what really is socialism and communism

[actsnoblemartin]

and why are they bad

disclaimer: this is a real question, born out of genuine curiousity

[stephanie]

just wait till Jan. 20th and you will get to live both..you won't need someone to explain it..

[Noir]

communism is an extreme form of socialism, the two are not be to taken for eachother, as they all to commonly are on this site.

As for the 'and why are they bad' for communism like most things in life, humans are selfish, self-centred and self-serving. It's not really anyones fault its just the way we are, unlike, say, Ants. Ants basicly work on the premise of communism, as do bees ect ect, but humans are not capable of it

As for 'and why are they bad' Socialism, all things in moderation, socialism is not bad, infact some of the cores of our society run from socialism, just aslong as it is not taken to extremes, inwhich case it would be communist.

[Hobbit]

Socialism is when everything is government owned a privately controlled.
Communism is when everything is government owned and controlled.
Fascism is when everything is privately owned and government controlled.
Capitalism is when everything is privately owned and controlled.

Socialism is bad because it takes the property out of the hands of the people and leaves it up to government to distribute the profits, leaving the company with little to no incentive to excel.

Communism is bad because it takes all freedom away from the individual and puts it in the hands of the government, making all citizens cogs in a giant, unwieldy machine.

Fascism is bad because it takes control of resources out of the hands of those who can profit from them and puts it in the hands of central planners who have little to no vested interest in the success or failure of their plans. Also, like under communism, central planning is grossly incompetent and unwieldy.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is good because those who control resources and other means of production are the ones who profit most by it and all transactions must be consensual, meaning that all parties gain from all transactions.

[LiberalNation]

Capitalism, on the other hand, is good because those who control resources and other means of production are the ones who profit most by it and all transactions must be consensual, meaning that all parties gain from all transactions.
and some not at all because in true capitalism there is no regulation, no saftey laws, ect.

[Little-Acorn]

The characteristic of both Socialism and Communism that is the most debilitating to nations who try them, is the idea of people working to put their gains into a pool for all; and then drawing out of it only what they "need".

Humans ARE capable of this. But it takes a lot of self-discipline and dedication, which some people have and some don't. So in any society that tries it, some work hard, produce a lot, and draw out only modestly; and some laze around, do little, but still draw out as much as they can.

The debilitating part - the part that's the most dangerous for countries that try it - comes from the fact that not all the disciplined, dedicated people are 100% dedicated. Some are barely on the edge of keeping themselves working, and are greatly tempted to using up a lot more. Happens in every society, it's human nature: different people have different levels of self-discipline etc.

In non-socialist societites, someone on the edge of becoming a laze, is kept in line by the knowledge that he will go broke and get hungry if he does. That impetus is missing in a socialistic society. So, inevitably, a few people give up after a while and start consumig more than they produce.

And the person next to them, who was a little more self-disciplined but not much, eventually says, "Hey, it seemed to work out for him, why should I keep breaking my back?" And he eventually slacks off too.

And some time later, a few more people make the same decision, saying that Since so many seem to be doing it, what's one more?

And over a LONG period of time, such societies gradually fall into sloth and nonproductivity. Shortages begin, and never get better. And a few instances of genuinely bad luck (a drought ruins crop production, a major flood, etc.) knock things down even further, and the society doesn't have the extra resources to build itself back up. And so things just keep sliding downhill. Government can't reverse the trend, except by massive punishment of the slackers - a prcedure hardly calculated to make them more productive.

People keep forgetting that all government can do, is punish people who don't do what it wants. It cannot create things, produce wealth, or even inspire anyone - except by massive expenditures that harm far more than they help. People have to WANT to work hard, produce a lot. Non-socialist states provide that desire, by letting people keep what they produce. Socialist states don't... and so they almost always fail.

Socialistic societies don't suddenly collapse. Instead, they very gradually start retreating from their ideal of everybody working for the common good. It can take decades, even generations... but once the slide starts, there is NO incentive to reverse it. And that's the most debilitating fact of Socialism and Communism.

Silly critics will stridently announce that, if a society doesn't fulfill every last trapping of socialism (overt ownership of all businesses by government, etc.), then it "isn't really socialism". That's like saying that, since the Titanic had a hole on only one side of the ship, it "wasn't really sinking". In fact, the one really bad characteristc of socialism, is enough to (eventually) destroy it, no matter what other rules it tries to adhere to in the meantime.

Accordingly, if a formerly-nonsocialist country takes on only the most debilitating characteristic, than it's plenty socialist enough, since that will lead to the eventual destruction of the country. Whether it's called "progressivism" or "spreading the wealth around" or even "helping your neighbor", if it takes enough from hard workers and benefits non-workers enough, and is compelled by government and non-reversible, then it will sink that society as surely as a small hole in a boat will eventually sink it, if the boat has no means of baling the water or repairing the hole.

In a nutshell (I love that word), socialism (and its kissing cousin communism) create a snowball effect. A few people start slacking off, then a few more, etc. over a long period... and there isn't enough impetus to go the other way and work harder instead. Socialism doesn't cause a sudden collapse, but a long, drawn-out slide, with no built-in mechanism to stop the slide. External events (drought, war etc.) have a far greater effect since the society can't compensate for them. Eventually people get enough of it and rebel... but that doesn't happen until much later, maybe generations later.

Hope this helps.