A Lesson on Socialism

Annie said:
The semantic argument between socialism and communism, glad to know where you ultimately fall. Your 'argument' is socialism, but you've no problem with communism, as obvious.
Click to expand...

you too, need to do some studying. goverment ownership and control of the means of production is the classic definition of SOCIALISM, not COMMUNISM.
 
So the definition under Communism listed as 2b doesn't exist?

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
Click to expand...
 
maineman said:
"government ownership and control of the means of production" is nowhere NEAR synonymous with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I suggest you do some reading on communism and socialism, counselor.

start with Marx. Engels, Hegel and Lenin... and then move on to Leroux, Reybaud, and Owen.

Get back to me if you need more guidance.
Click to expand...

preacher....you need to reread the OP...as i stated earlier, it has zero to do with ABILITY....you get the grades because it is simple distribution....iow...all members share benefits notwithstanding their contribution to society or in this case, the class.....

when you reread the OP and gain a clearer understanding that the example had zero to do with ability, i expect you to be honest admit you are wrong....or at least explain how the OP falls under communism and not socialism.....all you did once again was explain what communism is....i had to infer you were even talking about the OP.....

perhaps your third time around you can make a connection between the OP and your point or admit you're wrong
 
further:

government ownership and control of the means of production"
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with the OP preacher....the students own their intellect and the means to produce it.....the professor merely distributed the grades REGARDLESS of ability or effort

you fail again....
 
Yurt said:
preacher....you need to reread the OP...as i stated earlier, it has zero to do with ABILITY....you get the grades because it is simple distribution....iow...all members share benefits notwithstanding their contribution to society or in this case, the class.....

when you reread the OP and gain a clearer understanding that the example had zero to do with ability, i expect you to be honest admit you are wrong....or at least explain how the OP falls under communism and not socialism.....all you did once again was explain what communism is....i had to infer you were even talking about the OP.....

perhaps your third time around you can make a connection between the OP and your point or admit you're wrong
Click to expand...

socialism has nothing to do with distributing the fruits of society equally. It has to do with the government owning and controlling the means of production.

you remain an obtuse idiot who knows little to nothing about either socialism OR communism.
 
Yurt said:
further:



that has nothing to do with the OP preacher....the students own their intellect and the means to produce it.....the professor merely distributed the grades REGARDLESS of ability or effort

you fail again....
Click to expand...

no...YOU fail again. the professor is practicing communism, not socialism. the professor distributes grades based upon the need of the students to get equal grades. clearly communistic, NOT socialistic.
 
maineman said:
socialism has nothing to do with distributing the fruits of society equally. It has to do with the government owning and controlling the means of production.

you remain an obtuse idiot who knows little to nothing about either socialism OR communism.
Click to expand...

you're stupid.....socialism is about everyone getting their share....you know....collectivism...sharing the benefits of others labor

the professor in the OP does not own the means of production, nor does he control it.....and his system is not political....at best it is economic....you're completely ignorant on this subject....its frickin hilarious....you give me a quote about ability and now don't even have the intellectual "balls" (you so like talking about balls) to defend that comment and instead slink away from it.....
 
maineman said:
no...YOU fail again. the professor is practicing communism, not socialism. the professor distributes grades based upon the need of the students to get equal grades. clearly communistic, NOT socialistic.
Click to expand...

nope....that is socialism....if you don't provide your share into the communist system....you're culled....communism is based on shared effort

in this example....people clearly did not provide their shared efforts....

sorry....you failed once again
 
MM, socialism definition number 1 covers this.

Distribution of goods (grades) is part of what makes up socialism.
 
Yurt said:
nope....that is socialism....if you don't provide your share into the communist system....you're culled....communism is based on shared effort

in this example....people clearly did not provide their shared efforts....

sorry....you failed once again
Click to expand...

not shared ability... many people in a communistic society are not able to produce their fair share, yet they get what they need.

again... socialism is about the government owning the means of production, it is not about equal outcomes for unequal effort.
 
maineman said:
nowhere does that definition require an EQUAL distribution of goods.

sorry.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to because it also doesn't exclude that condition. You can be sorry as much as you want, but you aren't correct. The first definition of Socialism speaks to distribution as well as means of production, to ignore it because it is inconvenient when you are trying to split hairs isn't really an "argument", it's just stubborn for no reason.
 
Damocles said:
It doesn't have to. It also doesn't exclude that condition.
Click to expand...

because it doesn't specifically EXCLUDE equal distribution, your argument is that equal distribution therefore FITS the definition?

It doesn't specifically EXCLUDE requiring families from having to sacrifice their first born children either.

get real.
 
maineman said:
because it doesn't specifically EXCLUDE equal distribution, your argument is that equal distribution therefore FITS the definition?

It doesn't specifically EXCLUDE requiring families from having to sacrifice their first born children either.

get real.
Click to expand...
It fits within the frame of that definition. Saying that because it doesn't specifically require it that it cannot therefore fit within that definition is a fallacious argument.

It is like saying that it can be either green or red, then saying the professor only gave out red ones and no green ones therefore it can't be what you were talking about. It can.
 
maineman said:
not shared ability... many people in a communistic society are not able to produce their fair share, yet they get what they need.

again... socialism is about the government owning the means of production, it is not about equal outcomes for unequal effort.
Click to expand...

i misread you post...
 
Last edited:
are you actually claiming that under communism, the state does not own and control the means of production? that seems to be your hang up here....
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Don't waste your time responding.

USF has posted this before, over on the AOL board.

His point is to keep baiting you while at the same time never giving you a straight answer.

That's what he does...that's all he does.
Click to expand...

Don't be scared, zippy.
Just stay focused on the matter at hand.
 
Yurt said:
are you actually claiming that under communism, the state does not own and control the means of production? that seems to be your hang up here....
Click to expand...

not at all. I am not hung up about anything. I understand the difference between socialism and communism. You clearly don't. I had read Das Kapital before you were even born:pke:

In pure socialism, the government simply controls the means of production...it does NOT equalize rewards or determine what anyone needs over and above anyone else. THe professor in the example is a communist as he is equalizing rewards. Nothing in socialism prevents you from being a better lawyer than your competitors or taking on more cases and thus making more money.
 
maineman said:
not at all. I am not hung up about anything. I understand the difference between socialism and communism. You clearly don't. I had read Das Kapital before you were even born:pke:

In pure socialism, the government simply controls the means of production...it does NOT equalize rewards or determine what anyone needs over and above anyone else. THe professor in the example is a communist as he is equalizing rewards. Nothing in socialism prevents you from being a better lawyer than your competitors or taking on more cases and thus making more money.
Click to expand...

you're confused, your main point earlier was that the state owns and controls the means of production in this example....

further, nothing in socialism says you cannot redistribute wealth evenly as in the example....and just because you read das kapital doesn't mean you're right, your lame appeal to authority is yet another example of your failure to the facts of the OP to the definitions of socialism or communism....additionally, das kapital is not the last or only word on what socialism is....

i seriously can't believe you're denying that socialism is about the equal distribution of wealth or grades here....or that communism is not about shared effort....

from wiki:

Marx believed that communism would give people the power to appropriate the fruits of their labor while preventing them from exploiting others.
Click to expand...

the OP is not about shared labor, it is about the prof or state unilaterally redistributing wealth or grades regardless of labor input
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top