[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]Like ORJ_JoS said, communism and socialism are not the same.

But still, ORJ_JoS, there is no truely socialist government.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Communism has differences with socialism. But you can't ignore how Cuba abides to strong socialist ideologies, mixed in with totalitarian authority, more than even the most socialist Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Venezuela. The constitution of the country expresses that Cuba must stay as a "socialist state," and Castro once proclaimed that Cuba's "socialism and independence are indissolubly linked." This isn't surprising because, as a small country that isolated itself from most of the world powers and economy, it needs its socialism in order for Cuba to keep alive. After the last revolution in Cuba took place, there was a struggle to break away from economic and political influences of the North, which later left Cuba in the wind when economic relations between other socialist nations, mainly USSR and its allies, collapsed.

Cuba is not like China; the Cuban regime, even as it remains as inefficent and broken to this day, aren't making steps to open up the country to new ideas and policies, refusing to allow progress toward any capitalist endeavors. Instead, the nation still follows numerous regressive collectivist views, offering no protection over private property, permitting no private institutions, rationing goods and food, and so on. There is only one political party, and there are no seperate working-classes.

Although it's hard to say a nation is just "socialist" even when Cuba is described as a "socialist republic." But is not a communist country one that rose from socialist movements? For the few focused "socialist" countries that are alive today and still refuse to change, Cuba is one and North Korea can be argued as the other. Correct me where I'm wrong.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH.

Because he is so damn brilliant.

I love him. War and everything. Yay.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]If not giving a damn about how many soldiers you lose makes you a good general, then Grant is the King.

Otherwise, he almost always got the hell beat out of him on the battlefield. He could come up with good genera plan, but that's about it.[/QUOTE]

Back then, no one cared if you died. Now it's everywhere on the news and such.

Grant knew his men. He knew why they signed up. He knew what will happen to him. Maybe he knew his generals a little better, and didn't know his men as much as Lee, but he still was a great general non the less. He would do anything to help win a battle.

That's why he drank all the time...because the loss of his men. He couldn't handle what have happened to them.

Just not the best president in the united states >.<

According to Carl Marx, the father of Communism, Communist governments must first become Socialist. Governments that have Communist revolutions don't actually reach Communism because they have to go through Socialism first. This is where it fails. For instance, look up the Russian revolution. THeir original economic plan (War Economics) doesn't live up to the ideals of socialism, and their New Economic Policy was a turn towards a mixed economy.

Nations like North Korea and Cuba (and in fact the former USSR) are really left wing dictatorships. They are influenced and both started by the ideals of Marxism, but haven't lived up to the original intent. For instance, Fidel nationalized a lot of things, but still refuses to allow worker control over anything.

This is a better explanation than I can give, written by the socialists themselves:
Is Cuba Socialist?

Ah okay. Thanks for clearing it up.

I see the problem now. I was talking about socialism in terms of politics, and you guys are talking about socialism as a type of economy.

We're simply not talking about the same thing.

Socialism is an economic structure. Not a political structure. Though I guess you could argue it is a political structure, that's only through the economic standpoint of it. Economics and politics are going to collide, yes, and in Socialism and Capitalism that's especially obvious, but Socialism as a political structure would still follow the guidelines they set down.

There are no true socialist states anymore, and there never really were. Those that came close are good examples of why socialism doesn't work.

I'm not talking about 'structures'. I'm nottalking about socialism as opposed to capitalism.

I'm talking about socialist parties, with modern day socialist ideals, forming socialist governments. A very common thing.

But nevermind.

There's no such thing as "modern day socialist ideals"--the ideals are that you have a government which controls everything and everyone controls the government. If you're talking about the half-assed socialism of today (free healthcare, schools, welfare, the like) then that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to real socialism.

What you're talking about doesn't even seem to exist in the sense you think it does.

What's all this red talk about?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]the ideals are that you have a government which controls everything and everyone controls the government.[/quote]

That's the original idea behind it, yes.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]If you're talking about the half-assed socialism of today (free healthcare, schools, welfare, the like) then that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to real socialism.[/QUOTE]

I know. But yes, that's what today's socialism in politics is about. And it's not like they're all alike. Some parties are more extreme than others.

I know what you're talking about, it's just not what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]What you're talking about doesn't even seem to exist in the sense you think it does.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps not where you live. In my country we have several different socialist parties, and they're all slightly different in their approach to socialism.

What I'm saying is, in most first world countries, socialist parties have adapted themselves to the modern times. They recognize the benefits of capitalism, they just have a different opinion about how to run the economy. (What is controlled by the government, and what is left to the free market?)

Just because they don't want to abolish all property doesn't mean they're not socialists. Perhaps in the literal, historic sense, not. But they still have socialist ideals. And that's my only point.

If you think it's half-assed socialism, fair enough.

Jefferson, Lincoln, TR

Truman is probably my favorite, though

Communism is the system where everyone has an equal share of everything and no government body need to regulate this. Their ultimate goal is the abolition of classes. Think of it this way. A family practices communism if they all agree to share their resources without much scuffle.

Socialism is much like communism only the state regulates the sharing. Using the same family analogy, only instead it's the parents telling the children "Share with your brother/sister!"

The Soviet Union never really practiced communism. They were just a really socialist nation. The state dictated economic policy insofar as to even plan it out in the future.

LIKE, WAR. YAY. <3 BUSH <3