@vtgrad2003 I seem to remember being taught that "true communism" or pure communism was the government owns everything and everyone gets a share of the "profits" based on their needs. Of course, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics this was basically a lie from the start as while the government took control of everything those at the top of the politically food chain took the larger pieces of the pie and left the crumbs for the peasants. The complete opposite of the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." manifesto.
The difference between the two were explained as in communism, "everything" was owned by the government and in socialism private ownership was allowed and "profits" were distributed based on the ability to contribute. So, in pure Socialism, you could still own something, make money and give most of the money to the government who would then allot a share of the profit based on who made the biggest contribution.
Countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway are what I would consider to be Democratic Socialist or at least they practice a form of economic socialism. They have elected government and the government provide free education, free healthcare and "free" retirement. Of course, none of this is FREE. It is all paid for by taxing the crap out of each individual who works hard and get paid to the tune of about a 50% tax rate. What this does is eliminate the drive for people to work hard and save for the future in the middle and lower strata of society. I read somewhere that 10% of the population owns 65% of the wealth in those countries.
Not being sarcastic but I could be wrong on all this.
A command economy (socialism/communism) is defined as an economy whereby a central planning board (which could take many forms but is always a government operation) determines economic outcomes such as income distribution, production goals, product and service distribution, etc. A market economy is obviously one where the market (i.e., the interaction between buyers and sellers) determines all that. Then there are laissez-faire economies, of which none exist in the current day.
Socialist economies come in varying degrees of socialism while communist economies look almost identical to each other. The only area in the world where 'socialism' actually leads to (arguably) positive outcomes is indeed in the Nordic nations of Sweden, Denmark, Norway. The only reason they work so well is because of their heritage--i.e., Norse/Viking sort of thing. These are people that embrace living and working together, and contributing to the 'greater good' so to speak--e.g., Viking families living in long houses for instance. So with these cultures, a command economy structure, as long as it's not abused, is perfectly workable.
However, and this is a BIG however, in most of the world, communal societies such as these do not exist on a national level--i.e., most societies are far more heterogeneous within the nation's borders; this is why socialism, for instance, would never work well in the U.S. But this is also why socialism fails in most societies and where the line between socialism and communism becomes muddled.
As socialism degrades it evolves into communism almost by definition, as long as the government has some level of cooperation and/or control of a significant percentage of the population, which they usually do. As socialism breaks down, so does it's economy. Shortages become the norm because there is no incentive for firms to expand and become efficient as any profits a firm makes will be redistributed away--this also is a barrier to entrepreneurism which is the lifeblood of an efficient economy. Shortages mean problems for the government so they step in, take over the firm(s), and produce the product under the direct management of the government--i.e., communism.
That said, sometimes these socialist systems simply break down into a sort of anarchical chaos and remains that way--one of the many many reasons why Africa is the oldest continually occupied continent, yet lags developed nations by quite a lot.
In short, how socialism works and it's success depends entirely on the homogeneity of the population, without that, it quickly devolves into communism, and that is why there isn't much difference between the two, economically speaking.
LOL, I went to edit it slightly and the 'system' dropped it so I had to put it back up!
No, you weren't wrong at all in your analysis/description, in fact, you were spot on, the only difference I would say is when you said socialism and communism are different but I would argue they really aren't--one turns into the other over time almost with certainty--that's why when I teach economic systems in class, I call socialism "communism lite".
I've studied African economies extensively and it all comes down to government corruption and cultural heterogeneity. Even though most in Africa are indeed black, they come from different regions with different tribal allegiances. This is a perfect prescription for governmental corruption and subsequently, societal unrest, and you can't build an efficient and developed economy if there is substantial upheaval, infighting, and corruption.
Will it ever develop to the level of, say, emerging markets or the OECD? Probably not in my lifetime. That said, there are a few countries that have beat the norm such as Botswana. A very stable government with only about half-a-dozen major tribes, they all seem to get along pretty well and don't mind sharing power--but this is rare.
@vtgrad2003 Most of Africa reminds me of what Western Europe and the British Isles were back around the fourth or fifth centuries - Feudal societies with no central government to speak of. I could be wrong on the time period but it would have been before Charlemagne.
@PappyJoe Again, you're spot on. The post-Roman era, especially in Britain, up to about the Norman conquest (around about the 11th century I believe) actually saw a regression of technologies. During the Roman period, even the Romano-British were using decorated pottery, but by the 6th or 7th century, pottery was gone (for the most part although some poorly made, un-thrown pottery was still made), people were living in round-houses again, eating off wood plates and drinking out of leather pouches--all because of the feudalism.
Well, according to Rasmussen's daily tracking poll, Trump has had higher approval ratings than Biden up to this point in their term for about 40 straight days now and the spread is getting larger...looks like the honeymoon is officially over
@vtgrad2003 Well, smallpox has a higher approval rating then your buddy, fake pretend president joe biden😂 (not capitalized out of disrespect). Go ahead, prove me wrong. I double dog dare ya!
