I believe that this discussion comes down to the corruptibility of men. In the wake of the Enron's and Bernie Madoff's it is simple to see that without justice, imposed and ensured by regulation capitalism to will fail under the weight of the corruptibility of man. Like sheep to Wolves.

In the wake of Big Bank bailouts to me it is clear that regulation to has failed under the corruptibility of men.

Where are those begging for de-regulation and espousing more capitalism not less is needed now only 18 months ago.

Equally Where are those saying yes, what we need now is more regulation?

Capitalism will fail or depending on your seat in society has already began to fail. Either that failure will come with the environmental failure of the planet and/or with the greed of the wolves.

Socialism, Communism, and other forms of Capitalism have failed historically under these same wolves.

With that said, it seems fruitless to defend either. First, in my humble opinion one should ask themselves what am I willing to lose for the gains of compromise.

I am willing to leave those who choose failure for themselves or their children to their destiny, if those who seek success are willing to be checked and in some ways restrained to ensure that their right to become filthy rich doesn't impede on my ability to fail by my own devices not through their poor investments in the future.

When I survey the scene here I see all that is necessary to ensure success amidst the wolves. All that is missing is compromise.

So with that said what am I? Surely someone here can label me?

Thanks for the article. To all of who support socialism, communism or various mixtures and takeoffs of them (for the sake of clarity I will refer to them as Marxism) I have a few things to say.

Look at the facts. How many times has Marxism been successful? How many times has failed? Also, ask yourself which is the most successful nation in the world? Your answer to that question is the United States of America, whether you like it or not.

I, for one, thank God for this nation and am saddened by the effect Marxists are having on this great nation. Socialist promulgate government or collective ownership of the means of production, which doesn't translate from the socialist brain into real life very well at all.

If you are redistributing wealth that destroys the principle of being rewarded for your work.

Why work when you're just going to get taxed out of your money; just be lazy and reap the benefits of others' hard work. As you should be able to see in the Marxist society there is no point in working.

Oh, but wait, that also creates a problem because then there are no funds to redistribute. What then? Well I guess we could always hold hands and sing, until malnutrition takes that ability from us. The whole redistribution of wealth thing is lot poppycock.

The communistic idea of a classless society with no government also has many problems. For one thing I guarantee you someone is going to decide to take control. In fact several someone's will and that creates chaos and bloodshed.

When that struggle is over whoever won will make the nation his slave in brutal dictatorship. Oh, but, there are no classes and our society is peaceful in communism.

What all of you brilliant Marxists seem to have missed is that there are actually two classes as it turns out: the dictator and his coterie and the slave class. I guess you were pretty close in saying there are only two classes and if you think being a slave is peaceful and harmonious and grand, I have plenty things you could do for me.

To you anti-war people: since the Iraqi war is so awful, I guess you would happy as clam if Al-Qaeda was freely roaming American streets oppressing American citizens and offing those who don't comply with their demands. That clam analogy would be better stated. You have all the great intellectual power of a clam. Anyway, that's enough ranting.

@80: You make a few good points. I'd like to know what you think of our (the US) current system though. If I'm a guy working in a machine shop, I might make $50,000 a year.

Meanwhile, the CEO of Goldman Sachs gets over a million, then gets a bonus of over $60 million. People should be rewarded for what the contribute. There's no way that guy works over 1200 times harder than I do.

And that is what's wrong with 'free-market' capitalism. We don't need communism, but we certainly need a healthy dose of socialism.

Why should one not be rewarded for their work? All work is not equal. As in the example of the body, my heart is not equal to my appendix.

In response to number 79, you pay taxes to support war in order to have a country. Wars are what make our borders and all national borders have been defined by war. Borders need to be defended or they will be invaded. Certainly there is room for disagreement as to whether some particular war is really necessary and that is why we have elections.

In reality, no war is necessary, if one is willing to accept the consequences of not fighting. We all saw examples of this in high school. There were wimpy fruitcakes who allowed the bullies to step all over them. The only thing that kept the bullies in line were the kids who would not stand for it and fought back.

You appear to be a utopian who believes that violence solves nothing. I would suggest you go live in a community where police are not allowed. Good luck with that.

We institute government to have the only monopoly on the legal use of force;no one else can force anything on anyone except the government and that is why we limit the role of government to only those things that reasonable people cannot negotiate and contract for voluntarily between themselves, which in practice excludes most everything but legal justice and national defence.

To use government to re-distribute what others have worked for is simply legalized theft and that is exactly what is wrong with communism and socialism.

Generally people who want more than what free people would pay for their often meagre skills or work energy are diminished and immoral human beings who believe that a government who steals on their behalf somehow makes the theft morally acceptable, i.e., they have criminal instincts but they are too cowardly to pick up the gun and do the robbery for themselves and see communism and socialism as a way around their dilemma.

Any system to its extreme is probably not the best, hence capitalism and communism. We have a bit of both. My thing is, if we pay taxes, why does it go to a war that I never wanted? Why should I work 35-40 hours a week to pay for genocide? I'd rather have my money going for health care, a tangible good, something.

It's funny no one wants to mention when profits go to the top, how that isn't fascism. What's sad is how terms and vocabulary is so interchangeable to press the buttons of the masses.

If someone said, "Let's turn our fire department into socialism" everyone gets scared.

@64: The problem with "Socialist Leadership" is that there are limits to what a centralized group can do. The charitable person you mentioned is exactly what we need. Rather than waiting upon the inefficiency of distribution of resources to millions of people 'far and wide', instead, we can treat people's immediate needs if we had more morale and righteous people.

