Yesterday Yevette asked the difference between Socialism and Communism and that's one more example of how right-wing extremists have distorted the meaning of words. When an inability exists to differentiate the concepts separating Socialism and Communism, it's through deliberate obfuscation by extremists.
Socialism is largely the economic theory proposed by Karl Marx and which thinking is still a significant part of an education in economics. Here at the Rockhouse, we do not have that expertise but we're aware of the importance of Karl Marx in this context. To this day, he is regarded fondly as Papa Marx.
Communism is when the economic theory is subverted by a totalitarian regime such as that of Josef Stalin and in this way Socialism becomes perceived as a method of government even when that was never the actual definition of it and totalitarianism remains the same.
The subversion of the concept of Socialism in this way is analogous to the way Christian thinking has been subverted by American politicians to make it a tool rather than a philosophy for personal moral guidance and consideration. ISIS does exactly the same thing since this method of steering large numbers of people is a time-honored tradition for despotic governments.
With no exception anywhere, all governments are socialist even if it's only in terms of the military providing a common defense.
(Ed: the U.S. Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy are socialist?)
To the bone, Sergeant Saunders. Unless Operations are driven by funds generated from bake sales, tip your hat to the U.S. military, socialist to the core and apparently not even aware of it.
Any discussion of Socialism in nations which fancy themselves non-socialist is almost always subverted to a discussion of Communism by people who know the difference but also know many in the public do not. That lack of knowledge gives them leverage and you see how they play it.
It's vitally important to understand the difference since combat, if any, is with totalitarian regimes which the U.S. military has shown a remarkable predilection for installing. For example, the CIA-led coup against Salvador Allende, the elected leftist leader of Chile, resulted in the installation of Pinochet, one of the worst despots in South America. While Allende was advocating Socialism, he was not advocating Communism but the CIA, as directed by Kissinger, took out Allende and Communism (i.e. American definition of Totalitarianism) took over.
This is a long-winded and substantially less eloquent way of restating Noam Chomsky's theories of language and the vital importance of it insofar as changing the definition of a single word can swing an entire culture ... or remove culture altogether and it will revert to blind violence, just as we see now around the world.
Update: the Goldwater Republican response
Kannafoot
Allow me to present an alternate view, especially with regards to the differences between socialism and communism. By way of reference, here's a very short description of Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism:
American Government: Comparing Political and Economic Systems
First, Marx was most certainly a Communist, not a Socialist. It's important, however, not to confuse the Communist theories of Marx with the Stalinist practices that ensued.
There are two fundamental differences between Communism and Socialism. The first is private ownership of property and businesses is prohibited under Communism. Marx believed that private ownership lead to greed and a hoarding of wealth. Socialism permits private ownership, however focuses on attempting to maintain a balance in the accumulation of wealth such that it's relatively evenly distributed across the spectrum of social classes.
The second has to do with revolution. Communism believes that, in its perfect state, the worker will rise in revolt to overthrow any remaining form of Capitalism in that society. Socialism does not believe in such a revolution, and - in a limited fashion - tolerates some aspects of Capitalism (such as private ownership of property.)
There's also a totally different theory that does not list Socialism as a separate entity. In this theory, Socialism is the left-of-center implementation of Capitalism, with Fascism being the right-of-center implementation. This theory differentiates between the two based on how one views equality. The socialist views equality of all to be achievable and desirable whereas the fascist views inequality to be a natural state. This view pits egalitarianism (total equality) against social conservatism (inequality.)
Again, in this view, it's important not to confuse traditional fascism with the corruption that ensued under the Nazis. Yes, they were a fascist state, however it was fascism to its ultimate extreme.
Socialist Left
(I must transplant this as Socialism, Communism, and Kannafoot' has a cool ring to it)
For my taste, this gets a wee bit semantic and the risk is communism with a little 'C' because using the large 'C' makes it even more difficult to differentiate the Communism which manifested under Stalin's totalitarianism from anything espoused by Marx.
I think we're clear already whether espoused by Marx or no, the redistribution of wealth in terms of already accumulated capital is not a specific goal of the Rockhouse model of Socialism but rather we hold the belief economic systems should be designed for positive recycling at all times. Nothing pools anywhere but one thing won't change: the rich always end up rich. From Rockhouse Socialism, this is not a problem. The problem comes with the obscene wealth of some, for example, the Waltons who hold more wealth than 43% (some say) of the people in the country.
