PDA

View Full Version : What is the Difference Between Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressivism, etc.?



Odysseus
12-08-2010, 08:42 PM
Now that Wei is back (and KruschevsShoe is still here), we have a conundrum that I'm hoping can be answered. Since every leftist on the board has made it a point to tell us that Obama isn't a Socialist, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, and since any discussion of Socialism, Communism or any other ism that involves the various tenets by which everyone but Socialists, Communists, Marxists and Progressives identify it seems to annoy the hell out of the aforementioned groups, I would appreciate it if our resident leftists would take a moment and illuminate the differences between what they hold to be widely divergent economic/social/political doctrines.

Now, given the Wilbur doctrine ("Any question that has any more ambiguity than a first grade math problem cannot be answered unless the answer demonstrates the intellectual superiority of Wilbur"), I will take a moment to explain that the persons to whom this is directed have repeatedly ridiculed our knowledge of the aforementioned doctrines, and that this is therefore their opportunity to set us straight, rather than an attempt at playing "gotcha," and if they decline to do so, then we will have no choice but to assume that the doctrines in question are, in fact, manifestations of the same pathology and are synonymous with each other.

Also, let it be known that, although I have cited the Wilbur doctrine in reference to Marxism, I am not calling him a Marxist, only that I am attempting to keep others from using his previously established means of evading difficult questions (See here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=32420&highlight=america+exceptional+greatest+country) for multiple examples, and I do mean multiple).

Let the fun begin...

megimoo
12-08-2010, 08:59 PM
Now that Wei is back (and KruschevsShoe is still here), we have a conundrum that I'm hoping can be answered. Since every leftist on the board has made it a point to tell us that Obama isn't a Socialist, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, and since any discussion of Socialism, Communism or any other ism that involves the various tenets by which everyone but Socialists, Communists, Marxists and Progressives identify it seems to annoy the hell out of the aforementioned groups, I would appreciate it if our resident leftists would take a moment and illuminate the differences between what they hold to be widely divergent economic/social/political doctrines.

Now, given the Wilbur doctrine ("Any question that has any more ambiguity than a first grade math problem cannot be answered unless the answer demonstrates the intellectual superiority of Wilbur"), I will take a moment to explain that the persons to whom this is directed have repeatedly ridiculed our knowledge of the aforementioned doctrines, and that this is therefore their opportunity to set us straight, rather than an attempt at playing "gotcha," and if they decline to do so, then we will have no choice but to assume that the doctrines in question are, in fact, manifestations of the same pathology and are synonymous with each other.

Also, let it be known that, although I have cited the Wilbur doctrine in reference to Marxism, I am not calling him a Marxist, only that I am attempting to keep others from using his previously established means of evading difficult questions (See here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=32420&highlight=america+exceptional+greatest+country) for multiple examples, and I do mean multiple).

Let the fun begin...
Progressivism, Socialism, and Communisim all share a common bond: Collectivism

As a political and economic system, socialism is government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods, the control of money, and the abolition of profit and private property. These ideas also describe communism and progressivism.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-08-2010, 09:02 PM
A Socialist believes the government should do everything; A Communist believes in the idea that there will be a classless existence and thus no government.
Both ideas, are to me, stupid. A government can't do EVERYTHING for it's people. It's simply not possible, nor is it reasonable. I consider myself a Liberal, but I'm also someone who is against extending unemployment, for example. I'd withdraw unemployment as a sort of experiment--I think if there is no unemployment benefits coming in, it will create intense demand for jobs on the part of the people, which might force companies to hire, or alternatively, might force people to start their own groups. Either way, removing Unemployment benefits from the picture might actually reduce unemployment.
A Socialist, IMO, sees endless unemployment benefits as a good thing. They see a total welfare state, where things should be handed to people "just because."
A communist believes in an idea which utterly goes against human nature as we understand it. We're inherently competitive, greedy beings; Communism wouldn't work with human nature as it is. If man were to evolve, and transcend our competitiveness, communism would work, but we'd also stop being human as we know it; Therefore, I consider communism an abhorrent and abnormal.