If the government controlled everything, situations that require immediate care would be neglected because there are so many needs, constantly.

RE: "This might seem like splitting hairs, but it's actually an important point to make since conservatives and liberals are won't to characterize socialism as a centralizing and therefore totalitarian doctrine whereas in fact most socialists would like to see the decentralize of economic power."

Decentralization is a nice concept when it comes to the butcher shoppe and the candle maker.

How would "decentralization" apply to securing the capital and know how to sink an oil well 35,000 feet under the caribbean sea?

How do we "decentralize" the aggregation of the 10 billion bucks and the thousands like it that such projects require?

RE: "Hence in the communist state all work was equal. Without the farmers the office workers wouldn't have ate and without the factory workers the farmers had no equipment to maintain the land."

Really? Wasn't some work "more equal" than others?

Let's say I'm an "equal" farm worker who doesn't like to get up on cold mornings and go out into the fields and do back breaking work.

Maybe I'd like to stay inside next to the stove with some hot tea and "supervise" the discipline of those who would likewise rather stay inside and keep warm and sit on a chair like me.

Now which of all these "equal people" decides who sits on the easy chair next to the stove and which must do the hard work that no one really wants to do?

I cannot believe the naivete of those who cling to this mind-numbing, outrageous simplification of human behavior. I would surmise that most of this cock-eyed nonsense comes from the denizens of academia where no one has ever been connected with reality.

Please tell me if I am wrong in this assessment. In which part of this "equal" world do you do your skulking?

Re 71: What you wrote in the first paragraph is nonsense! Observe the way your body works for a moment then think! Your heart is sometimes beating fast and you brain is hardly doing any work and vice versa. Yet you would not exist as a whole and healthy being without neither. So could you decide which of the two was more important or valuable to you?

Hence in the communist state all work was equal. Without the farmers the office workers wouldn't have ate and without the factory workers the farmers had no equipment to maintain the land.

We are just as important as each other, and if we stopped observing the world through a microscope and looked at the whole thing for once, we could simply stop fighting each other, be equal and work for a better future for the entire humanity together.

In this universe everything is connected and governed by a set of physical rules. Maybe if we took that example and projected it to politics we could establish a happy and united planet Earth where we are all equal and recognize how our individuals complemented each other.

After all we have got to share the planet with each other either way.

Thoughtful summary. I would want to make some slight revisions, however.

Socialists do not necessarily desire that the economy be "controlled and planned by a centralized organization." It's true that Marxian socialists desire as much, but not other socialists.

Anarchists, for instance, wish for the abolition of the state and for industry to come under democratic worker control. Other democratic socialists, while not wishing to abolish the state, would like to see industry come under direct worker control.

Thus both anarchists and democratic socialists would prefer cooperatives to state-owned enterprise as there is little reason to assume state-owned enterprise would be anymore democratic than private enterprise.

This might seem like splitting hairs, but it's actually an important point to make since conservatives and liberals are wont to characterize socialism as a centralizing and therefore totalitarian doctrine whereas in fact most socialists would like to see the decentralize of economic power.

Number 72 has it correct. The founders were, in large part, not anti-religious as much as they were distrustful of the state and state religion.

It would be a simplification to say they were all of one mind as much as it would be to cast today's sorry lot of politicians as all of the same mind.

However, we must remember that these were bold men who built a free country and nothing like the criminal elements that drive our current political apparatus.

Granted Benjamin Franklin was not a regular church goer, especially compared to many of the other founding fathers, but he did believe in the importance of Christianity in the government of our nation. Here are just a few more quotes from Benjamin Franklin:

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” [Constitutional Convention of 1787. original manuscript of this speech]

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

After having read all of the comments posted on the subject, I can't help but notice that those in favor of socialism seem to forget that we are discussing people, not mere units of measure. If five people are told that they will receive the very same reward for their work then simple human nature will dictate that the quality of the work produced will equal the lowest common denominator as no sane person will go that "extra mile" for nothing.

This simple realization is why no socialist state has ever produced any truly great innovators but must, out of necessity, pirate the developments of other free states to achieve their ends.

Even less praise can be made for communism as it not only stifles the drive it also stifles the ability to drive, which is a double whammy on any society.

As Margaret Thatcher is oft quoted: "Socialism is the best form of government until you run out of other people's money". As trite as this may sound, it rings true when you realize that in a socialist state where the engine of economy is nearly flat all of these government mandates must be paid for somehow and it should be obvious to anyone that these "lowest common denominator" workers haven't got the money to cover the costs.

So, in a nutshell, both socialism and communism are unsustainable in the long run (and even in the short run most of the time) simply because their level of production is, by its very nature, always below the needs of the society.

Anyone who has bothered to research the founding fathers knows that most of them were Deist and some of them disliked Christianity very much.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches"- Benjamin Franklin

By definition a Christian takes from what he earns and gives to those in need and gives thanks to God.

By definition a socialist/communist takes from someone else and gives to those in need and gives thanks to himself.

Unfortunately all Christians don't follow the rule and fortunately all secular humanists don't follow the rule.

I say secular humanist because socialism and communism is the consistent world view of a secular humanist.

Americans have always valued freedom. Freedom is a good thing, a very good thing, as long as we have morality to go with it. Every one of the signers of the Constitution of the United States knew that. Every one of them also believed that that morality needed to be based in Christianity if this experiment, this republic was to survive. Very few people seem to know anymore that public education was begun in this country so that people could read the Bible.

