Communism controls the truth, while democracy warps the truth.

@Gloomy I think I understand your meaning, but care to expound upon? Communism is very based on the State; it's where it fails. It's totalitarian by design. Socialism holds many of the same concepts, but the idea is the people own the government, with equal redistribution? Achievable, I'm not sure.

@thewindupbirdchronicles Communism as a society is not depending on the state since the state wouldn't exist anymore but it's transitionatory phase, being Socialism has a strong proletarian state that's true.

Socialism is archieveable with more pragmatism. A strong state has already proven to work in capitalist countries it would just need to be transformed into one that serves the people via better economic planning and workers having a voice.

@Gloomy I'm not sure where you live, or where you have been given this idea, but I have met people who used to live under Communist rule, they despised the government ruling with decree their real lived human lives. Some of them even believed in the idea of Socialism, and were aghast I understood the differences. You sound like someone young, only talking in theories you don't understand - I don't pretend to understand their lives, either.

@thewindupbirdchronicles No one ever lived or claimed to lived under communism. Only socialist states existed with communist parties in power.

I'm Romanian and my family says while there was quite a lot of bad stuff the situation for my people (Romani) was better under socialism.
Stalinism was a failure but Titos Yugoslavia was succesful for example.

@Gloomy If you read Marx, he did say you need capitalism before socialism. I'd say his meaning was for the ingenuity capitalism offers, and at some point capitalism will overreach itself to the point of greed, and to then later build a socialist state to redistribute that wealth. I'm not saying I agree with his mechanism, but how does one come to a concluding Communism is stateless is beyond me?

@Gloomy I'm not going to argue with you - nor am I going to argue with someone I met years ago who moved from Poland to here (Canada). His family could not live under Communist rule, simple - his words. There has also been attempts of a democratic socialist state before, I believe in Africa, that descended again into Communism. So I guess, the root of what I'm after is, power corrupts no matter who or what system is in place. There are many other theories economically this world has not explored or let happen, if you want some economic philosophy, look up John Raulston Sauls.

@thewindupbirdchronicles Yes Marx considered it an evolutionary step that by alienating the masses would bring upon its downfall and triggers a proletarian revolution.

[quote]but how does one come to a concluding Communism is stateless is beyond me?[/quote]

Cause that's how Marx defined it. Communism is a movement and a classless and stateless society.

@Gloomy He defined socialism that way, to my knowledge. Just the only attempts to institute his theories have descended into communism. And while he was very proletariat, in his later works, he opened capitalism needed to happen for more pragmatic reasons, such as ingenuity, the spirit of creation and once there was enough, there needed to be redistribution of wealth.

@thewindupbirdchronicles Oh you are way off here.
Socialism (Dictatorship of the Proletariat) is the transitionary period to Communism

@Gloomy Okay, I'm pretty much done with this. There is a reason I don't debate economic theory on social media sites - its pointless. Communism no matter how you shake it is totalitarian. Not sure why you don't want to see that and call it stateless. Of course, communism will be classless if the individual doesn't exist within.

@thewindupbirdchronicles Socialism can be authoritarian I don't know why you don’t realize no state ever claimed to be communist.
Communism has never and probably will never be archieved. It's a goal and a movement.
You don't understand Marx and probably know not very much on soviet history.

@Gloomy A totalitarian state, ruling by dictatorship, never claims they are. Enlightened, aren't we? May I ask what is your goal? And I've never claimed what you understand, so you might want to check your style of arguing if you want to receive respect. Marx would not support the basis of the Soviet Union. That's the equivalent of saying Nietsche is responsible for HItler.

@thewindupbirdchronicles It's just frustrating when you make the false claims Socialist states were communist.

@Gloomy I never did, check my replies. I said socialism has only been tried once.

@Gloomy But it's ample evidence to suggest (for me) no political, nor economic system will ever hold the fabric of what being human is. Why I veer away from these conversations.