He thinks socialism and communism are the same thing

It's usually burgers who are incapable of differentiating the two.

Just like how free market is pretty good but eventually turns into corporatism

Socialism is just a phase of communism

That's by design. The republican party (and its media mouthpieces) have spent a lot of time and resources training dumb people to believe that socialism and communism are synonymous, in order to scare baby boomers into voting a certain way.

Then they took the word "socialism" and used it as an umbrella term for "things western European countries do" and "beneficial programs paid for with tax money".

Universal healthcare? Socialism.

Discounted bus fares for the elderly and handicapped? Socialism.

Libraries? Socialism.

When did you faggots realize that socialism is just capitalism for the rich?

They're both two examples of shit ideologies.

>Universal healthcare? Socialism.
>Discounted bus fares for the elderly and handicapped? Socialism.
>Libraries? Socialism.
Those examples are technically socialist. It's a common investment in common goods or services.
But for some reason, most burgers seem to view it as entirely black and white.
In reality, despite socialist programmes, there can still be a capital driven economy. We have socialized medicine funded by taxes, but there's nothing preventing people from starting private clinics for example.

The way I view it is as a sort of safety net. Ensuring that even the poorest members of society have access to the most basic services.
In an entirely free market economy, a homeless guy with 5 bucks in his pocket gets hit by a car. There is absolutely no incentive for anyone to help that person. Letting a person die because they can't pay you is borderline psychopathic.

you're acquainting social democracy with socialism too much

>Those examples are technically socialist.

Nah. Socialism is common ownership of the means of production. The examples I gave are part of welfare state, and can exist within any economic system (apart from the really crazy AnCap-related shit).

>he hasn't realized that capitalism is state sponsored usury
>he hasn't realized that nearly every country on earth has state sponsored usury
>yfw you realize we need a labor based capitalism, where money does not beget money

Either way, both are total shit.

>Socialism is common ownership of the means of production.
See, that's another problem. The term gets tossed around so much that nobody really knows what it means anymore.
If you'd ask anyone in Europe, they'd tell you that what you just said is the textbook definition of communism.

But the definition of communism is statelessness where everyone is funky dory.

>The term gets tossed around so much that nobody really knows what it means anymore.

You're absolutely right about that.

i thought it was vice versa... communism meets capitalism and the end result is socialism... at least that what the protocols of the Elders of Zion claims...
lul

>socialism
>ˈsəʊʃəlJz(ə)m
>noun
>a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

>communism
>ˈkɒmjʊnJz(ə)m
>noun
>a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
So based purely on dictionary definitions, they're apparently the exact same thing.

The difference is at the beginning of both definitions. One is "means of production etc", the other is "property".

Private property exists in socialism (theoretically, anyway). It doesn't in communism.

Socialism is the step between capitalism and communism.

>republicans
>not media punching bags
Here's your (you)

>Fox News doesn't exist
>neither does talk radio

Your country spawned Rupert Murdoch. Take some responsibility for him.

Labour means nothing by itself, production and therefore efficiency does.

Haven't noticed that part but my point still stands.
If you went anywhere in Europe and asked a random person to give you the definition of socialism, what you'd get is something like >a common investment in common goods or services.
While in USA people would probably tell you something closer to that definition.

Wrong country brah. I know you Canadians struggle to tell the difference but if you actually hover over the flag you can see we are a completely different country.

>what is a tpyo

Communism is a form of socialism you fucking retard

>your country spawned Murdoch
Leftists everybody

Precisely my point. Nobody but burgers would ever claim this to be true.

Oops.

>labor means nothing by itself
>production and therefore efficiency does

That's basically what I meant, you just have to stop usury, because it creates money out of nothing. When you produces something, you have created value, when you lend somebody money with interest, you have not.

...

Value is subjective, you need to produce something that somebody wants

Easy there Bartleby

Nigger I'm not talking semantics, just general philosophy. You don't need to lecture me on Economics 101.

>Value is subjective, you need to produce something that somebody wants
That whole sentence is plain retarded.
"something that somebody wants" is literally the definition of value.
If you create something, and there exists a party that wants it, then it objectively has value.

>Ahaha I's so funny I's sarcasm ahahaha tee hee hee ooo hoo hoo look at my epic sarcasm eee heee ehhheeee heeee
Kill yourself

>But the definition of communism is statelessness

Errr... no. "The state" is massive in communism.

You misinterpreted me, to clarify something can have great value to someone but be worthless to another, if you produce something that holds value to you but nobody else the best you can do is call it art.

A factory that produces something nobody wants will collapse for example

Yeah, but we are talking about "the real" communism, which is stateless. Of course "the real" communism never comes to fruition and the state will always be massive, and socialist.

Usually said after commies destroy another state

>Yeah, but we are talking about "the real" communism, which is stateless.
Ah, okay. I gotcha now.

>Of course "the real" communism never comes to fruition
Yup. Marxism will always be a fantasy.

What a weird looking guy
>tfw i switch into maximum over-frodo

Soviets weren't communist.

The last official slogan of CPSU was "communism in 20 years"

Wealth concentration in soviet union was at its absolute maximium zenith; Stalin owned everything

That's like saying HIV and AIDS aren't the same thing. You're technically right, but you don't want to fuck someone who's got either.

Every time we tried communism, we ended up with a dictatorship. Even if it wasn't "true commusnisim" how can you say the commusnist party you support won't pull the same thing?

Pretty sure nobody in this thread is an actual commie, moosefucker.

They are.

They are both failures.

...

Really makes me think.

Socialism is just communism lite without the bad parts like genocide and poverty and corruption, except it does have those things and is no different because you can just steal money whenever you want.

Just like how democracy is fascism without the bad parts like genocide and poverty and corruption, but it does have those things and is different because people only need to intentionally throw money at something to get whatever they want.

So the goal of Cred Forums is National Communism.

You're a failure, too, but we don't go around saying that you're communism.