We all recognize that greed is a motivating factor in free enterprise. That greed needs to be tempered to reduce harm. We need rules to play by so that we have an equal playing field, but I would say more than that, we need the values of Christianity.

I would also say that if there was just one thing that the government needs to do in regard to the economy of its nation, it is to protect the people from monopoly, be it private or governmental. Whereas free enterprise leads to greed, monopoly leads to power and control which can be far more harmful. By definition socialism and communism are monopolies.

Today the American people seem to have bought into the idea that monopolies are ok. How much has the propaganda of globalization had to do with that?

Under this Christian system of government all peoples have had freedom of religion. The idea of political prisons to incarcerate those who disagree with those in power has been an anathema to Americans. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the two ideals we have held the highest.

I do not see much regard for either of those ideals in any communist/socialist state. If our government continues on this socialist course, I predict that within 10 years we will see political prisons.

@62: Most people don't agree. Like all government programs it slid in under smoke and mirrors of a pipe dream and is just redistribution that I pay for which limits my own retirement savings.

The government throws the money around and gives it to those who just take all they can from society. They are not entitled to it. They can work for it like I do.

All people can be productive -- they just choose not to be. You cannot end poverty if those in it are comfortable. You can give all you want but don't steal it from me.

To all those that think socialist countries are better: go. Ever stop to think about why more people in the world emigrate to the US than any other country? Why do so many risk death to get here? Sit and actually listen to them for a while.

Go to Germany, England and Canada and actually talk to them about health care. Think about why the wealthiest of those countries come over here for medical treatment. There are many ideas that make people feel good but don't work in reality. Truly learn about economics and you will see how this happened.

You can't truly look and Barney Frank and his involvement with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae then say it had nothing to do with the housing bubble and banking crisis. We all have to pay for it now.

no 58 is funny.

Thanks for the info. Easy-peasy for my civics homework.

RE: "i might rather keep that money for myself to spend on a holiday or something nice. but when i compare my suffering to the suffering of a person starving to death or freezing on the streets, i can see clearly what i should do."

Well that's just ducky and I am truly impressed that you are so exquisitely moral. But what you think is the moral thing to do with the fruit of your labor and industry is not at issue here.

More to the point, it's what I and my ilk think we should do with your money since we cannot trust you to do the moral thing in all cases.

For our part, we would travel far and wide to seek out those more needy of your money than you are.

Of course this is difficult and wearisome work so we would naturally avail ourselves of first class accommodations in our search for the needy. We would hold banquets to discuss the plight of the needy with other leaders similarly burdened. Naturally we would use portions of your money as needed to pay our small overhead. Not more than a dime for every dollar we take from you to find people more deserving of your cash than you. Not to be overly consumed by human suffering, we would need to seek out animals around the world as well in need of your charity.

You, of course, will have neither the time (you're going to need a second job to pay our taxes) nor the expertise to give your money away as well as we can, for we are your socialist "leaders" and, yes, we are quite a bit more equal than you in this task.

some here say that social security is unethical because its 'theft' and therefore always wrong.

i can't accept this. ethical absolutes always arrive at absurdities and their impracticalities can easily be demonstrated by real world examples. stealing, lying, and killing sound unethical in essence but both can be used for the moral good, and sometimes we can do wrong by not stealing, lying or killing.

ethical decisions should aim for ethical consequences. i may suffer slightly if some of my income went to those who cannot afford to live.

i might rather keep that money for myself to spend on a holiday or something nice. but when i compare my suffering to the suffering of a person starving to death or freezing on the streets, i can see clearly what i should do.

most people agree, and that's why we have this system.

Socialism is weak and is just the part of capitalism that bends to embrace new members to its greedy society. Capitalism is unique that way, it bends and transforms almost to the point where you can't tell it's actually capitalism. Only communism can free us from society of greedy individuals. You say that it would work but human nature doesn't allow it.

Well, human nature is just what you've been taught to do. Human nature can change. If you were raised without classes and you didn't know greed, there would be none!

socialism works, because it exists in these times. look at the nordic countries which are the best places in the world to live. they have public services and a lot of services which are managed by government in a socialist way. socialism does work, but the extremes, which are communism and radical capitalism, don't work. if capitalism could work as everyone says it does, then the crisis won't happen because in capitalism rich countries produce until their people don't buy and poor countries don't have money to buy it. communism could work if the ideals of humans were modified and they could do their best for their work and get benefit from that, but the human mind is so competitive, arrogant and hypocritical that we cannot try to help others without getting a benefit.

So as a conclusion a socialist country is the best system, communism can't happen and capitalism is just destroying resources, making poorer the poor countries.

Communism and more specifically socialism can successfully exist and thrive only when we have fully understood and harness quantum physics. Where energy will become abundant and true technology can serve humanity to its fullest. But we have to be wise first or else humanity with either implode or explode as a result.

Socialism and communism have never worked and never will. Name a single country in history that it has helped. if we all sit at home and live off money we never earned then how will goods and services be produced? this new idea for america will bring an end to this once great nation. the end will be coming soon.