Well, as we know by now, our beloved president will choose a black female for the SCOTUS position. Aside from the fact that democrats never seem concerned with actual qualifications of candidates, only their gender and race, last night I was sent a picture of his pick. Now, he hasn't announced this yet, but will in the coming days...I wonder if you can tell who this woman is?
I don’t understand how he can get away with blatantly proclaiming that he will pick a black woman as a Supreme Court Justice. That’s outright UN-Equal Opportunity Employment. Which is complete and utter bullshit. How can this even fly? It’s suppose to be EVERYONE with the correct qualifications for the job has a chance right? WTF?! Such hypocrisy.
@RockyMountainBriar That's what you get with pudding brain illegitimately in public office. The government is so incredibly and deeply corrupt it's horrifying.
@Londy3 That number is probably significantly higher. Pudding brain doesn’t even know what planet he’s on. I’m so sick of politics playing a role in everything. This country is going down the shit pipe, and right quick.
I'm not a fan of impeaching a president without due cause. I can't stand Brandon and refuse to call him the title that was thrust upon him, but I also don't care for putting forth motions for impeachment that are either unjustified or will obviously fail. Remember all the useless attempts to impeach President Trump? That got old real fast. Impeachment shouldn't be used just because you have a slight advantage in numbers in congress and want to flex on the guy in charge that isn't in your party. I think that's poor politics and sends a bad message for untold years to come.
I think it's more likely to see the 25th amendment used at some point to remove Brandon from office, once his usefulness has ceased. That being said, I hope once congress turns more red, a real investigation into Brandon and his ties to Ukraine are explored.
Now, if he gets us into an unjustified conflict with Russia? Then I'm all for going after him with impeachment continuously until it succeeds.
@Balisong What was the 'legitimate' charge against Trump? He has been probably the most investigated president in the history of the US, and still nothing. Democrats, however, simply couldn't stand two things (1) his personality and (2) the fact that he beat Hillary. So if you want to talk "charge" please, give me one that is 'legitimate'. As I've always said, it would be nice if democrats, just occasionally, looked in the mirror; I think they don't because they'd be scared of what they would see--and payback is hell sometimes.
I don't think y'all understand how deep the corruption goes. Its far worse than anyone can believe. Removing Brandon is going to be very difficult especially with the do-nothing, self-serving, spineless and irrelevant republicans. Dems control everything right now.
The Democrats trumped up the charges against Trump. In my opinion, the democrats manufactured the evidence against Trump to begin with and the media and political hacks went along with it.
The Democrats would love to impeach Biden because then they would force him to retire and put Harris in office.
@Balisong Politics has always been tit for tat, since the beginning of time most likely...that's why there are political parties. Like the frivolous charges against Trump during his entire term in office, democrats proved undoubtedly that the charge itself doesn't matter...so we'll just make one up like the democrats did. We could start with shear incompetence, then move to the incompetent Afghan withdrawal, then the fact that tens of thousands of unvaxed illegals are being ushered into the U.S., then perhaps the crushing of petroleum sources in the US and now outsourcing all of our oil supply needs, inflating gas prices by roughly 50% thereby hurting poor people...etc etc.
Comments
I seem to remember being taught that "true communism" or pure communism was the government owns everything and everyone gets a share of the "profits" based on their needs. Of course, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics this was basically a lie from the start as while the government took control of everything those at the top of the politically food chain took the larger pieces of the pie and left the crumbs for the peasants. The complete opposite of the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." manifesto.
The difference between the two were explained as in communism, "everything" was owned by the government and in socialism private ownership was allowed and "profits" were distributed based on the ability to contribute. So, in pure Socialism, you could still own something, make money and give most of the money to the government who would then allot a share of the profit based on who made the biggest contribution.
Countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway are what I would consider to be Democratic Socialist or at least they practice a form of economic socialism. They have elected government and the government provide free education, free healthcare and "free" retirement. Of course, none of this is FREE. It is all paid for by taxing the crap out of each individual who works hard and get paid to the tune of about a 50% tax rate. What this does is eliminate the drive for people to work hard and save for the future in the middle and lower strata of society. I read somewhere that 10% of the population owns 65% of the wealth in those countries.
Not being sarcastic but I could be wrong on all this.
No, actually, you're quite correct.
A command economy (socialism/communism) is defined as an economy whereby a central planning board (which could take many forms but is always a government operation) determines economic outcomes such as income distribution, production goals, product and service distribution, etc. A market economy is obviously one where the market (i.e., the interaction between buyers and sellers) determines all that. Then there are laissez-faire economies, of which none exist in the current day.
Socialist economies come in varying degrees of socialism while communist economies look almost identical to each other. The only area in the world where 'socialism' actually leads to (arguably) positive outcomes is indeed in the Nordic nations of Sweden, Denmark, Norway. The only reason they work so well is because of their heritage--i.e., Norse/Viking sort of thing. These are people that embrace living and working together, and contributing to the 'greater good' so to speak--e.g., Viking families living in long houses for instance. So with these cultures, a command economy structure, as long as it's not abused, is perfectly workable.