I'm an old fashioned Liberal. I simply believe there should be certain functions of government--Stuff like Social Security and Medicare, for example. I don't see those as handouts; they are earned 'entitlements', earned by years of paying into the system, and they are beneficial IMO. They shouldn't be used as someone's whole retirement fund, but I do love the programs nonetheless. Medicaid is an issue I'm sketchy on--While I do like it for moral reasons, I'd like to make it somehow more 'earned' on the part of those receiving. But I agree with it being in place. Perhaps, for example, anyone who receives Medicare should in lieu of being able to pay for it (since they're poor), do some service for the government or their community in return. I believe in a welfare state, but not one where money is handed to any old woman who pumps out kid after kid, nor should it be given to generation after generation. It should be temporary assistance, and it should also be earned; Not lifelong handouts.

Basically, I agreed with the New Deal and Great Society in principle. But I don't agree with all of the Great Society's added BS like NPR, PBS, etc. I also feel our programs need reform.

Even though I LOVE PBS, I don't feel the government should be running it. I do have a bias, however, to the government funding national museums, though the emphasis on ''modern art'' has gotten out of control. National Museums, IMO, should showcase the history of America and our achievements in different areas--Make as much a living history as possible--It shouldn't be funding Jesus dipped in ants. That kind of stuff has to be rectified, but in principle, I agree with National Museums.

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 09:08 PM
it's a matter of degree.....with a little bit of Orwellian double speak thrown in for good measure. ;)

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 09:27 PM
Okay to start with Marxism there needs to be a distinction between ideological analysis and ideological prescription. Marxism is based on Marx's critique of Capitalism and his descriptions of how economies and societies function. Marxism forms the basis for most forms of Socialism or Communism, but these are ideological prescriptions, which are aimed at solving the problems revealed through ideological analysis.

Marxism is a tool to understand what often appears like chaotic activity in markets and societies. It gives an accout of all history as the struggle between opposing classes through various economic systems. Marxism identifies Capitalism as just another stage of economic development along a long line of systems which are continuously evolving. Marxism highlights the fundamental antagonism between those who own the means of production and those who work/rely on these means of production. These terms have become more nuanced as Capitalism has evolved far beyond what Marx had analyzed, but the core issues still hold true. Marxism isn't embraced because it has provided an alternative to Capitalism, it's embraced because active Marxism creates a space for an alternative to be created.

Socialism generally refers to governments, officials, or policies that are aimed at representing the interests of working class people in the ongoing class struggle. It recognizes that while profit motive is excellent for accumulating wealth, it didn't always function to fulfill the needs of society, and sometimes even works to undermine them. Socialist systems recognize certain needs of the people in order to have a well functioning society. They provide the "essentials" like housing, health care, education, and child care in order for people to be able participate more fully in the running of their society. Socialist systems take the profit motive away from the necessities and restructure the economy so that the natural upward force of wealth flow is counter-balanced. This comes in many ways, from extreme command economies to more pro-business democratic socialist system like in some Europian countries (a place where workers get all the benefits they need to live a productive life and rich people are still able to be reasonably rich).

One might argue, why should I care about someone else's housing or health situation? The answer is because we are all working together to keep our society funcioning. Janitors get no love from anyone but if they all called in sick we'd be up to our knees in garbage. First and foremost though, the goal of socialism is to use the resources of society to best address the needs of society, as opposed to a few wealthy people running the show for their own gain.


Communism is the ideal where there are no private land-owners or landlords or business owners. It's not so much a real system as it is for the direction that revolutionary libration struggles are aiming at. It is a classless society where people work together as a community to further their interests. Some people mistake collectivism with community. Collectivism squashes the individual at the expence of the group, while community strengthens the individual through his/her bonds with the group. Think about how well church community groups function, these are very close to communist in nature. Communism is this sort of community-oriented activity on a societal scale. This can and does function in small groups, and always has. The trick is making it work with huge populations.


