Wednesday, 10 November 2010

The Difference Between Communism and Socialism

Apocalyptic arsefaced simpleton Glenn Beck, along with most of America, thinks that Communism and Socialism are the same thing. They are not. It's like saying cream and cheese are the same thing. Or that cream cheese is in anyway a good substitute for both. You would need to be a sick son of a bitch to put a slice of ripe stilton on a chocolate gateau, or double cream in a bun with some jalapenos and salad. In fact, a good home pregnancy test is to read these words and see if you get hungry.

The main, easily quotable, difference between communism and socialism is this: communism necessarily would do away with capitalism; socialism would not. The reason for this is communists distribute wealth according to the needs of people, while socialists distribute wealth according to merit.

So, let's say you are a hard worker in a communist society: no matter how hard you work, how much you produce, you will receive only what you need, while the guy next to you with five babies will receive all he needs regardless of how much sweat he puts into his shifts. So he gets more because he needs more.

However, in a socialist society, if you work your butt off you would receive more the harder you worked. There would be a social safety net for the lazy, randy boy next to you with five babies, but he wouldn't get much for himself if he didn't put in a shift.

Capitalism, whilst not being a perfect fit for socialism, is a decent way of regulating the distribution of wealth as, in theory, it is a meritocracy - you merit more, you get more.

The other thing is power: communism always seems to lead to a few people with all the power, while socialism should really lead to a more even distribution of wealth. That's how Wales and Scotland got their parliaments: the New Labour socialists wanted to decentralise power from Westminster.

And that's how irritating smug gits like Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond have ended up with their little fiefdoms; because a bunch of clueless, vaporous, PR driven socialists were let loose in the halls of power while they still remembered what their ideals looked like. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown gave us Alex Salmond, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unimaginable budget deficit and they still want us to remember them fondly.

Why haven't they been dragged naked through the streets by an angry mob? I really don't know.

But they were socialists. Not communists. If they were communists, we wouldn't have had elections, money would have been scrapped in favour of some sort of state run token system, the reins of production would have been seized; in short, things might have turned out somewhat better.

No comments:

Post a Comment