The members of a collective society should undoubtedly be able to achieve the best of their ability relatively unhindered. It allows for a more efficient and well developed society. However, these capitalists should not be so quick to pull up the ladder after their success. A true capitalist would believe in ultimate meritocracy which can only be brought about if the state funds (and funds well) certain aspects of the economy such as education and health. This is why we should allow a relatively free market to develop alongside a system of high taxes. Furthermore, although I agree with the free market ideal, certain industries should be owned by the people. There is no justice in a nation's oil/diamonds/gold going to the highest bidding American company. A country's resources should be state owned so that the nation's wealth isn't siphoned off into the back pockets of rich oil company bosses.

I'm about Obama's website. The only argument they have is: Obama said, promised. He is not a God to me. I don't trust his empty words. If somebody trusts, you are delusional.

Anon is short for "anonymous," which means an unregistered user has posted. So there are many, many different people who post on any given topic. wiseGEEK has articles about Socialism and Communism as individual topics. You might also consider researching Karl Marx as an individual.

Who is anon? and how does he have all this time to post responses? So who is this Marx fellow? Is Socialism like your ability to talk to others and communism the ability to have community? Im in eighth grade and writing an essay. any help is appreciated.

"That is the problem with our world... instead of seeking a job based on interest and passion, we seek jobs based on the wealth that can be earned." I see your point but it is flawed. There are jobs that are not fun at all, but still have to be done. In a capitalist country, the incentive for doing those hard job is higher wages, but in a socialist country, there is no incentive for those jobs. Also, if everyone wanted to work, your theory might work, but the mentality of most is to do just enough to get by, but in a socialist country, doing just enough to get by can be doing very little, yet making the same as someone doing very much which is not right if you ask me. Also, in a capitalist society, you can make your passions work out for you in the end, it just takes hard work. Which is why the majority of people in America are not very wealthy. They are lazy. And to introduce an ideology of giving people more money for working less, then America would crumble with the lazy society we have now. Yes, there are certain jobs such as manual labor which don't pay as much as more of a mental job and may be more labor, but it's only because brains are better than brawn. It all boils down to the simple fact that in a capitalist society, if you work hard with anything (even if it's something you love), you can make quite a bit of money off of it. In a socialist or communist society, all it does is breed laziness because those who do not work as hard get paid as much as those who do. I challenge one person. Just one to give me one thing you love that can't or hasn't made a lot of money in America!

One problem, the people in those government seats are just as corrupt as those big corporations. Why should we take from the big corporations (directly cutting jobs) and give to the government so they can try and create jobs? There are certain services that will always require tax (police, firefighters, public works, military, etc.). Anything else taken from the people to fund the parasites in office is a complete waste. Why let the government try and run health care when they have already bankrupted social security, medicare, and medicaid? Great track record! Sounds like a real winner! Also, there are numerous government subsidy programs for people from less privileged backgrounds making it possible for any one with a work ethic from any background to succeed nowadays. Let's not regress back to the civil war days of slavery in our arguments. Issues like these are the real reason are country is going down the crapper.

"That is the problem with our world... instead of seeking a job based on interest and passion, we seek jobs based on the wealth that can be earned." Amen, And if you think that Socialism is evil, you're basically implying that the ethics and values of Christianity are evil too. Communism is theft. Socialism is not theft. Socialism revolves around putting the society ahead of the individual and maintaining national prosperity. If you feel over worked and underpaid, then get a new job you enjoy. I, a college student, would never want to work in a place just for the money; it's all about the interest and personal self-fulfillment I get.

In spite of the fact that the article was about distinctions between two ideologies, it seems that socialism and communism continue to be conflated in the comments. What many people appear to be missing is that socialism and communism are potentially very different indeed. In fact, I'd say socialism captures all the advantages that are often attributed to capitalism, such as motivating people to work hard to achieve more and better results, etc. While also ensuring that society as a whole does not suffer from egregious social injustices, extreme inequality and a generally poor environment for all.

I think everyone would probably agree that having governments is useful. It enables things like networks of roads, sewage systems, electricity grids, the collection, treatment and distribution of water -- many things that we often take for granted, to be built and maintained in a way that would most likely be impossible, or at least highly uneven, slow and haphazard were it left to private enterprise. So we all benefit from having an organized system that collects tax and uses it to deliver public services. It's interesting that although even the US government is in the habit of delivering a multitude of public services such as these, there is such outrage at the thought of the government trying to include the health service among those services.

The problem with a neoliberal style of government (one in which the government is ostensibly hands-off, or in other words a system in which government caters to the interests of businesses by charging them low tax, giving them grants and other assistance and perhaps even making concessions in terms of environmental and social standards in order to allow them to operate and grow fat, while shying away from "interfering" with the natural course of capitalism through investment in public services) is that is actually promotes and exacerbates inequality.

I bring up neoliberalism here to draw attention to the fact that the debate isn't really about communism or socialism versus capitalism. The first two are ideologies of government, whereas capitalism is not a system of government at all. Neoliberalism represents a system of government that favors capitalism at the expense of more socialist ideals, so it makes sense to use it here.

It's important to point out that it is not a question of communism or capitalism. The state, so long as it exists, interferes in social activity. What is under debate is, in what way should it interfere. Should it help the strong get stronger and let the weaker (even if they are that way because the stronger are holding them down) perish. Or should it provide the possibilities for the weaker to become stronger as well as the possibilities for the stronger to become stronger still? I would argue that the latter is the ideal we are striving for.

It would seem then that some form of socialism is actually the most progressive option. What it offers is a system which does not mean that if you are born into a poor family, or if you are struck by a natural catastrophe, or disease, or some other misfortune, that you will perish through the lack of access to health care.