The truth is you may get many different answers from different people, you know how these things tend to work out. I hope this helps clear up the confusion with my usage of these terms at least.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 09:29 PM
A Socialist believes the government should do everything; A Communist believes in the idea that there will be a classless existence and thus no government.
Both ideas, are to me, stupid. A government can't do EVERYTHING for it's people. It's simply not possible, nor is it reasonable. I consider myself a Liberal, but I'm also someone who is against extending unemployment, for example. I'd withdraw unemployment as a sort of experiment--I think if there is no unemployment benefits coming in, it will create intense demand for jobs on the part of the people, which might force companies to hire, or alternatively, might force people to start their own groups. Either way, removing Unemployment benefits from the picture might actually reduce unemployment.
A Socialist, IMO, sees endless unemployment benefits as a good thing. They see a total welfare state, where things should be handed to people "just because."
A communist believes in an idea which utterly goes against human nature as we understand it. We're inherently competitive, greedy beings; Communism wouldn't work with human nature as it is. If man were to evolve, and transcend our competitiveness, communism would work, but we'd also stop being human as we know it; Therefore, I consider communism an abhorrent and abnormal.

I'm an old fashioned Liberal. I simply believe there should be certain functions of government--Stuff like Social Security and Medicare, for example. I don't see those as handouts; they are earned 'entitlements', earned by years of paying into the system, and they are beneficial IMO. They shouldn't be used as someone's whole retirement fund, but I do love the programs nonetheless. Medicaid is an issue I'm sketchy on--While I do like it for moral reasons, I'd like to make it somehow more 'earned' on the part of those receiving. But I agree with it being in place. Perhaps, for example, anyone who receives Medicare should in lieu of being able to pay for it (since they're poor), do some service for the government or their community in return. I believe in a welfare state, but not one where money is handed to any old woman who pumps out kid after kid, nor should it be given to generation after generation. It should be temporary assistance, and it should also be earned; Not lifelong handouts.

Basically, I agreed with the New Deal and Great Society in principle. But I don't agree with all of the Great Society's added BS like NPR, PBS, etc. I also feel our programs need reform.

Even though I LOVE PBS, I don't feel the government should be running it. I do have a bias, however, to the government funding national museums, though the emphasis on ''modern art'' has gotten out of control. National Museums, IMO, should showcase the history of America and our achievements in different areas--Make as much a living history as possible--It shouldn't be funding Jesus dipped in ants. That kind of stuff has to be rectified, but in principle, I agree with National Museums.

The welfare state cannot alleviate the problems caused by American-style Capitalism. Conservatives have known this for a long time. Still, I prefer that while we are in this system of extreme exploitation that those who suffer the most from it are protected.

What you are describing isn't Socialism but liberal welfare state ideology. It's the attempt to have our cake and eat it too. It doesn't work, it's only a bandaid. Socialism aims for an ideal 100% employment, it is worker-oriented.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 09:39 PM
it's a matter of degree.....with a little bit of Orwellian double speak thrown in for good measure. ;)

That what I was gonna say. It's a difference of degree, not kind.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 09:50 PM
Obama is not a socialist because he has just as much to help the interests of big business and the wealthy elite at the expense of the working class and middle class Americans as Bush did.

Health care bill? The socialist position was Single-Payer. The compromise position was Public Option. What we got was Corporate Welfare. Another bailout for people who don't need it. It's a bill that forces people to purchase insurance from private companies, when it is the profit-driven nature of the industry that is causing most of the problems we are facing there.

Tax cuts? The socialist answer was drastic increases in tax rates for the super wealthy and tax credits for working class and middle class families. What we got was a bill that increases the debt by giving a huge tax cut, 25% of which will go to the top 1%, while the Making Work Pay tax credit for low-income working familes is set to expire.

Here I quote the 3rd wealthiest man in the world
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
-Warren Buffett

Odysseus
12-09-2010, 10:53 AM
Okay to start with Marxism there needs to be a distinction between ideological analysis and ideological prescription. Marxism is based on Marx's critique of Capitalism and his descriptions of how economies and societies function. Marxism forms the basis for most forms of Socialism or Communism, but these are ideological prescriptions, which are aimed at solving the problems revealed through ideological analysis.

Marxism is a tool to understand what often appears like chaotic activity in markets and societies. It gives an accout of all history as the struggle between opposing classes through various economic systems. Marxism identifies Capitalism as just another stage of economic development along a long line of systems which are continuously evolving. Marxism highlights the fundamental antagonism between those who own the means of production and those who work/rely on these means of production. These terms have become more nuanced as Capitalism has evolved far beyond what Marx had analyzed, but the core issues still hold true. Marxism isn't embraced because it has provided an alternative to Capitalism, it's embraced because active Marxism creates a space for an alternative to be created.

