I believe it is true that Communism is the natural evolution of Socialism.
Cuba started under banner of socialism but......
Of course, as always, the answer is the it is capitalism at fault... though Cubans won't agree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Communism vs Socialism
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Cuba started under banner of socialism but......
Of course, as always, the answer is the it is capitalism at fault... though Cubans won't agree.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Or corporatism or just a good old plutocracy should the wealth belon to private individuals more than the government institutions themselves.
Or it isn't.
True, but Soviet style Bolshevism is what Americans have been calling Communism for decades. Whenever, in previous posts, I objected to the Soviets being called Communist, no-one heard me.
The Soviet police state is exactly what Americans picture when you say "Communist."
Last edited:
True, Cuba is impoverished and paranoid. But don't assume that is the result of socialism, per se. It's more the fault of American foreign policy. We impoverished Cuba.
As I said above, poverty, repression and misery is what Americans equate with "Communism."
Last edited:
When I was younger, my initial understanding was that Communism was generally associated with revolutionary, violent activity, whereas Socialism was more evolutionary and generally peaceful. This may have also been exemplified by the general perceptions of the Communist and Socialist Parties here in the U.S. The Communist Party was considered directly tied to the Soviet regime in Moscow, while the Socialist Party had dissociated itself from the Communists and were not considered traitors or disloyal to America.
There is no historical evidence that any of the socialisms necessarily leads to any kind of communism. Again, there is no empirical/historical evidence of that.
The idea that socialism leads to communism was invented by Karl Marx.
It's unlikely there was any empirical/historical evidence that socialism leads to communism back when Marx invented the notion that it did. Marx made a common mistake most people fall for. Nothing special about him falling for it. He thought that a chain of logical reasoning proved that an empirical reality was the case, or would be the case.
Ayn Rand did the same thing, only on a larger scale. She thought she knew all about 'makers' and 'takers' based on her puzzling out reality according to her strictest logical reasoning. There is no evidence she checked any of her ideas about which sorts of people morally deserved to die horrible deaths in train tunnels against empirical reality. Few people do. Almost no one checks a wet dream against the facts of empirical reality.
The Libertarian economist James M. Buchanan was another person to claim that a set of logical steps could prove that an empirical reality existed. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for his notion that government workers never act in the interests of the public they are told to serve. He never bothered to publish any empirical evidence for that claim. He just knew it had to be true because he thought he could logically prove it was true.
Buchanan's career was full of 'great ideas' he thought were proven by logic and did not require any further confirmation beyond that. His students were among the people the Chilean Government hired to help them design their social safety net. When their new social safety net led directly to the most massive pain and suffering the Chilean middle class had ever experienced in its history, Buchanan's response was to refuse to talk about it.
Lots of people on RF make the same fatal mistake each day, every day. Be kind, so far as I've seen, everyone does at one time or another in their lives. Be kind, but don't be a sucker, either.
The idea that socialism leads to communism was invented by Karl Marx.
It's unlikely there was any empirical/historical evidence that socialism leads to communism back when Marx invented the notion that it did. Marx made a common mistake most people fall for. Nothing special about him falling for it. He thought that a chain of logical reasoning proved that an empirical reality was the case, or would be the case.
Ayn Rand did the same thing, only on a larger scale. She thought she knew all about 'makers' and 'takers' based on her puzzling out reality according to her strictest logical reasoning. There is no evidence she checked any of her ideas about which sorts of people morally deserved to die horrible deaths in train tunnels against empirical reality. Few people do. Almost no one checks a wet dream against the facts of empirical reality.
The Libertarian economist James M. Buchanan was another person to claim that a set of logical steps could prove that an empirical reality existed. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for his notion that government workers never act in the interests of the public they are told to serve. He never bothered to publish any empirical evidence for that claim. He just knew it had to be true because he thought he could logically prove it was true.
Buchanan's career was full of 'great ideas' he thought were proven by logic and did not require any further confirmation beyond that. His students were among the people the Chilean Government hired to help them design their social safety net. When their new social safety net led directly to the most massive pain and suffering the Chilean middle class had ever experienced in its history, Buchanan's response was to refuse to talk about it.
Lots of people on RF make the same fatal mistake each day, every day. Be kind, so far as I've seen, everyone does at one time or another in their lives. Be kind, but don't be a sucker, either.
As I said... the Cubans, who live there, don't agree. Venezuela ran the same process and has the same results.
As I recall it (having lived through it), almost everything progressive used to be associated with Communism: folk and rock music, hippies, civil rights and anti-war protestors, feminists -- all probably controlled by Soviet puppet masters.
These days, of course, we know better. It's all a plot by radical liberals, environmentalists, and pedophiles.
Last edited:
It's odd then that nobelprize.org claims he became the "leading
researcher" in the field (when awarding him the prize).
Moreover, the fixed rules in public choice he developed don't
appear to result in "never" acting in public interest. Rather,
the rules are somewhat independent of that goal. I'd say that
some of the rules are indeed in the public's interest, eg,
vote getting being a goal that's achieved by appealing to the
voters' interests (albeit with a less than 100% correlation).
Ref...
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1986
Seems I've once again committed the internet sin of summarizing something rather than post a precisely worded encyclopedia on it. Got to quit doing that. It's on my bucket list for projects to launch myself into 50 years from now.
Do you think Cuba's poverty is a direct result of it's socialism? Didn't the US effectively embargo the country after the revolution? Wasn't it the American embargo that forced the starving populace into the arms of the Soviets?
As I recall it (having lived through it), almost everything progressive was associated with Communism: folk and rock music, hippies, civil rights and anti-war protestors, feminists -- all probably controlled by Soviet puppet masters.
Yeah, if they weren't Reds, they were Pinkos. But I don't know if it represented the majority view at that point. After the McCarthy era, there was a bit of a backlash against the rabid anti-communists, such as those who thought the Beatles were a Communist plot.
Didn't Hayek and Milton Friedman win Nobel prizes, too?
I'm still waiting for their Austro-Chicagoan, Neoliberal prosperity to trickle down to me.
It prolly did, but you squandered it on Racoon Chow.Didn't Hayek and Milton Friedman win Nobel prizes, too?
I'm still waiting for their Austro-Chicagoan, Neoliberal prosperity to trickle down to me.
The military.
"Santa Claus wears a red suit -- he's a communist.
and a beard and long hair, must be a pacifist.
What's in the pipe that he's smoking....?
Mr Clause sneaks in your house at night -- he must be a dope fiend
to put you up-tight."
Last edited:
D'oh!
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Communism a warning to self in one ideals.
To control all human thought and behaviours for self group benefit as an elitist.
Socialism leaders worked in a social order by organisation worker equal status as an equal human family member.
Organisation always needs positive leadership in socialising the civilised life of humanity. We always relied on a spiritual human nature as that achievement.
To control all human thought and behaviours for self group benefit as an elitist.
Socialism leaders worked in a social order by organisation worker equal status as an equal human family member.
Organisation always needs positive leadership in socialising the civilised life of humanity. We always relied on a spiritual human nature as that achievement.