Wow! If ignorance could achieve critical mass this discussion would create a mushroom shaped cloud!

"Every person alive is made up of roughly the same genetic code, so we are all born with the same potential to be smart, talented and hard working. The differences between these qualities in different people are due solely to environment and upbringing."

I would like to have some of whatever he/she is having. I'm sure it's for medicinal purposes.

I mean, really. How can anyone intelligent enough to throw a few words together on a page truly believe that nonsense? You, my friend, are something else.

RE: "Economically, a socialistic entity functions like any publicly traded company, except that stockholders are replaced by a civil electorate. In the end, a corrupt or incompetent politician is just as likely as a corrupt or incompetent executive."

The salient differences being that normally the executive is far more likely to have some perceivable talent, and more importantly, no one is forced to either invest in, or buy the products of, incompetent, corrupt organizations unless they are government organizations. The latter feature is the honey that draws all the flies. It's also why citizens always need to hold the fly swatters.

The term socialism deserves a Godwin's Law moratorium.

Debates including socialism are proxy discussions about morality – which is why logic is so ineffectual. Most arguments can be expressed with Ayn Rand's description of a moral man as one that knows he can not consume more than he has produced, or Arthur Schopenhauer's assertion that compassion is the basis of all morality. Irrespective of which ethic is used, who controls the means of production is irrelevant as long as they are “moral”.

Economically, a socialistic entity functions like any publicly traded company, except that stockholders are replaced by a civil electorate. In the end, a corrupt or incompetent politician is just as likely as a corrupt or incompetent executive.

RE: "LOL, so taking my money for social security, which i will probably never see a dime of is theft, right? This takes place in America, a so called capitalist country!"

Yes Social Secuity is theft. It is theft of two types: First it is theft from one generation for the benefit of another, but even more importantly it is theft from hard-working wage earners to those who do not work either very hard or very long. In my case, I have transferred $260,000 of my after-tax earnings over the past 50 years to people who did not work for the right to possess my earnings. I worked for it; they did not. If I am lucky, the government will "give" me a small pittance of the value of my contributions to this system of theft that forced me to pay into over the past 50 years. They will tax me heavily again on the money that I was already taxed on before they took it from me to give to others. I hope you equally see the evil of socialism in all this.

No, the USA is not a capitalist or even a free society. Even Sweden would never allow the government to buy Volvo for the benefit of Volvo employees as Obama has done with GM (Government Motors). Appart from Cuba, Venezuala, and North Korea, there are no more socialistic countries in the world than is the USA today. We have lost our freedoms and are now in full denial mode of that fact. We have allowed ourselves to be enslaved by imperious government nitwits who fashion themselves as our "leaders" instead of serving us as the lowly foot messengers of republican governance that they actually are.

RE: "Why is it that people like you have been brainwashed into believing the concept that when government force, underwritten with the power of the gun, goes into your neighbor's house to take his property to give to you, it is in fact somehow not not stealing from him?"

Oh you don't want his property, but the only some of the contents of his wallet? Who owns the money in a person's wallet? Who owns the produce of one's toil and sweat? Indeed who owns the body of another?

Yes, socialism is morally bankrupt and it's theft. The fact that you don't recognize this fundamental evil means that I would never trust you in a situation where I couldn't keep my eye on you. Your philosophy justifies and rationalizes theft and as such violates a fundamental tenet of morality. A similar justification can be found among the criminal class who occupy our overflowing prisons.

LOL, so taking my money for social security, which i will probably never see a dime of is theft, right? This takes place in America, a so called capitalist country!

The last paragraph in this article makes absolutely no sense. If a communist democracy were actually achieved, *everybody* would control the economy.

"Socialism holds that your body and mind or the fruit of your body and mind belong to someone else."

You mistake socialism for "government" in general. Being forced to live under a government from birth is what gives your body and mind away. However, in a capitalist society, everything you are/do belongs to the rich or whomever controls the wealth; while, in communism or socialism, it belongs to everyone collectively. If you truly wanted to own yourself, you'd be an anarchist. Otherwise, use legitimate, well-concluded arguments... Thanks.

Arm yourselves now, the revolution is coming. It only took Nazi Germany 14 years (1919-1933) to go from a democratic system of government much like ours to a totalitarian state with well-known results for its people. The catalyst for Germans was economic woe-same as for Americans in this new century. Widespread dissatisfaction coupled with a smooth-talking madman had catastrophic consequences for the country and the world.

RE: "Communism and socialism were about equality! If you think that this is stealing then why is it acceptable in our so called 'meritocracy' to deny people of equal opportunities?! This in fact is the real theft!"

Stealing: i.e. the use of force or threat to extract the rightfully acquired property or money from another is *never* acceptable. How is this done without criminals or immoral government acting on behalf of criminals? Socialism is all about theft. Socialism holds that your body and mind or the fruit of your body and mind belong to someone else. Communism is simply socialism with government execution squads added in.

To believe that communism and socialism are about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is ridiculous notion. There has never to this day been a real example of communism in accordance to Marx's theory. Communism and socialism were about equality! If you think that this is stealing then why is it acceptable in our so called 'meritocracy' to deny people of equal opportunities?! This in fact is the real theft!

RE: "I believe businesses should be controlled through regulatory bodies; especially those industries that have a direct effect on the society as a whole. Some of these areas for example would be education, healthcare, transportation, and food."