Socialism generally refers to governments, officials, or policies that are aimed at representing the interests of working class people in the ongoing class struggle. It recognizes that while profit motive is excellent for accumulating wealth, it didn't always function to fulfill the needs of society, and sometimes even works to undermine them. Socialist systems recognize certain needs of the people in order to have a well functioning society. They provide the "essentials" like housing, health care, education, and child care in order for people to be able participate more fully in the running of their society. Socialist systems take the profit motive away from the necessities and restructure the economy so that the natural upward force of wealth flow is counter-balanced. This comes in many ways, from extreme command economies to more pro-business democratic socialist system like in some Europian countries (a place where workers get all the benefits they need to live a productive life and rich people are still able to be reasonably rich).

One might argue, why should I care about someone else's housing or health situation? The answer is because we are all working together to keep our society funcioning. Janitors get no love from anyone but if they all called in sick we'd be up to our knees in garbage. First and foremost though, the goal of socialism is to use the resources of society to best address the needs of society, as opposed to a few wealthy people running the show for their own gain.


Communism is the ideal where there are no private land-owners or landlords or business owners. It's not so much a real system as it is for the direction that revolutionary libration struggles are aiming at. It is a classless society where people work together as a community to further their interests. Some people mistake collectivism with community. Collectivism squashes the individual at the expence of the group, while community strengthens the individual through his/her bonds with the group. Think about how well church community groups function, these are very close to communist in nature. Communism is this sort of community-oriented activity on a societal scale. This can and does function in small groups, and always has. The trick is making it work with huge populations.


The truth is you may get many different answers from different people, you know how these things tend to work out. I hope this helps clear up the confusion with my usage of these terms at least.

Okay, this isn't as helpful as it might have been. What I get from this is that Marxism is the theory, Socialism is the practical application and Communism is the idealized endstate? If so, then what specific positions would distinguish a Marxist from a Socialist or a Communist? What would a Marxist favor that a Socialist, Communist or Progressive oppose, or do all of the people who subscribe to one end up subscribing to the others?

In other words, what are the distinct differences between the ideologies of Marxism, Socialism and Communism?

Oh, and please, spare us the class warfare rhetoric and baiting. You are the only one here who doesn't consider Obama a Socialist, and repeating it distracts is from the point of this thread. Don't get me wrong, we're all tickled pink that you still believe in class warfare and the struggles of the proletariat, just as we'd be amused to find a Japanese Soldier camped out in the Philippines who hadn't heard that WWII ended, or a Hitler Youth who, in his seventies, is still walking around in the lederhosen and armband and somehow missed the rubble-ization of Berlin, but it doesn't aid in our understanding, it's just comic relief. Consider this an anthropology study of the lost tribe of collectivists, except that we're Margaret Mead and you're the primates, and try not to fling too much poop as we study your quaint habits.

NJCardFan
12-09-2010, 12:17 PM
Okay, this isn't as helpful as it might have been. What I get from this is that Marxism is the theory, Socialism is the practical application and Communism is the idealized endstate? If so, then what specific positions would distinguish a Marxist from a Socialist or a Communist? What would a Marxist favor that a Socialist, Communist or Progressive oppose, or do all of the people who subscribe to one end up subscribing to the others?

In other words, what are the distinct differences between the ideologies of Marxism, Socialism and Communism?

Oh, and please, spare us the class warfare rhetoric and baiting. You are the only one here who doesn't consider Obama a Socialist, and repeating it distracts is from the point of this thread. Don't get me wrong, we're all tickled pink that you still believe in class warfare and the struggles of the proletariat, just as we'd be amused to find a Japanese Soldier camped out in the Philippines who hadn't heard that WWII ended, or a Hitler Youth who, in his seventies, is still walking around in the lederhosen and armband and somehow missed the rubble-ization of Berlin, but it doesn't aid in our understanding, it's just comic relief. Consider this an anthropology study of the lost tribe of collectivists, except that we're Margaret Mead and you're the primates, and try not to fling too much poop as we study your quaint habits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fa-G0OjrW4

Constitutionally Speaking
12-09-2010, 02:35 PM
In truth the philosophy behind them are the same, thus the only REAL difference is the names themselves.