However, and this is a BIG however, in most of the world, communal societies such as these do not exist on a national level--i.e., most societies are far more heterogeneous within the nation's borders; this is why socialism, for instance, would never work well in the U.S. But this is also why socialism fails in most societies and where the line between socialism and communism becomes muddled.
As socialism degrades it evolves into communism almost by definition, as long as the government has some level of cooperation and/or control of a significant percentage of the population, which they usually do. As socialism breaks down, so does it's economy. Shortages become the norm because there is no incentive for firms to expand and become efficient as any profits a firm makes will be redistributed away--this also is a barrier to entrepreneurism which is the lifeblood of an efficient economy. Shortages mean problems for the government so they step in, take over the firm(s), and produce the product under the direct management of the government--i.e., communism.
That said, sometimes these socialist systems simply break down into a sort of anarchical chaos and remains that way--one of the many many reasons why Africa is the oldest continually occupied continent, yet lags developed nations by quite a lot.
In short, how socialism works and it's success depends entirely on the homogeneity of the population, without that, it quickly devolves into communism, and that is why there isn't much difference between the two, economically speaking.
That's strange. One minute your reply was there, the next it was gone and now its back again.
Glad to see I wasn't wrong in my understanding of the differences between communism and socialism.
I've always wondered why the large number of Africa countries have remained so far behind other countries in world development.
LOL, I went to edit it slightly and the 'system' dropped it so I had to put it back up!
No, you weren't wrong at all in your analysis/description, in fact, you were spot on, the only difference I would say is when you said socialism and communism are different but I would argue they really aren't--one turns into the other over time almost with certainty--that's why when I teach economic systems in class, I call socialism "communism lite".
I've studied African economies extensively and it all comes down to government corruption and cultural heterogeneity. Even though most in Africa are indeed black, they come from different regions with different tribal allegiances. This is a perfect prescription for governmental corruption and subsequently, societal unrest, and you can't build an efficient and developed economy if there is substantial upheaval, infighting, and corruption.
Will it ever develop to the level of, say, emerging markets or the OECD? Probably not in my lifetime. That said, there are a few countries that have beat the norm such as Botswana. A very stable government with only about half-a-dozen major tribes, they all seem to get along pretty well and don't mind sharing power--but this is rare.
Most of Africa reminds me of what Western Europe and the British Isles were back around the fourth or fifth centuries - Feudal societies with no central government to speak of.
I could be wrong on the time period but it would have been before Charlemagne.
Again, you're spot on. The post-Roman era, especially in Britain, up to about the Norman conquest (around about the 11th century I believe) actually saw a regression of technologies. During the Roman period, even the Romano-British were using decorated pottery, but by the 6th or 7th century, pottery was gone (for the most part although some poorly made, un-thrown pottery was still made), people were living in round-houses again, eating off wood plates and drinking out of leather pouches--all because of the feudalism.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/prez_track_jan26
Well, smallpox has a higher approval rating then your buddy, fake pretend president joe biden😂 (not capitalized out of disrespect). Go ahead, prove me wrong. I double dog dare ya!
I read the same thing online. They said it may be Helloray Washington but I'm not sure
Black transgender person with Hispanic surname.
Such hypocrisy.
I wish I could hit my "awesome" and "like" buttons fifteen times each on your comment.
That's what you get with pudding brain illegitimately in public office. The government is so incredibly and deeply corrupt it's horrifying.
Yep, I can certainly see the resemblance!
50% Support Biden’s Impeachment
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2022/50_support_biden_s_impeachment
I bet that number is higher than that. Most American citizens want pudding Brian in out of this office.
That number is probably significantly higher. Pudding brain doesn’t even know what planet he’s on. I’m so sick of politics playing a role in everything. This country is going down the shit pipe, and right quick.
I think it's more likely to see the 25th amendment used at some point to remove Brandon from office, once his usefulness has ceased. That being said, I hope once congress turns more red, a real investigation into Brandon and his ties to Ukraine are explored.
Now, if he gets us into an unjustified conflict with Russia? Then I'm all for going after him with impeachment continuously until it succeeds.
What was the 'legitimate' charge against Trump? He has been probably the most investigated president in the history of the US, and still nothing. Democrats, however, simply couldn't stand two things (1) his personality and (2) the fact that he beat Hillary. So if you want to talk "charge" please, give me one that is 'legitimate'. As I've always said, it would be nice if democrats, just occasionally, looked in the mirror; I think they don't because they'd be scared of what they would see--and payback is hell sometimes.
I didn't mention Trump. Are you suggesting tit for tat politics?? My question is still what charge?
The Democrats would love to impeach Biden because then they would force him to retire and put Harris in office.
Politics has always been tit for tat, since the beginning of time most likely...that's why there are political parties. Like the frivolous charges against Trump during his entire term in office, democrats proved undoubtedly that the charge itself doesn't matter...so we'll just make one up like the democrats did. We could start with shear incompetence, then move to the incompetent Afghan withdrawal, then the fact that tens of thousands of unvaxed illegals are being ushered into the U.S., then perhaps the crushing of petroleum sources in the US and now outsourcing all of our oil supply needs, inflating gas prices by roughly 50% thereby hurting poor people...etc etc.