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.