Once you concede that the State is the sovereign and the individual is not, the details don't matter much.

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 02:41 PM
Socialism and communism are merely stops on the road to Marxism. Progressivism is a form of modern feudalism where the 'elite' seek to control every aspect of the lives of the ignorant and destructive surfs = for their own good of course. :rolleyes: Progressives always endorse socialism/communism/marxism for the masses even as they live high on the hog themselves - and are invariably the leaders in countries where these economic systems have been institutionalized.

Odysseus
12-09-2010, 03:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fa-G0OjrW4
LOL

Socialism and communism are merely stops on the road to Marxism. Progressivism is a form of modern feudalism where the 'elite' seek to control every aspect of the lives of the ignorant and destructive surfs = for their own good of course. :rolleyes: Progressives always endorse socialism/communism/marxism for the masses even as they live high on the hog themselves - and are invariably the leaders in countries where these economic systems have been institutionalized.

That's been pretty much my take. The various -isms of the left are the same old whine in the same old bottles, but with new labels, but they take great pains to distance themselves from whatever they were called the last time that they were in charge. I still believe that the whole thing is just sleight of hand so that people don't know what they're voting for, but Wei deserved a chance to explain.

fettpett
12-09-2010, 03:36 PM
the main problems with Socialism and Communism is that neither create any kind of need for bettering one self because everything is provided for you. Captialism does, because it is designed to make a person work to better themselves.

I find it funny that the liberal believers in evolution also want collectivism/socialism/communism even though the idea goes against the basic sturcture of evolution that the strongest survive...

Bailey
12-09-2010, 03:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fa-G0OjrW4

Ok I am missing the point here with this video clip, so can someone explane it to me :confused:

Lager
12-09-2010, 04:12 PM
Wei, what's so different in the Payroll tax cut as compared to the "making work pay credit"?

Wei Wu Wei
12-09-2010, 07:00 PM
In truth the philosophy behind them are the same, thus the only REAL difference is the names themselves.

Once you concede that the State is the sovereign and the individual is not, the details don't matter much.

Marxism is not Statism.

I hear this argument used constantly, often as a presupposition, on the radio.

Yes, it is true that many arguably and non-arguably Marxism-based government have been Statist in nature, authoritarian, top-down style. I am not an advocate of this, and most contemporary leftists are not either.

Socialism isn't necessarily Statism.

An example is a slightly more left wing neighbor, Canada. In Canada, a strong government is not to be feared as an enemy, because they view their government as theirs. It is their tool, of the people, to meet basic social needs and ensure a prosperous society.

That's not exactly a Stalinist regime.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-09-2010, 07:08 PM
Marxism is not Statism.

I hear this argument used constantly, often as a presupposition, on the radio.

Yes, it is true that many arguably and non-arguably Marxism-based government have been Statist in nature, authoritarian, top-down style. I am not an advocate of this, and most contemporary leftists are not either.

Socialism isn't necessarily Statism.

An example is a slightly more left wing neighbor, Canada. In Canada, a strong government is not to be feared as an enemy, because they view their government as theirs. It is their tool, of the people, to meet basic social needs and ensure a prosperous society.

That's not exactly a Stalinist regime.

Why do you dislike Capitalism?

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 07:12 PM
Why do you dislike Capitalism?

he has a bad case of 'class envy.'

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 07:15 PM
he has a bad case of 'class envy.'

He has Satan.

Wei Wu Wei
12-09-2010, 07:37 PM
Why do you dislike Capitalism?

Do you think Capitalism is without flaws? Do you think it is perfect?

I'm saying we need to be realistic about Capitalism and stop equating it to patriotism or freedom or any other buzzwords. Examine the very real problems inherent to Capitalism, examine it's positive and negative effects, and pose the question: Can we do it better? Is there still room for us to improve?

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 07:41 PM
Do you think Capitalism is without flaws? Do you think it is perfect?

I'm saying we need to be realistic about Capitalism and stop equating it to patriotism or freedom or any other buzzwords. Examine the very real problems inherent to Capitalism, examine it's positive and negative effects, and pose the question: Can we do it better? Is there still room for us to improve?

