socialism \So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplate a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

communism \Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

Communism isn't, strictly speaking, a "scheme". Rather, according to Marx, it is the inevitable endpoint of the course of history. Sound melodramatic? It is, really. Marx defines communism as being similar to that definition, but without the implication that it is purposefully created or controlled by someone or something.

And in the simplist sense, socialism is merely any society that exists. The United States is socialist in that we have a social structure.

Now of course within any society you have the struggle between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group. By definition, a society requires some degree of personal sacrifice. Exactly where that line is drawn has been an issue of much debate over the ages. In this sense, the word socialism is used to suggest that spectrum of society which places a majority of its emphasis on the state.

As Sol System mentioned above, communism's original definition meant something quite different from what we see today under the lable of communism. The Soviet Union was essentially a faschist government, even at a time when the faschist government of Nazi Germany was proposing that the Soviet Union be destroyed. The Nazis were a socialist movement, at least according to their party name -- the National Socialist party.

--Baloo

------------------
Hobbes: Do you think there's a God?
Calvin: Well, somebody's out to get me."
--Bill Watterson
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

And I think that's it, Sol! That's the difference between conservative and liberal. It's the amount of power the people have compaired to the amount of power the government has. A liberal would be in favor of giving the government more power relative to what they already have, and conservative would be in favor of less. And anyone who wants to do away with the whole system and replace it (or not, in the case of anarchists : ) would be a revolutionary. Of course, these are modern definitions. Does that work?

For one thing, it would make God (the Supreme Ruler and Government of the Universe, in whom all power is said to reside and from whom all authority is said to spring) the Ultimate Liberal. And all churchgoers who advocate turning their lives over to Him would be liberals, too. It would make ME a Conservative, if not a Revolutionary like Lucifer. NAAAAAH!

Really now. Any definition that tries to pin these descriptions down to an either/or will ultimately fail.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

. In some socialist doctrines all industries are to be nationalized, while in others only the largest or most important, such as banks or natural resources, should be owned by the state. Some socialist doctrines involve strictly centralized state control, while others allow for more decentralization, with a large measure of planning allocated to local government bodies; some call for an authoritarian command economy, while others envision a merely guided market economy. Often the word socialism is applied pejoratively to any policy by which the state would accrue more regulatory power. As a result, the different forms that socialism actually has taken vary dramatically. Socialism can be statist or libertarian, Marxist or "liberal," revolutionary or gradualist, cosmopolitan or internationalist.

---

quote:

---

Twentieth-century socialist practices were just as diverse, ranging from avowedly communist nations with the strictly centralized socialism of the Soviet Union (up until the era of perestroika, or "restructuring," which began in 1987) to the more decentralized Yugoslavian model, in which factory workers participated not only in the governing of the factory but also in profit sharing. Some, such as Hungary, even restored a measure of private control to agricultural workers. Noncommunist socialism found its chief expression in the welfare state exemplified by Sweden, Denmark, and Great Britain, where socialist parties won power by parliamentary means and constructed systems of taxation-based social services intended to guarantee certain minimal standards of living to all. The adoption of some national welfare ideas by strenuously nonsocialist systems such as the United States testified to both the strength of many socialist ideals and the protean adaptability of many socialist practices that made socialism itself so difficult to define.

---

The entire article is here: Encyclopedia Britannica

Fascism and communism are, for the most part, complete opposites politically and economically, although Stalin's USSR did share a number of characteristics with Fascist governments. On the old political spectrum, communism is extreme left, whereas Fascism is extreme right.

------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

The idea behind dictatorship is the belief that one man is wiser than a thousand men.

Either system will prosper in the grip of wise men, or suffer in the grip of a foolish man.

But at least in democracy you have the hope that the wise men and the foolish men will, at worst, cancel each other out. With a foolish tyrant, there is no hope at all.

This is also the problem between Government and Individuality.

"A dictatorship is based on the erroneous assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. A democracy is based on the equally erroneous assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. Neither works."
Robert Heinlein...

...But I'm not sure what book.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student