That's rather like disputing the typical image of the unicorn because the "real existing" unicorn is a great big chunky grey thing in Africa.I think perhaps he meant real existing socialism and communism, to which those 'definitions' hardly apply. Historically and doctrinewise anarchism and communism as well as socialism were rather at odds, to put it mildly.
I doubt that people in France, the UK, Italy, Norway, and Sweden would agree that you can't have a socialist system without a communist govt.
I challenege you to show me one true socialist economy in post industrialism history that was not set up by a communist government.
I challenge you to show me one true socialist system that was set up.
A one-party-system upholding socialist ideas?What the hell is a communist government?
My point was that if a thing does not exist, it is not sufficient to merely cast about for an approximation. "Theoretical" or "conceptual" is a legitimate state of existence; something need not be put into practice before it becomes "real".Not at all: unicorns do not exist in reality - and the question certainly wasn't what socialism and communism should be, but what they are. Which is quite a different thing.
Pardon?I don't believe either exist, thats my point. You can't have socialism without communism, and once you have communism you no longer have socialism. Is it any wonder they are considered the same thing?
I don't believe either exist, thats my point. You can't have socialism without communism, and once you have communism you no longer have socialism. Is it any wonder they are considered the same thing?
Those are not socialist economies, they are free market economies with socialist elements. There is still private ownership and free enterprise.
I challenege you to show me one true socialist economy in post industrialism history that was not set up by a communist government. I do know you could reference tribal societies, but they are hardly what is being discussed here. The fact is that you can't have socialism without communism. That may not always hold true in the future, but up until this point it has held true.
1) "Communist state" is an oxymoron. Communism, in both it's Marxist and non-Marxist forms, is an anarcho-collectivist system.I agree that there are no true socialist nations in the post industrial world, but several with socialist elements. I would go a step further and say that there has not been a true communist state either. The progression to true communism always seems to stop with the dictatorship of the proletariat. I don’t think it is possible for either socialism or communism to exist in a pure state except in small groups like you have mentioned. Both seem to be doomed to failure in a larger industrialized nation. The reason is, according to well known political analyst Frank Zappa, “Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. “
Pardon?
We commies call this doublethink.
I'll be honest, I find myself unable to answer that question, because your use of both terms is so ill-explained, and the dynamic which you assert to exist between them so baffling, that I am not able to comprehend it.In an effort to not repeat, I left out my previous post. Up until this point in history, there has not been a socialist state without communism, barring tribal societies, though that is a debate for another thread.
Please explain to me how you would currently convert a state to socialism without communism.
...The "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply refers to a system in which the proletariat own the means of production; both socialism and communism are represented. It does not refer to a particular system, let alone the autocracy so often perceived by those who don't know what the word "dictatorship" means.
Come to think of it, that is rather key, isn't I? "Dictatorship of the proletariat" does at least imply some sort of class consciousness that would be, presumably, lost in the classless communist state. I suppose I may have to go away and reconsider my understanding of that particular concept.The dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be a transitional period which is to lead to a classless society. Unfortunately nobody seems able to get to that next level. What happens is that it becomes a true dictatorship with a small group of "haves" and a large group of "have nots" and the have nots are constantly reminded that they are much better off than those unfortunate people in the capitalist world whose high standard of living is indicative of their decadence.
My point was that if a thing does not exist, it is not sufficient to merely cast about for an approximation. "Theoretical" or "conceptual" is a legitimate state of existence; something need not be put into practice before it becomes "real".