Notice how in typical leftist form wee wee not only does not answer the question asked - he tries to turn the tables and put the person posing the question to him on the defensive.

Wei Wu Wei
12-09-2010, 08:04 PM
I'm not trying to make anyone defensive. Honestly I could make a "Critiques of Capitalism" thread and fill it up with pages and pages of information, both the effects and the causes.

However, rather than trying to bog it down with academic buzzwords I'm trying to put it into practical terms that actually matter.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-09-2010, 08:25 PM
Do you think Capitalism is without flaws? Do you think it is perfect?

I'm saying we need to be realistic about Capitalism and stop equating it to patriotism or freedom or any other buzzwords. Examine the very real problems inherent to Capitalism, examine it's positive and negative effects, and pose the question: Can we do it better? Is there still room for us to improve?


Yes of course there is room for improvement. We can eliminate the socialistic crap that we have burdened ourselves with over the past several decades.

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 08:41 PM
despite all of the evidence to the contrary

Umm. OK, The tax cut deal.

There is evidence, right there, that looks like it is contrary to your view of Obama-as-socialist.

He may be a socialist, but if so, he is a thwarted socialist, at best.

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 08:47 PM
Umm. OK, The tax cut deal.

There is evidence, right there, that looks like it is contrary to your view of Obama-as-socialist.

He may be a socialist, but if so, he is a thwarted socialist, at best.

One correct action though forced on him defines him?

hampshirebrit
12-09-2010, 09:00 PM
One correct action though forced on him defines him?

Not at all, forced or not ... a single exception cannot possibly be said to make the case.

That said, the other rules making the case must not be so easily dispatched as was this one.

If you want to make the case for Mr Obama being a socialist, then the other rules will have to be more resilient.

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 09:16 PM
Not at all, forced or not ... a single exception cannot possibly be said to make the case.

That said, the other rules making the case must not be so easily dispatched as was this one.

If you want to make the case for Mr Obama being a socialist, then the other rules will have to be more resilient.

Read his books.

Madisonian
12-09-2010, 09:31 PM
Umm. OK, The tax cut deal.

There is evidence, right there, that looks like it is contrary to your view of Obama-as-socialist.

He may be a socialist, but if so, he is a thwarted socialist, at best.

I don't know exactly what I would classify Barry O'bumble as, but it would not be a socialist. He lacks the true commitment to the people that would allow me to affix that title.
He is a self absorbed megalomaniac, almost a textbook definition. He revels in the power and trappings his position grants him. His deals with the insurance companies with regard to HCR, financial bailouts of AIG, GM, Chrysler an so on have shown no desire for the government to take possession or nationalize these industries but he desperately needs to be seen as their saviors.
By these actions he is a corporostatist. That much cannot be denied, but he has shown no empathy for the little people that put him into office.

The right of center media mafia likes to use the socialist label due to its pejorative nature and because many of those that listen to them lack the critical thinking skills to comprehend a more in depth assessment of his character or political position. Given the choice or chance, I see him wanting to declare himself King for in his self centeredness and arrogance, I think he truly believes that he knows what is best for everyone and would make it so if only he had the power make it happen without interference.

Madisonian
12-09-2010, 09:55 PM
Umm. OK, The tax cut deal.

There is evidence, right there, that looks like it is contrary to your view of Obama-as-socialist.

He may be a socialist, but if so, he is a thwarted socialist, at best.

The tax cut deal could turn out to be a master political stroke for him if he were to keep his mouth shut for a while, but his ego is overriding his common sense. His recent attacks against the incumbent Republicans right now a case of premature evisceration.

As election season starts to wind up, get ready to hear about the trillion dollars the Republicans added to the deficit, trading off tax cuts for the rich to get the unemployment extension for those still hurting from 8 years of failed Bush policies and before they could even take office with a House majority, being coerced into dealing with the devil that cares more for the rich than the middle class.

And the Republicans allowed themselves to be snookered. What a bunch of dolts!
All they had to do was wait 3 more weeks and they could have had the same extension, possibly permanently instead of just 2 years, and submitted a budget cut to offset the decline in revenues. And if revenues increase like they claim it will*, they could reduce the deficit. They could have blamed the lame duck Dems for not passing the extensions in the last 2 years and bringing this pain on the people. Short sighted nincompoops.