Great concepts; Let's start by banning the reading of any words from our constitution. They are dangerous and subversive to the new national purpose.

We know what corportate "greed" leads to; look at the cost of gasoline - its now $2.10 a gallon (7 times what I paid for gasoline in 1962 when I went to college)

Now look what the removal of "corporate greed" has done for the efficiency in the education of our youth. When I went to college in 1962, tuition at my state univesity was a whopping $240 dollars a year for an 18 unit acamedic load. Tuition at the same institution today is now only $12,627 (only 52 times what I paid in 1962)

Here you have it - "corporate greed" increased the costs of a gallon of gas by 7 times since 1962 while government "altrusim" only increased the costs of a govnernment education by 52 times in the same period - thats what I call "government efficiency."

I am astounded that people think governmental styles have some sort of morality cure in them. Each style of government affords advantages and disadvantages toward the individual and the collective whole. Some with better intentions and some with better success than others. All have flaws and all have risks.

The question always should be which style of government sacrifices the least of its people's individual powers to protect those powers and privileges with the least oppressive way.

Giving over power of survival against one's will to a supreme body of decision makers has yet to be proved any more beneficial to growth in morality or social desires than a desire to instill personal gain and reward as the prize of good effort.

Some systems reflect the human desire to succeed better than others and the envy of some becomes their jealousy to slander reality against those better equipped to gain at that given time. Government's set up to steal value, repress achievement and imply conformity have not shown any moral superiority to influence positive social awareness.

Whether it be capitalism, socialism or communism, the power of the individual to seek his own destiny within the framework of a social conscience should be supported by the government, not dictated or coerced by that government.

All systems have a flaw in that humans will incorporate their jealousy, power and superiority upon each other and the one that allows failure and good deeds to be freely attained by personal merit of all classes reflects reality best.

Class struggle is no more the enemy of mankind than retardation of intellect is a measure of someone's heart. I only wish that those who think governmental style protects some sort of moral equation would please go back into their minds and discover where morality is based and where does it get its strength.

I am not a believer that morality is attained by forced compliance to the will of the state, nor is it preserved by a systematic oppression of the individual characteristics of those that wish to advance more than another.

The risk of dominance by coercion or dominance by effort will always be a part of any human government. The question should always be which system allows failure and success to everyone with some amount of reality and personal set value so that the powerful can risk failure as much as the peasantry. Avenues that destroy that reality by preserving failed enterprise or individuals to their lost causes should be dissuaded from government support.

Burden will never be equal, but burden and the escape from it should not be affixed upon one group by government imposed social dictation.

The differences between communism, socialism and capitalism get blurred as humans often use all the traits of each system to exert power into society and some times away from it to escape burden by giving, or taking by force power from some one else.

Truly no system is a protection from greed, power or oppression, but the one that lends power to each that wants it and allows those that fail to lose it, seems the best protection for all.

According to this article I would classify myself as a socialist: “…capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.” I believe businesses should be controlled through regulatory bodies; especially those industries that have a direct effect on the society as a whole. Some of these areas for example would be education, healthcare, transportation, and food. Being affected by a profit driven system, government should be there to ensure public safety, an inclusive society, and safeguard against monetary abuses. Yet, on the other hand, government should not be in the business of running these institutions. I believe in the old saying, “Government is best which governs least.” From what I have read in the past, government seems to have a problem with wasteful spending while running these institutions.

"Greed"

But just what is greed, is it greedy to want or demand a share of what others have worked for?

Is it "greedy" to proclaim that your life, your body and your spirit are your own and don't belong to another party.

Thou shalt not covet is one of our oldest moral precepts. Is it now obsolete?

Being greedy or selfless is a personel choice, just like being religious or secular is a personel choice.

Should the state make us a selfless people?

Should the state make us a religious people?

Greed. I think Capitalism or Socialism would work if it weren't for greed. Capitalism puts it in the corporations’ hands. Socialism puts it in the government’s hands. Our great country will someday become as broken as the USSR was and this is why.

You don’t have to buy into what I’m saying. Just go out for a drive in your Jag and it’ll take less than a second to convince yourself that people that you have stepped on would have gladly done it to you.

Haven't stepped on anyone yet... then you have a choice.

RE: "Why would you need to distinguish between socialism and communism? even every country is different in its nature,people living etc?"

Ahh Diversity! Which cultures celebrate the virtue of theft?

Why would you need to distinguish between socialism and communism? even every country is different in its nature,people living etc?

RE: "I like how people spew the garbage that socialism is evil and flawed when it is just themselves who are promoting self gain."

Why is it that people like you have been brainwashed into believing the concept that when government force, underwritten with the power of the gun, goes into your neighbor's house to take his property to give to you, it is in fact somehow not not stealing from him?

Oh you don't want his poperty, but the only some of the contents of his wallet? Who owns the money in a person's wallet, who owns the produce of one's toil and sweat? Indeed who owns the body of another?

Yes, socialism is morally bankrupt and it's theft, the fact that you dont recognize this fundamental evil means that I would never trust you in a situation where I couldn't keep my eye on you. Your philosophy justifies and rationalizes theft and as such violates a fundamental tenet of morality. A similar justification can be found among the criminal class who occupy our overflowing prisons.

I like how people spew the garbage that socialism is evil and flawed when it is just themselves who are promoting self gain. That is the problem with our world... instead of seeking a job based on interest and passion, we seek jobs based on the wealth that can be earned. I personally hate seeing some families struggle with jobs to support themselves and work hard to get where they are while little jimmy gets his big executive job from his rich father. Pursue a career not for the wealth that can be gained but from the enrichment the job will bring to your personal (not material) happiness and interests.

