class to bring new economic reform to form a new classless society. Socialism was principle that displaced capitalism and communism emerged from it. Communism was developed from socialism was merge of Lenin and Marx principles, and was higher stage of socialism with political system included in centralized control along with economic system. Socialism was based on economically classeless society whereas communism stresses on both economically classlessness and politically statelessness society.

Socialism basic principle is from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution Whereas Communism From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Communism was far more conservative version of socialism which reflect more control of state on political and economic system. All three socialism, communism, and pure capitalism have their negatives and positives. Comparing all, I support more capitalism and support public ownership but on limited scale in some sector. Private ownership brings more prosperity and growth than too communism examples are South and North Korea.

Finally, someone decided to join me.:)
Did I get you right that you are on fence between capitalism and socialism?  But my liberal heart just does not fit anywhere cause both the socialist and communist rejected me on separating the public and private spheres and between political and civil society. I am now stuck with my individuality which supports both social and economic issues of  unemployment, health care, and education and civil rights!

Originally posted by: night13

Finally, someone decided to join me.:)
Did I get you right that you are on fence between capitalism and socialism?  But my liberal heart just does not fit anywhere cause both the socialist and communist rejected me on separating the public and private spheres and between political and civil society. I am now stuck with my individuality which supports both social and economic issues of  unemployment, health care, and education and civil rights!

I was hardcore pro- socialist during my grown up days. I like Marx theories
till now but overall socialism dissuade the growth of individual,
society and nation. For me his socialism or Lenin communism was more
outcome of imperialism than capitalism. Until capitalism reaches that extreme level I am pro-capitalism. Any day consumerism brings prosperity over monopoly.  

But overall little government ownership in basic amenities like school, hospitals is needed especially in developing countries. Otherwise prosperity is restricted to urban level and rural level being untouched with it. But huge corruptions in these non profitable public sectors at every level just allow few drops of relief to reach them. SO if they are really beneficial without proper check, I have some serious doubts.

On independence India was more incline to state ownership of major infrastructure and it was in economic crisis and on  verge of bankruptcy. They cribbed license raj and brought liberalization of economy 1991. India's fiscal deficit of the GDP is reduced to half from that time. From one billion we have reached more 200 billion in foreign reserve.Corruption was prevalent in India, was there during socialism. Political Corruption is outcome of corporate money so part of both socialist as well as capitalist system. But corruption in monopoly is more toxic that than in capitalist market. But with free market, we initiate more prosperity and with few pros few cons follow too.

Edited by kuls11 - 12 years ago