* side note...
Why is it that Republicans and the right wing talking heads see an increase in tax revenue due to lower tax rates as a good thing? It is still government theft regardless. That you are taking less money from more individuals does not justify the theft or mean that it has to be spent on anything other than debt reduction.
All this does is enable the government feeding frenzy even more.

Odysseus
12-12-2010, 03:53 PM
Wei, I asked a direct question. Do you mind answering? See below:


Okay, this isn't as helpful as it might have been. What I get from this is that Marxism is the theory, Socialism is the practical application and Communism is the idealized endstate? If so, then what specific positions would distinguish a Marxist from a Socialist or a Communist? What would a Marxist favor that a Socialist, Communist or Progressive oppose, or do all of the people who subscribe to one end up subscribing to the others?

In other words, what are the distinct differences between the ideologies of Marxism, Socialism and Communism?

Or, to put it another way, are there any distinct differences between them, beyond the idea that Marx is the theory, socialism is the practice and communism is the fantasy?

Constitutionally Speaking
12-29-2010, 06:07 AM
Marxism is not Statism.

I hear this argument used constantly, often as a presupposition, on the radio.

Yes, it is true that many arguably and non-arguably Marxism-based government have been Statist in nature, authoritarian, top-down style. I am not an advocate of this, and most contemporary leftists are not either.

Socialism isn't necessarily Statism.

An example is a slightly more left wing neighbor, Canada. In Canada, a strong government is not to be feared as an enemy, because they view their government as theirs. It is their tool, of the people, to meet basic social needs and ensure a prosperous society.

That's not exactly a Stalinist regime.


That is a cop out. Once you concede the government has the power to do whatever it wants, instead of being limited by the sovereignty of the individual, all it takes is an unsavory character to assume control - and you have another Hitler.

m00
12-29-2010, 07:06 AM
Socialism = Economic system where wealth is distributed by the state
Communism = System of government where business and economic enterprise are state-owned and state-planned
Marxism = Philosophy that the next revolution will be the working class revolting against the capitalists, and this revolution will see Socialism and Communism implemented for the betterment of the world.
Progressivism = Nonsense label because "liberal" became a dirty word.

PoliCon
12-29-2010, 08:03 AM
Progressivism = Nonsense label because "liberal" became a dirty word. Dude - they picked up the label liberal only after progressive became a dirty word and twisted the meaning of liberal to where it no longer matches what the word originally meant and now people without historical perspective think that progressive is a a nonsense label that they picked up because liberal became a dirty word. :(

Rockntractor
12-29-2010, 08:19 AM
It is all just another name for evil.

m00
12-29-2010, 06:22 PM
Dude - they picked up the label liberal only after progressive became a dirty word and twisted the meaning of liberal to where it no longer matches what the word originally meant and now people without historical perspective think that progressive is a a nonsense label that they picked up because liberal became a dirty word. :(

Liberal has been a dirty word as long as I've been alive. And before that, since at least Nixon. When did progressive become a dirty word?

Rockntractor
12-29-2010, 06:24 PM
Liberal has been a dirty word as long as I've been alive. And before that, since at least Nixon. When did progressive become a dirty word?

Right after Woodrow Wilson.

AmPat
12-29-2010, 06:37 PM
What is the Difference Between Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressivism, etc.?
Only the spelling.:cool:

AmPat
12-29-2010, 06:40 PM
Do you think Capitalism is without flaws? Do you think it is perfect?

I'm saying we need to be realistic about Capitalism and stop equating it to patriotism or freedom or any other buzzwords. Examine the very real problems inherent to Capitalism, examine it's positive and negative effects, and pose the question: Can we do it better? Is there still room for us to improve?

Capitalism is the worst kind of economy,,,,,except for all the others.:cool:

PoliCon
12-29-2010, 09:04 PM
Liberal has been a dirty word as long as I've been alive. And before that, since at least Nixon. When did progressive become a dirty word?

http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/article-9313073/Progressive-movement

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=progressive+movement&gwp=13

http://www.answers.com/topic/progressivism-1

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100706003315AA10FSO

PoliCon
12-29-2010, 09:08 PM
Right after Woodrow Wilson.

more or less.