Both socialism and communism are wrong for our nation. Socialism is the sneaking vaccine that we are slipped and before you know it, we've turned into Communists. Many people view communism as benficial because at a brief glance, it looks like it will solve all of our problems, yet in reality it would only work if people were perfect. People are lazy and flawed though, so this system simply seeks to reward the lazy and punish the diligent.

Communism and socialism are vile and reprehensible. Anyone who is a proponent of either system is a total loser, jealous of everyone's success and looking for a handout. Our esteemed President is pushing us into this cauldron of disfunction. After he destroys America, he will be most vilified of all American presidents.

To #23: Re talent and intelligence, and the environment and upbringing being the only factors in human development.

How do you explain siblings born and nurtured in the exactly same environment turning out so differently?

How do you explain a Mozart or an Einstein? Why do not we have more of them?

Why aren't there extraordinary achievements coming from countries where communist "equality" has been in place for more than 50 years?

To: anon35662

Gee thanks for setting me straight. I really love communism now. Just think, when we watch the super bowl everybody wins. Everbody in the USA is a star quarterback. One restuarant is just as good as any other so we can all eat at Maxims of Paris for the price of a happy meal.

As far as shooting people as they flee as all communist coutries eventually need to do; they are just doing the right thing. Who but a very sick person wouldn't love a communist paradise on earth where the good, the bad, and the mediocre are all "equal"

Every person alive is made up of roughly the same genetic code, so we are all born with the same potential to be smart, talented and hard working. The differences between these qualities in different people are due solely to environment and upbringing. Don't be so foolish as to think someone can be born naturally more or less talented/intelligent/etc. than you! After all, is an infant born knowing anything but its most basic instincts?

Also, please don't base your judgment of communism on your experience of living in a capitalist country- all of the problems of poverty/inequality in capitalist societies would not exist in a true communist state where every person is raised to know that everyone and everything is equal. If,for example, the United States were to wake up tomorrow and find that it had become a communist state overnight, the current distribution of labor, wealth and resources would certainly be unfair. However, that would, of course, not happen; such a change would be gradual, and labor/wealth/etc. would be organized very differently than it currently is.

After over 2000 years of monarchies, dictatorships, fascist states, religious states, capitalism, and the like, doesn't anyone see that a system of government/economics that doesn't begin by placing one person above another would make everyone's life better?

The effects of Socialism. Future T.V. Ad for the USA to air in other countries:

“ Come to the land of the not so free where none of your dreams may come true. Don’t worry about aspirations or goals anymore, come live at the not so Great U.S. of A. The streets are paved in devalued American dollars courtesy of the Democrats and RHINOs. What? You are not a citizen. Don’t worry, you are welcome here. Anybody can become a citizen. Just cross the border and sue somebody. That’s right, that’s all you need to do. Education, you don’t need a stinkin’ education in this utopia. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, NASA Engineers, Real Estate Agents all earn the same mediocre salary as a janitor or burger boy at Wendys, even if you don’t finish High School or have a GED. Not only do you not have to worry about education or money, you also get free health care. The hospitals are over flowing, the doctors left the country for more lucrative endeavors, and all the nursing schools have shut down, but hey, it’s free

Come join us in the United States, where mediocrity is our true goal."

Announcer whispers very quickly the following disclaimer.

Paid for by the politicians who ignore their constituents, logic, economic forces, and common sense. This utopia does not exist. Free healthcare paid by taxing you to death. Healthcare system does not cover Medical exams, X-Ray, MRI, CT Scans, antibiotics, or most surgeries. Doesn’t matter anyways, all the highly educated and money making professionals have left the country

I believe I can answer this question in a way so simple that even a little child can fully understand it.

With capitalism you can fail; it's just like taking the test at school that you didn't study for because you wanted to watch MTV instead. Studying is hard and watching MTV is easy. Under capitalism this little fact actually matters.

With communism you can't fail. Only the whole system fails; in fact, it's actually designed to fail.

You see, if you didn't study for the test, it really doesn't matter because your "F" will be promoted to a "C" and the kid who really worked hard to get his "A" - well he was forced to "share" it with you so in the end you both got "C"s.

In theory this system could actually work if you found a way to get the kid who worked hard for his "A" to keep on working hard, knowing that he gets the same shared "C" grade even if he screws off and watches MTV like all of the other losers.

But here is the salient issue: sure everyone gets an *equal* "C", but in reality they are all actually *equal* "F"s because nobody wants their work to be stolen by others so they stop working too.

In the adult world of Communism the same issue is at play, you get paid the same regardless of what you produce because you are all *equal*.

Eventually everyone learns that there is no benefit to be derived by their production and no penalty to be paid for not producing. So very soon everyone only pretends to produce for which they are paid in pretend money that buys only pretend things because the prices, while very attractive, only advertise products that you can't buy because they don't exist because no one produced them.

Communism really requires theft and this is its essential weakness. Stealing is wrong and most people, even little kids, understand this.

Communism does indeed have an answer to this problem that involves the use of barbed wire and sharpshooters. It's the job of the sharpshooters to shoot the people in the back as they try to crawl either under or over the barbed wire to escape to the world of capitalism where their production cannot be stolen by losers. In this system (capitalism), they don't need barbed wire and sharpshooters to keep the productive people from risking their lives to escape. I think this is one area where merit counts and sharpshooters who never miss are given nicer places to stay and they also get to shop in the stores where the party bosses shop. That is, they have a few shelves that aren't always empty.

