Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communism

Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communism Fast

[misheardanimefreak]

Russia was definitely not pure communism. It pretty much was totalitarian almost fascist, under the guise of communism. It also allocated practically all of its resources to the military/war/revolution it was dealing with.

[davidscott]

I've heard alot of definitions of the forms of government we have, but the scariest is the secretive disaster capitalism that socializes the cost, and privatizes the gains.

[Leothor]

"The book would say right wing, but in every aspect of action it is control, collectivism and eugenics.

Same as the Communists.

Hitler states in Mein Kampf, that "He and Stalin are the same but for the Blood."

The Nazis killed anyone in a group that was not pro Nazi, Trade Unionists were 1st"
This is called Totalitarianism or Authoritarianism and yes they had that in commen but neither of those are exclusivly left- or rightwing.

[shithard]

What makes you think that a large amount of people would magically become robbers and murderers if there were no official police presence, are there not already plenty of these kinds of people/crimes despite the existing authority? When I here people explain this theory it make me think that they are in fact the suppressed criminals, who are just waiting for an opportunity to become just as callous and violent as the killers and thieves of today.

[proletarian]

For those who don't know, America is a plutocratic oligarchy, search up the definition of the words.

[BloatedSensations]

@americanbandwidth "They see their way as the only way, That doesn't make them Nazis." - It also doesn't make them socialists, or leftists. It's a common characteristic of all totalitarian regimes, and totalitarianism is not exclusive to either the right or left - nor is it exclusive to socialism, nor anything else. I'll repeat my earlier example: The same characteristic is true of fundamentalist Christians, does that then make them socialists, or leftists?

[BlackRose]

@narutix07 Socialism is like a watered down version of Communism. Communism is all equality and "fair share", and basically EVERYTHING (business wise) is government owned. With Socialism, you still have some freedom with smaller industries, for example the entertainment industry, etc, but when it comes to big industries (like things that the government determines important) there's no individual freedom in the market.

[proletarian]

For those who don't know America is a plutocratic oligarchy. Study the actual definitions of the words.

[sicktoaster]

That spectrum oversimplifies.
Communism HAS to be in rhetoric at least aimed at equality.
It is possible to have a government-run economy whose goal is not equality. A few examples, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany.
The true spectrum would have totalitarianism at the one extreme and laissez-faire capitalism at the other

[sicktoaster]

@tuners909
I never said any country was ever 100% communist. That's impossible simply because there are different ways to interpret whether or not things are "equal".
I was just making the point that even if government had 100% control that still would not technically be 100% communist, because communism means the government is oriented towards achieving equality. The government could orient itself towards other things and then it would still be totalitarian but not communist.

[stephenleee]

The only thing I know is that we are being taxed to death and beyond. User fees for everything soon there will be a user fee for taking a crap.

[oldoldoldoldold]

@MrCaptainSr79 Actually, his argument is completely valid. He's saying that in order to understand communism, you have to read original communist literature. That's as valid as saying in order to understand Christianity, you have to read the Bible. So it's like telling someone who watches MSNBC, and *doesn't understand how conservatives think*, to watch Fox.

[BloatedSensations]

@americanbandwidth Collectivism, as a general term, can be either left, or right. The Nazis practiced reactionary collectivism - which was specifically and ideologically opposed leftist socialist forms of collectivism. Practically every right-wing authoritarian that has ever existed on the planet practiced some form of collectivism to one degree or another. The same goes with a free-market system - by your reasoning EVERYBODY - EVER - were/are leftists. It's ludicrous.

[golemkonty]

Capitalism - free markets, Socialism - planned economy, Communism - no state, no private property, no money system, decentralized autonomous communities with direct democracies and sharing of the fruit of their labour on the principle "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" - this is the original communism - anarchocommunism! in USSR was state socialism-capitalism

[BloatedSensations]

@americanbandwidth ...(cont'2) "Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century." ~ Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism - Fascism has "right-wing" printed right on the freakin' label!

[ElGartardos]

@BobTheMillipede this is pretty accurate. Communism is the ideal state. Socialism is the way there. Many socialists don't believe in communism, because communism emplies equality in the personal, as well as the professional.

[hesswi]

@yakyakyak69 "the more regulated the market, the freer the people" is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the two don't correlate. You can have personal freedom and a neo-liberal economy (USA broadly speaking) or a highly regulated/planned economy (e.g. Sweden). You can also have very little personal freedom and neo-liberal economics (Pinochet's Chile, to a lesser degree the recently toppled Tunisian and Epyptian governments) or a planned economy and little/no personal freedom (Belarus).

[arenor]

People starved during the late 1920's and early 1930's because of the failure of the Fed to properly use their monetary policies, the same policies they use today I might add.

[hesswi]

@yakyakyak69 ' Corporations can ONLY use force through politicians who become their cronies via "campaign support" '. There are lots of countries where there is no corporate sponsorship of political parties. This does not prevent such companies from having a strong negative impact upon the enivronment or from collaborating whether formally or informally to keep labour costs low or from disobeying health and safety law. I don't know if that counts as "force" but it's definitely a problem.

[ElGartardos]

It is hard to have a discussion on youtube, because of the restrictions in the amount of letters aloud.