I realized you were just running with what the others came up with. I wasn't blaming those thoughts on you. But I still think that any of the historical people involved would have had confused incomprehension at the arguments.
However, since I notice this says "Socialism is using legislation and the political process to achieve a classless society," that would mean all of the soviet bloc is socialist "while communism is instigating a violent revolution to achieve a classless society" this means nobody has been communist, or ever advocated communism, ever as far as I can tell.
I digress. Socialism is using legislation and the political process to achieve a classless society, while communism is instigating a violent revolution to achieve a classless society. The paths are different, but the destination is the same.
What a shame.Yeah, even the Paris Commune sat on their asses discussing legislation and the like instead of marching on Versailles and guillotining Thiers. Damn french losing their good traditions already by then...
You're missing the dialectic part of what Marx wrote
He's missing a lot more than that.
It's not even worth it to argue with such people. Advice to my friends in this thread.
Socialism ~= communism.
In this situation, I'd say the two terms are interchangeable.
This sounds like something Lone Wolf would write. Are you developing a Good Singaporean Persona?I hereby 'digress' with the usual definitions for liberalism and libertarianism and declare that liberalism is using legislation and the political process to corrupt a society's morals, while libertarianism is using nude pictures of lady liberty to corrupt a society's morals. The paths are different, but the destination is the same.
This sounds like something Lone Wolf would write. Are you developing a Good Singaporean Persona?