That's it in a nutshell.

I'm so sick of hearing this same old tired argument of how we need to create and promote social and economic equality. I'm going to say this once, there is no such thing as equality! There, I said it and you all know I'm right. I find it so telling that the political left lectures all of us about how we need to celebrate our differences, while trying to homogenize all of society to create this so called "level playing field."

The fact is we are all different and that means different talents, levels of intelligence, and work ethic. Some people have talent and some people don't. Some people have a strong and industrious work ethic and some are lazy slobs. Some people are highly intelligent and some are just plain stupid. So, for you liberals out there, that means that there is no such thing as equality (I realize I had to say it a second time just so Karl Marx fans can get it through your heads)!

Because some people take their God given talents and parlay them into huge financial success, does not give the government the right to confiscate that wealth and "redistribute" it to some so called needier individual no matter how well intentioned that may seem to be. I know this may sound so horribly cruel and politically incorrect, but theft is theft no matter how well intentioned it is. If you work hard for your money and find better ways of marketing your skills, that should be rewarded, not punished!

I say more capitalism, not less. Capitalism is what gives the individual the incentive to be the best they can possibly be. Capitalism creates the fierce competition that has driven technology and inventiveness. Capitalism creates business, grows business, and creates jobs. No poor man ever gave me a job, but plenty of rich guys have. Just because somebody is poor, does not mean that we should automatically regard them as benevolent and good; and deserving of more. Likewise, just because somebody is rich does not mean they should be demonized as greedy and evil; and deserving of less.

To 29473. There is no reason why someone could not be an individual in a communist society...It is just recognition, fame and reward that really restricts the development of an individual. If someone really believes in something, they will make it happen.

I have read somewhere that socialism is an imperfect form of communism.

All very good points. I think that the U.S. is already a partially socialized society already because the government owns a fair amount of the market share. The main beef that I have with communism is that instead of giving to the poor or needy of your own free will you are forced to give by a centralized authority. It's really giving a governmental body the right to police peoples morals. You know what you get when a government starts enforcing moral beliefs... the Spanish Inquisition.

communism receives their bad name because of stalin. what had been implemented during the early 1900's in the soviet union is what they call as stalinism. the idea of communism and socialism remains as an attempt to raise all people so that they can at least afford basic needs. that is what the capitalists couldn't stand, seeing things affordable for the public instead of giving while giving the capitalists the highest attainable profit. if socialism/communism is that bad, you wouldn't see why many of those who really--i mean really, really--understand marx's teaching will strive for it to stand.

I think what is always lost in these discussion is the resulting social conscious that can arise from a socialist/communist government. The height of social consciousness that I have seen in members of socialist/communist countries is far greater then that I have seen in capitalist countries. This benefit can even be seen in capitalist countries with expanding socialistic programs.

Isn't that the point of socialism and communism? To have the members of society to help each other be more productive and more successful as a whole.

There is a blend that will be achieved by a country that will prove more successful then any independent ideology. Many capitalist countries have benefited from having socialist programs implemented, and socialistic countries have benefited from mixing capitalism on a limited scale into their economic plans.

to 29138; you say communism promotes liberty by establishing social equality, then please explain how in a communist system(where there is no room for individualism, thus the term commune) one can truly be free!

anon 29138: You probably should not presume to know the source of a person's comment.

Mine comes from many years of living under the communist system of Eastern Europe. I was lucky and got out, but I witnessed the struggles of my family and others, that resulted from the limitations of a communist system.

My opinion on the matter comes not from "indoctrination" but real life experience of both systems, and the unbelievably great opportunity that the capitalistic system affords to all who focus more on work, and less on complaints.

@ bananas

Haha and capitalism does wonders for the "development of the human potential." Especially for those who can't even have their basic needs met.. your utilitarian outlook is clearly an indoctrination of bourgeoise thought. Furthermore communism seeks to create liberty for the people through social equity, what you're describing is authoritarianism. This link between Communism/Socialism and Authoritarianism you have created is another byproduct of capitalist indoctrination.

Keep being scared of left wing politics, they like it that way.

If you know anything about these systems it's that one follows another. Where socialism starts communism will soon follow. I fear that this is what will happen to us in the united states now that Obama is in power.

If you want to read about socialism, try Upton Sinclair's "the Jungle." It gives actual insight on what socialism can be.

With all this talk about "Obama's Socialism," I was very curious what the differences were?

Except Marx was wrong, and both systems are wrong for humanity. It sounds great in theory, in practice it does not. Both systems, communism and socialism are destructive for the human spirit.

You might have your basic needs met like food and shelter, but neither system lends itself to the great development of the human potential. They are good systems for mediocrity at best, and communism in particular can be oppressive and down right evil.

The nuanced differences between communism and socialism could fill a book, but just to add one more point -- communism is seen to be a higher form of socialism. That is, Marx thought society would evolve from capitalism to socialism to communism.

Thanks for a well-defined article on the differences between Socialism and Communism. Most use the terms interchangeably as if they were the same type of government so there is a lot of misinformation as to what role Marxism played in the development in socialism. I would like to see an article on what Marx had to say about crime under a communistic government.

thanks, i used this site for a research paper about the russian revolution. your information is easy to read and break down.