Anonymous #1 3w

Do you seriously, as a grown adult, need another grown adult to explain the difference between apples and oranges to you?

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Still waiting

0

Anonymous #1 3w

So yes then lol. Well, at its base level, socialism strives for public ownership of systems of production and wealth with a heavy hand in government regulation, in a mixed economy where private ownership and markets still function. Communist society has no free markets, as a functioning one would essentially lead to the end of class as a concept, where everyone owns everything as much as anyone else. There is no privatization at all. That’s a very cliff notes way of putting it.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

How can u have a private ownership and free markets but also have public ownership of production and wealth with heavy government oversight. Seems contradictory

0

Anonymous #1 3w

Well, that’s where it gets tricky because there’s a lot of different ways the system can go from there. You can have a more government-oriented economy where they essentially manage resources as a socially owned good, or a more market focused mixed economy where worker co-ops allow citizens to operate those systems without full individualized privatization. Both systems still function democratically and allow workers as a whole to gain control over their resources instead of corporate elites

1

Anonymous #1 3w

If you want more from here you can read up on it from there, I can’t spend my entire day educating one dude on socialism lol

1

Anonymous OP 3w

It seems like in either situation it’s just the government that ends up controlling resources and production, not the workers.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

They do! But to much, much more varying degrees of control. Under socialist society, the government’s job is to essentially make sure resources and wealth are distributed equally, and that no one company or private entity can grow too far above another. The people still have enough power within the democratic system and in their private markets to have checks and balances on that, to make sure things don’t get too out of control. Compare that to communism, in which checks and balances are…

1

Anonymous OP 3w

…essentially an ideal and it’s far, far to easy for a corrupt ruling class to reign over a working class under the guise of being a protective big brother. In a true communist society that wouldn’t be the case but that requires everybody playing along in harmony and human nature doesn’t work that way.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Okay now really that’s all man I have a job to go to now lol

1

Anonymous OP 3w

My point is that in the name of controlling the “corrupt ruling class”, the government just becomes the corrupt ruling class.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Under communism yes, under socialism no because a functioning socialist society has safeguard ands checks and balances to ensure that doesn’t come about

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Checks and balances only work if the government respects them though. If not, it’s just going to be a controlling group of government elites. I think the only real effective form of checks and balances for the government are the citizens themselves. Well armed citizens who each control their own means of labor/provision in a free market.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

The USSR failed because it was never true, full fledged communism in action, because true communist society would function without state control or privatization whatsoever. The problem is that, again, it doesn’t have safeguards to ensure a ruling class doesn’t topple all that. The USSR essentially a socialist society without a mixed economy because a true communist state wouldn’t have had big brother Stalin pulling the strings. Communism a great idea but way too idealist to actually work

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I mean, going off your last comment, you can say the same thing for the U.S.’s capitalist market. Trump has repeatedly been challenging or outright ignoring checks and balances, such as with Garcia’s deportation or ignoring how the alien enemies act violates the 14th amendment. A government violating that can happen in both mixed economy socialism and capitalism, and both theoretically give their working class population the ability to push against that

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You mention people being “well armed”, and you can have that in a mixed economy socialist society. Socialism doesn’t negate guns from the equation. Britain, despite being a full market capitalist economy, still bans guns, it’s not a socialist specific thing. A mixed market socialist U.S. could still have guns

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Even with guns tho, I would say a government that controls important production and resources controls almost everything. If people don’t want that form of government anymore, you can simply starve them or take away essential resources. I do not have faith in the government, which is why i generally think that less government is usually better

1

Anonymous #1 3w

And now you’re touching on the big question: what if the government tried to go authoritarian and attempt regime takeover? What will I hate to break it to you, but this can happen under both capitalism and socialism. Under socialism, you are correct, a government has more leverage to cut those supply lines, but in a capitalist system, who do you think businesses controlling supply lines would side with? The big, established government full of funding to fork over or the rebellion with…

1

Anonymous OP 3w

…significantly less access to funding? The reality is that in either way, the scenario can pan out, but there are some safeguards that make this unappealing for most nations. Primarily, globalized trade and military alliances make pissing off allies by behaving like a dictator not a smart idea. And you can have your second amendment as we stated before to at least give citizens something of a fighting chance. In reality, going full dictator has far more setbacks than it’s worth.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

TLDR: government takeovers are theoretically possible in both mixed economy socialist and free market capitalist societies but both are also privy to the same safeguards

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I just think a authoritarian government is more likely under communist or socialist regimes rather than more capitalist and free market systems

0

Anonymous #1 3w

I mean, it’s not, like I just outlined it’s as possible under either. One would just rely on corporations partnering with a government to profit off that takeover while one would be the government doing so off its own devices. Hell, in that case, the regime takeover has a chance to be even more successful under capitalism with domestic corporations worth billions backing them. Again, that scenario makes the most sense, and would be the side businesses would align with in a “rebels v regime”

1