Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

Grokmaster said:
Oh really?

Read "The Social Contract" (Rousseau, 1762) , the founding papers of socialism, and "The Communist Manifesto" (Marx, Engells) ,, the founding papers of communism, and specify any MAJOR differences between the two.
Click to expand...
I already did in my previous post.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Congress can change this by passing laws instead of consistently punting to the WH to rule by EO or to activist judges in SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
while that is true, this Supreme Court has shown they will just invent a rationalization to undo any law Congress tries to create to impact their Unitary Executive theory. They have invented this theory and pretend it is read into the Constitution and then proceed to use it to undue laws they do not agree with, limiting the Executive power.

That is what we just saw, with Congress very clearly creating Agencies that were outside the Executive power to remake and hire and fire to protect them from being political tools and the Supreme Court said 'hold my beer' as they then undid decades of legislation that was re-affirmed over and over by prior SC.

I have no doubt that if Congress had the votes and passed new laws impacting 'money in politics', 'voting rights', etc that this SC would rule it all unconstitutional and undo it.
 
Grokmaster said:
Oh really?

Read "The Social Contract" (Rousseau, 1762) , the founding papers of socialism, and "The Communist Manifesto" (Marx, Engells) ,, the founding papers of communism, and specify any MAJOR differences between the two.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the CONCEPT OF SOCIALISM it does not require big gov't, nor does it require any forced redistribution.

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about such communal ownership (socialism) in early native and other clan like communities where land was considered community property, not individual, food shared based on need, not wealth, jobs like hunting, cooking, farming delegated out to all in society based on their skills hunting was cooperative and where no personal wealth was accumulated beyond what was needed or held by others in the community.

This was done with a community counsel, generally at most, and no real concept of government.

What you are conflating is individual examples of how some big countries have instituted it in the most abusive cases whereas you can contrast that with the least intrusive form such Norway, which many call 'modern socialism' or 'democratic socialism'.
 
QP! said:
while that is true, this Supreme Court has shown they will just invent a rationalization to undo any law Congress tries to create to impact their Unitary Executive theory. They have invented this theory and pretend it is read into the Constitution and then proceed to use it to undue laws they do not agree with, limiting the Executive power.

That is what we just saw, with Congress very clearly creating Agencies that were outside the Executive power to remake and hire and fire to protect them from being political tools and the Supreme Court said 'hold my beer' as they then undid decades of legislation that was re-affirmed over and over by prior SC.

I have no doubt that if Congress had the votes and passed new laws impacting 'money in politics', 'voting rights', etc that this SC would rule it all unconstitutional and undo it.
Click to expand...
Still, Congress can pass laws. They aren't even trying. Consider Citizens United where money is considered free speech. Congress didn't even try to pass a law limiting PACs and dark money.

Money rules this country and until enough Americans say "ENOUGH!", it will continue to do so.

For these reasons, it's why I believe the Democratic push to ban guns is a really, really bad fucking idea. I think every American should own a good scoped hunting rifle and a short-barreled shotgun plus be proficient in their use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
The Right relies on the followers not having an education. The leaders know that they will accept what they say as fact.The Trump people connect Socialism and Communism. They know it will be repeated by followers endlessly and with great confidence since it came from the top.
So some people think the wealthy gap created by the Super rich is great, The idea that the people should have universal healthcare and cheap education is labeled Communistic.
We used to have an educational system that was the envy of the world. We have not had a medical system that was near the top. That is because that money belongs to the super rich. They now have it.
 
Jarod said:
For days now, The Sleepy PP, has tried to equate the two, you do know they are not the same thing, right?
Click to expand...
The communist parties of the USSR and Cuba were Marxist-Leninist and totalitarian in political philosophy.

The Labor Party of Britain, the Socialist Party in France, and the Social Democratic Party in Germany are Europe's major democratic socialist parties.
 
Grokmaster said:
Oh really?

Read "The Social Contract" (Rousseau, 1762) , the founding papers of socialism, and "The Communist Manifesto" (Marx, Engells) ,, the founding papers of communism, and specify any MAJOR differences between the two.
Click to expand...
I’ve read it. Have you?

Socialism did not even exist until the mid-eighteen hundreds.

Rousseau did not call for it suggesting abolishing private property.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Still, Congress can pass laws. They aren't even trying. Consider Citizens United where money is considered free speech. Congress didn't even try to pass a law limiting PACs and dark money.

Money rules this country and until enough Americans say "ENOUGH!", it will continue to do so.

