Is it a debate?
There's no agreement on what to argue about.
There's no agreement on what to argue about.
-
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!
Rev...unlike USA, all European countries are intrinsically socialist
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
You could always argue on whether or not there is anything to debate over...
I disagree with that.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm just watching myself. 1 v 1 should lock out third party replies though it's certainly a passionate issue.
Read this, then. It's English,
Socialism vs. Communism: How Are They Different?
Find out the difference between communism and socialism, two related but distinct political theories and systems.
Read this, then. It's English,
Socialism vs. Communism: How Are They Different?
Find out the difference between communism and socialism, two related but distinct political theories and systems.www.thoughtco.com
"The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government."
This strikes me as a distinction with very little difference. If "the people" own property and economic resources collectively, but all the allocation of said resources is determined by the government...how is that different (more than on paper) from state ownership? In either case, in real world terms there is no private property or private enterprise and the government determines how publically owned resources are used.
Allocation means to distribute: it means that the privates own pieces of property. Whether they are entrepreneurs, employees, etc...
In Socialism the private sphere and the public sphere are intertwined. Meaning the Public Administration watches over the allocation of public resources, and determines whether the private sector crosses certain lines.
In Communism there is no private sphere at all. Since the State (or the soviets in Russia) predisposes that anything, even enterpreneurship is shared.
What you're describing is something like social democracy, which is like a hybridization of capitalism and socialism. In pure socialism, there is no private sphere (in the economic sense) either.
See your link under the chart for "ownership of economic resources" for socialism:
"Individuals own personal property but all industrial and production capacity is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government."
(Note that in socialist thought "personal" property is distinct from "private" property. The latter is property with which one can make a profit.)
That's exactly what Italy was like during the Fascist period: individuals owning personal property and all industrial and production capacity was owned by the State through the IRI (100% owned by the Treasury).
It means Fascism was Socialism.
Yes, that's pure socialism.
Of course pure socialism is hardly possible because perfection doesn't exist
That exactly was what Italy was like during the Fascist period: individuals owning personal property and all industrial and production ccapacity was owned by the State through the IRI (100% owned by the Treasury).
It means Fascism was Socialism.
Yes, that's pure socialism.
Of course pure socialism is hardly possible because perfection doesn't exist
You think Mussolini's Italy was...perfection?
I worry about you sometimes.
Economically, yes.
All the rest was a nightmare: warfare, imperialism, racism, autocracy, dictatorship, illiberalism.
I can't discard all of it.
Of course one can have a liberal, democratic, pacifist State with a socialist economy.
Where is it?
From what I know about it (and im hardly an expert), it's I guess technically mixed market, with some private enterprise that is tightly controlled by the state.
Scandinavian countries.
It's Socialist because the State allows free enterprise but controls the resources and the raw materials (it owns Gazprom, both directly by 50% and indirectly).
They aren't socialist, though. They're social democracies. Ie capitalist with some socialist features,
I think you're confused.
Socialism =/= free enterprise. They're literally opposites.
I think that the best definition of Socialism is given by the article 41 of our Constitution.
It's not all either black or white.
Art 41. Private economic enterprise is free. It may not be carried out against the common good or in such a manner that could damage safety, liberty and human dignity. The law shall provide for appropriate programmes and controls so that public and private-sector economic activity may be oriented and co-ordinated for social purposes.
Now you get it?
- In Communism there is no free private enterprise
- In Socialism there is free private enterprise, as long as certain criteria (like those of article 41) are met.
Last edited:
I would like to know this:
why do Americans tend to think that Socialism = Communism?
and why do they tend to think Socialism is undemocratic (that is why they use the term social democracy instead).
why do Americans tend to think that Socialism = Communism?
and why do they tend to think Socialism is undemocratic (that is why they use the term social democracy instead).