Originally Posted by Ayotui
i dont know how many times i have to say this, Socialism =/= comunism. socialism is a mix of capitalism and comunism. where the government owns some companies, but the private sector still exists and works as competition for the government. which means the government have some power over the market, but not all of it.
Your socialism ≠ communism comment is semi-correct, but your explanation is awful. Mainly because what Pokol deArran said is actually correct. (Also, in all technicality, communism is a subtype of socialism.)
Basic socialist theory is limited to "a group of competent people" who have administrative control over all aspects of production/control basic resources (NOT actual land units, which is much of communism's hang-up), the profits of which should be shared equally between members of society. Take for instance Owen's earlier socialist experiments--the successful ones, not the epicfail attempts at creating utopian societies out of criminals and layabouts--in which he, abiding by Enlightenment theories of human equality, basically founded a factory in which the workers (and owner alike) were paid with the profits of what they worked for, rather than paid set wages out of the factory owner's pocket. Everyone had access to the machines and the "capital" they produced, which theoretically prevented the factory owner (Owen) from becoming ridiculously rich and the factory workers from becoming ridiculously poor. This made everyone happy and more willing to work hard. The idea is that if you have a trained, experienced administration, be it governing body or community council of some sort, they will be able to lead the people into working equally hard for equal profit... because the community will work together to benefit itself and each other. It actually has the potential to work quite well within the boundaries of a small social organism, such as a company, and is actually a practice employed by some business owners today. The larger, idealized scope--i.e., entire country running on socialism in order to create an ideal society--is impractical, though, as the right people need to be in power, and there need to be a lot
of right people--which there aren't.
And that definition is, really, entirely generalized. There are too many different branches of socialism to explain it briefly. ;-;
Communism, on the other hand, is a more extreme conception of basic socialist theory. It's still the "common ownership" theory, but it's also more "government owns everything
and can do with it what they will." The "what they will" of communism is essentially "make life standardized." Communism tends to partially blame social hierarchy for all the evils of the world, and makes it its mission to even everything out. It's an incredibly hands-on means of government, especially as the government basically dictates everything to make sure this "equality" remains, and whatnot. And all that said, communism, as implemented in this way, was not actually what Marx had hoped for when he wrote what became the basis of much communist theory.
As to capitalism... whoever owns the privilege gets the wealth, and can do with it what they will. "What they will" in capitalism tends to be "get more rich by abusing the poor," depending on which economic theoriest you ask. Marx goes for the "cyclical abuse and redistribution of power" concept, iirc, which composes the bulk of his argument against capitalism? Don't quote me on that, though.
And while we're on the subject of economics, Bentham makes me happy. According to his ideas, it is entirely possible to measure happiness. The units are utiles. You-tiles. Bahahaha.
EDIT: @Harry: Not all
of Marx's predictions about capitalism came true. Yet. Thank God. xD
EDIT2: At the person who pulled the old "human nature argument," what you said is actually easily debunkable, as your combination of anti-socialism with basic Enlightenment theory (mentioned in one of your earlier posts, iirc) is inherently contradictory. I might bother to do it later, but as of now, I'd rather laugh at the fact that another person has indeed been brainwashed. And by "brainwashed," I mean "absorbed the commonly held, contradictory opinions that are proposed by poorly-informed people who have merely absorbed the same opinions from other, equally poorly-informed people, none of whom actually have a thorough historical, economic, theoretical, or philosophical understanding of the ramifications of what they're attempting to say."
EDIT3: And yes, I realize that my arguments have slight wording errors that could possibly make them fallible. Forgive me if I don't feel like composing a perfectly coherent political explanation on the internet.