For these reasons, it's why I believe the Democratic push to ban guns is a really, really bad fucking idea. I think every American should own a good scoped hunting rifle and a short-barreled shotgun plus be proficient in their use.
Click to expand...
i agree. Congress must try and then expose the SC if they just keep invalidating the laws they do not like based on made up Constitutional interpretations.

I do like the various State methods now being implemented to change the State Corporate Charter to say Corporations are not people, in their States.

States have the full authority to define how corporations form, what powers and rights they are given, and most importantly how they are recognized in law. So if a State says 'in our State corporations are not people' that should be the last word.

I suspect this SC would find a way to undo this State right and say 'because corporations are people a State cannot take away their rights', but the fact is the logic the SC used to define the Corporations as people was based on how they were defined in State law. so if States can set a definition originally that the SC says, by default then makes them people', the opposite should be true.

But again i do not expect honesty from this SC. They would have no issue being completely hypocritical on this as they have been in many of the rights they have undone for Congress and States and citizens while pushing new rights and powers to the Executive.
 
QP! said:
i agree. Congress must try and then expose the SC if they just keep invalidating the laws they do not like based on made up Constitutional interpretations.

I do like the various State methods now being implemented to change the State Corporate Charter to say Corporations are not people, in their States.

States have the full authority to define how corporations form, what powers and rights they are given, and most importantly how they are recognized in law. So if a State says 'in our State corporations are not people' that should be the last word.

I suspect this SC would find a way to undo this State right and say 'because corporations are people a State cannot take away their rights', but the fact is the logic the SC used to define the Corporations as people was based on how they were defined in State law. so if States can set a definition originally that the SC says, by default then makes them people', the opposite should be true.

But again i do not expect honesty from this SC. They would have no issue being completely hypocritical on this as they have been in many of the rights they have undone for Congress and States and citizens while pushing new rights and powers to the Executive.
Click to expand...
Agree on not trusting the honesty of SCOTUS. All of Trump's appointees lied under oath during their confirmation hearings.

Now there's a movement to have some of the older conservative justices retire so Trump can appoint younger ones who'll live another 40 years.

RBG screwed the Democrats by not retiring under a Democratic President.
 
Ross Dolan said:
YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. YOU MERELY TOLD ME WHY YOU THOUGHT YOU SHOULD NOT.

ANSWER THE QUESTION IF YOU DARE. IT WILL MAKE YOU LOOK MORE THE FOOL, BUT YOU ALREADY LOOK THE FOOL, SO LOOKING MORE A FOOL IS NO BIG DEAL.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. You don't like the answer. Here it is again.

There's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two. They vary only in the degree of control over the economy they take. Put another way, Communism is simply Socialism on steroids, taken to the extreme.

That's it. Communism is a form of Socialism. Both require a big, controlling, government. How controlling depends largely on the degree to which the government controls the economy.
 
QP! said:
When it comes to the CONCEPT OF SOCIALISM it does not require big gov't, nor does it require any forced redistribution.

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about such communal ownership (socialism) in early native and other clan like communities where land was considered community property, not individual, food shared based on need, not wealth, jobs like hunting, cooking, farming delegated out to all in society based on their skills hunting was cooperative and where no personal wealth was accumulated beyond what was needed or held by others in the community.

This was done with a community counsel, generally at most, and no real concept of government.

What you are conflating is individual examples of how some big countries have instituted it in the most abusive cases whereas you can contrast that with the least intrusive form such Norway, which many call 'modern socialism' or 'democratic socialism'.
Click to expand...
QPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee,
Complete bullshit.
 
AProudLefty said:
Wrong thread.
Click to expand...

​

A business man goes to Japan for a business meeting but arrives late at night. He was feeling a little lonely, so he got a Japanese hooker.

During sex in the dark, the hooker began screaming "Machigatta ana! Machigatta ana". Thinking she was saying "Great! Great!" and enjoying her enthusiasm, the man continued until satisfaction was achieved.

The next day, the man went golfing with the Japanese business men he'd come to visit. During their golf outing, he gets a hole in one! The Japanese men start screaming and celebrating in Japanese words. The man got very excited too and yelled out the only Japanese phrase he could think of, and that was the one he learned from his hooker. He yelled it out but all the Japanese business men look at him strangely.

One of them asks the business man, "what you mean wrong hole?"
 
Didn't read all the posts here debating whether there is a difference between socialism and communism. However, most would agree that both of those isms are detrimental to our American Constitutional Republic. Lets see now, which party between the Democrat and Republican party do we see its people engaging in both Socialism and Communism? Could it be the democrat party, where we see its new up and coming and old school comrades like mamdani, sanders, Pocahontas, AOC, Platner, the squad, etc. praising every aspect of both socialism and communism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top