A question for the communists, and socialists

[Az]

They're no different.

What we need to ensure is that the people will get the things they want, and that they'll get high quality products. you don't need a free market to do this. Some rigid quality control will do, as well as product checking groups. Basically, the same techniques currently used by corporations.

[Az]

well, for one thing, the whole society are workers, not elite coroprate owners...

If there is a "workers' council" of some company that sees an opportunity to make a buck on the back of the rest of society, do you think they wouldn't do it? Say, there is a severe shortage of a certain necessary product. why do you think that the workers will behave any better than exectives? As long as there is a competition for profit, the thing that would happen if the syndicatists would get their way, they'll try to speculate their way into more profit.

[Illyrien]

Originally posted by Kidicious [/SIZE]

The market is inefficient at allocating resources. Almost always, there is either a shortage of a surplus. Even when there seems to be an equilibrium what is produced is not what society really wants. The producers have no idea what each other are doing, or really how much demand there will be for their product in the future.

BUT, what the market can do is show everbody what the cost of things really is. Since a price is not an absolute, but rather a dynamic variable (new technologies, better infrastructure etc...) everybody can easily see what things cost.

In a more totalitarian society all prices are desided by some sort of comitee. This leads to all sorts of strange and WASTEFULL use of rescources. So all things equall a market is quite a bit more efficient.

Oh, and by the way, who are you to decide what "society really wants"

In a Market-economy you get freedom to buy want you want, which companies will then producem while in State-economy a central comitee decides what the factories should produce and ultimately what the customers should be able to buy.


On last thing...
That line about "USSR and China wasnt socialist..." well they tried very hard to be... anyway, going along we the same line we could just say that "USA isnt really capitalist..."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Illyrien
In a Market-economy you get freedom to buy want you want, which companies will then producem while in State-economy a central comitee decides what the factories should produce and ultimately what the customers should be able to buy.

Partly in answer to Az : I was talking about the State "dictating" prices, production etc. because it is a common misconception topwards socialism, that comes from the Soviet experience.
A socialist society needs its companies to be public, it doesn't necessarily mean they are state-owned.

What would prevent those workers from being as assholish as the corporations of today?

Nothing that I know of, in theory. In my opinion (hwhich doesn't reflect marxist theory), the State should have an economic importance about as high as in social-democracies, except that it'll have to deal only with employees rather than a caste of shareholders and managers.

[chequita guevara]

Slowwhand did an excellent job of describing it. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

As far as movements go, shake 'em up in a bag and try and tell them apart. Very generally, communists believe that socialism can only be acheived by revolution, and that it will very likely be violent (though not by choice). Even this isn't a good explanation, because you have groups like the British Socialist Workers Party who call themselves revolutionary socialists and the Communist Parties in Europe have pretty much abandoned revolution and persue parlimentarism.

I call myself either depending on what I feel like typing at the moment. I'm a revolutionary Marxist and a Leninist and I'm not afraid to call myself a communist. Sometimes I'm just feeling a little more mellow.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
What about Social-Democracy? Or is it all just red-commie nonsense?

Social-Democracy is very opposite to socialism and communism. Social democracy doesn't intend to overthrow capitalism. At the contrary it attempts to seethe soothe the gaps created by capitalism in order to make it last longer.
Marx called the social-democrats "cretins"

Edited

[chequita guevara]

Soothe, not seethe. Seethe means to be very angry.

[Space05us]

so a Communist is someone who follows (or would like to follow) Marx's teachings
and
a Socialist is just someone who wants free education, free healthcare, and free parking?

[Berzerker]

Sava -

I think some form of Social-Democracy is probably the best form of government. One of the biggest problems in the US is the amount of lobbying power that special interest groups and corporations have.

The reason we have those high-powered lobbyists is because we are on the road to social democracy. When government has more power over our lives, especially the power to "re-distribute" wealth, there will be more people trying to buy the votes of politicians. You've identified a symptom of "social democracy" and deluded yourself into believing more social democracy will be better.

[Spiffor]

Space05us : nope.
Both communists and socialists want to overthrow capitalism. The aftermath is different. The modern definitions of communism and socialism vary so much, I don't imagine summarize them (heck, I don't even know part of them).

Only wanting free education, healthcare and such is called social-democracy. It has nothing to do with socialism and communism. Its purpose is to keep capitalism alive, by reducing its most glaring inequalities.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sava -

The reason we have those high-powered lobbyists is because we are on the road to social democracy. When government has more power over our lives, especially the power to "re-distribute" wealth, there will be more people trying to buy the votes of politicians. You've identified a symptom of "social democracy" and deluded yourself into believing more social democracy will be better.

In France and Germany, lobbying is very different and less significant than in the US, while these countries are much more social-democrat than the US. OTOH, there is a strong US-like lobbyism in EU institutions, although they are much more pro-free market (heck, let's call it "Liberal - European Meaning", and be done with it).
Not that I'm saying there is necessarily an opposite correlation, but I think your theory doesn't hold water.

[Space05us]

where's the big difference that makes people so pissed if you call them Communits when they are a Socialist and Socialist when they are Communist?

[chequita guevara]

Communists are murderers and Socialists are weenies. At least, that's how they tend to see each other.



And don't I know, someone (or even several someone's) is gonna quote my first sentence.

[Spiffor]

Space05us : their sheer sectarism
More seriously, there are differences. Read SlowwHand's answer page 1, it is short and straight to the point. Read my previous answers if you want more details. Ask Che if you want to read the Capital

[St Leo]

a Socialist is just someone who wants free education, free healthcare, and free parking?

No, parking should definitely not be free. Of course, I am more of a Social Democrat than a Socialist, so I don't know the traditional Socialist stance on parking. I'm sure some of the other people here have read long manifestoes on the subject and are willing to enlighten you.