Socialism is largely the economic theory proposed by Karl Marx and which thinking is still a significant part of an education in economics. Here at the Rockhouse, we do not have that expertise but we're aware of the importance of Karl Marx in this context. To this day, he is regarded fondly as Papa Marx.
Communism is when the economic theory is subverted by a totalitarian regime such as that of Josef Stalin and in this way Socialism becomes perceived as a method of government even when that was never the actual definition of it and totalitarianism remains the same.
The subversion of the concept of Socialism in this way is analogous to the way Christian thinking has been subverted by American politicians to make it a tool rather than a philosophy for personal moral guidance and consideration. ISIS does exactly the same thing since this method of steering large numbers of people is a time-honored tradition for despotic governments.
With no exception anywhere, all governments are socialist even if it's only in terms of the military providing a common defense.
(Ed: the U.S. Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy are socialist?)
To the bone, Sergeant Saunders. Unless Operations are driven by funds generated from bake sales, tip your hat to the U.S. military, socialist to the core and apparently not even aware of it.
Any discussion of Socialism in nations which fancy themselves non-socialist is almost always subverted to a discussion of Communism by people who know the difference but also know many in the public do not. That lack of knowledge gives them leverage and you see how they play it.
It's vitally important to understand the difference since combat, if any, is with totalitarian regimes which the U.S. military has shown a remarkable predilection for installing. For example, the CIA-led coup against Salvador Allende, the elected leftist leader of Chile, resulted in the installation of Pinochet, one of the worst despots in South America. While Allende was advocating Socialism, he was not advocating Communism but the CIA, as directed by Kissinger, took out Allende and Communism (i.e. American definition of Totalitarianism) took over.
This is a long-winded and substantially less eloquent way of restating Noam Chomsky's theories of language and the vital importance of it insofar as changing the definition of a single word can swing an entire culture ... or remove culture altogether and it will revert to blind violence, just as we see now around the world.
Update: the Goldwater Republican response
Kannafoot
Allow me to present an alternate view, especially with regards to the differences between socialism and communism. By way of reference, here's a very short description of Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism:
American Government: Comparing Political and Economic Systems
First, Marx was most certainly a Communist, not a Socialist. It's important, however, not to confuse the Communist theories of Marx with the Stalinist practices that ensued.
There are two fundamental differences between Communism and Socialism. The first is private ownership of property and businesses is prohibited under Communism. Marx believed that private ownership lead to greed and a hoarding of wealth. Socialism permits private ownership, however focuses on attempting to maintain a balance in the accumulation of wealth such that it's relatively evenly distributed across the spectrum of social classes.
The second has to do with revolution. Communism believes that, in its perfect state, the worker will rise in revolt to overthrow any remaining form of Capitalism in that society. Socialism does not believe in such a revolution, and - in a limited fashion - tolerates some aspects of Capitalism (such as private ownership of property.)
There's also a totally different theory that does not list Socialism as a separate entity. In this theory, Socialism is the left-of-center implementation of Capitalism, with Fascism being the right-of-center implementation. This theory differentiates between the two based on how one views equality. The socialist views equality of all to be achievable and desirable whereas the fascist views inequality to be a natural state. This view pits egalitarianism (total equality) against social conservatism (inequality.)
Again, in this view, it's important not to confuse traditional fascism with the corruption that ensued under the Nazis. Yes, they were a fascist state, however it was fascism to its ultimate extreme.
Socialist Left
(I must transplant this as Socialism, Communism, and Kannafoot' has a cool ring to it)
For my taste, this gets a wee bit semantic and the risk is communism with a little 'C' because using the large 'C' makes it even more difficult to differentiate the Communism which manifested under Stalin's totalitarianism from anything espoused by Marx.
I think we're clear already whether espoused by Marx or no, the redistribution of wealth in terms of already accumulated capital is not a specific goal of the Rockhouse model of Socialism but rather we hold the belief economic systems should be designed for positive recycling at all times. Nothing pools anywhere but one thing won't change: the rich always end up rich. From Rockhouse Socialism, this is not a problem. The problem comes with the obscene wealth of some, for example, the Waltons who hold more wealth than 43% (some say) of the people in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment