No, not necessarily limited to those countries.  Using the term somewhat interchangeably, but in current circumstances Communism is uber Socialism.  I'm glad you understand the points I was attempting to make.  Primarily, that the more control a government has over business, the less innovative business under that government is likely to be.  Government's role is not to take or condone risks.  Behold the Lada, Yugo and that East German vehicle whose name escapes me.

Capitalism takes risks and is the engine for technological development.  Socialism is the management of the status quo as in how existing technology is used and manged as it relates to a society's needs.  Capitalism is vital for developing future technologies and taking us places we cannot presently imagine.  To kill capitalism as so many advocate would be to lock us into our present.  And I don't know anyone who likes our present circumstances very much.  Some sort of balance can be achieved, needs to be achieved.  Capitalism can exist without Socialism, but I doubt that the opposite can be found to be true.

I understand your points but I'm not sure which definition of "Socialistic" you mean.  There are many thriving, visionary, and proactive nations that have numerous socialistic programs in place.  The Scandinavian countries come to mind, but they also happen to be Capitalist countries with representative democracies.  Were you referring to the "Socialistic" countries as being just China, Cuba, Laos, Nepal, North Korea and Vietnam? Those are technically "Communist" nations: I didn't know if you were using the terms interchangeably.

The Kibbutz is a wonderful example of a group of people coming together with a common vision and purpose.  The scale is small and usually limited in scope or purpose.  Poor performers are also expelled, without a safety net.  As long as the vision is embraced and performance or contribution is up to spec, then there are no problems.  Sometimes a kibbutz fails due to lack of need for the services or goods produced as technologies and needs change.  It can be hard to anticipate future situations.  Sometimes these products and services can be rendered obsolete or illegal due to legsilation or a paradigm shift.  ......
..........My view is that a Socialistic society is largely reactionary and unable to anticpate future needs.  It would be required to create the future needs in order to remain effective, while a Capitalistic society is proactive, taking risks and anticipating the future by taking chances.   Some win and some lose  A government by its very nature is incapable of taking chances based upon speculation.  It must act only on settled standards and practices....

Why wouldn't the professor work as a professor? Why would he be a street cleaner?

Are you familiar with Kibutzim (plural of kibbutz)? They were extremely successful for many years, although they have the same draw, because individual interests have superceded the needs of the group.

Am I missing something here? Explain to me please how do you imagine a proffessor working as a street cleaner together with the drugs dealer and/or mentaly ill? hippiechick wrote: 

Is he the Pahana? Because if he is...

You didn't get it, the bowling ball, because you have to wait your turn in line. Like a bread line, only this one is a bowling ball line. And Fat Fingers Fred is in front of you.

I agree: Communism is having to share the same stupid bowling ball with everybody at Johnson's 16th St. Mega Lanes even the sweaty guy with the fat fingers who smells like fish tacos and italian sausage all day. 

I didn't get it...

No, no, no, you completely misunderstand. You have personal obligations, but you have social obligations, too. Go ahead and do whatever the hell you want to do. "The State" doesn't tell you what to be. That's the freedom bit we all like. Be a marine geologist if you like. We, as a society, will even pay for your education towards that. But let's say "the market" says we need more doorknobs. Then there will be be more opportunities (and pay) for those people who are okay with making them. Like it's supposed to work now, ideally, in a capitalist society. Only in a socialist society there would be less worry about retirement, unemployment, health care, job security, etc. It doesn't mean the end of history. But it should mean the end of exploitation and class struggle. A solid floor beneath everyone, for that pursuit of happiness. Not a guarantee of happiness, but a equally fair shot at it.

You have to contrast this with the situation obtaining now. There is massive inequality now, because those who get are mostly those who already have. Capital is rewarded far, far more than labor, in whatever proportion you choose to measure it in. The gap between rich and...not just poor, but the middle class, is growing, not shrinking. This is a concern for social stability in the USA. Socialism means not just shared sacrifices, but shared prosperity. Prosperity not shared is simply theft.

I agree: Communism is having to share the same stupid bowling ball with everybody at Johnson's 16th St. Mega Lanes even the sweaty guy with the fat fingers who smells like fish tacos and italian sausage all day. 

I think that phrase contradicts itself.  Who gets to decide who lives where and who does what ?  No room for individualism, darn that ism thing again.  I prefer the beach, yet the government decides that I should live in North Dakota.  I want to be a marine geologist, but the government says we don't need any and I must make doorknobs for public housing, because we need more doorknobs.  Equal opportunity for what ?  To do what I really want to do ?  Or equal opportunity to do for the government ?  

It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.

And you said to Kurt—

It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.

It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.

Not utopia. But a better place than now.

It does not mean public ownership of everything!!! My toothbrush is mine, and yours is yours. However, the open land, water, air, uranium and opera is for everyone to share, equally. The largest possible public domain, in all senses. The commons, rather than fenced-off private lots of different sizes.

It means public provision of the necessary things of life, however that society chooses to define it. Be it education, food, housing, employment, heath care, etc. A classless society, with true equality of opportunity, and not one way, one track, one enclave for rich people and others for everyone else. Merit and work rewarded, not greed and placement and networking. A solid floor beneath everyone, with room for personal improvement above that. A real synthesis of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. A market that serves us, and not us the market.

Not utopia. But a better place than now.

But what about the part of a Socialistic society where the government owns everything, there is no private property ?  Am I missing something or are we ignoring a crucial part of what Socialism really is ?  How do you reconcile privacy and private property with the program ?  How does one have motivation without ownership or the possibilty of ownership of personal property for example ?  We rent everything from the government and have no form of private transportation ?

It's more than a critique; it's a program!!! It does not have to be revolutionary violence that accomplishes that program; in fact I'd prefer it it if it weren't. But it is more than just sniping at capitalist excesses and injustices, and more than mere reformist amelioration of the same. It is a fundamental overhaul that privileges people over markets, and erases real class distinctions and barriers. Modern Marxism must be peaceful, nonviolent, democratic, and determined. Hardnose, commonsense agitation, education and organization are the only tools towards accomplishing this, not elitist "vanguard" ideologies and unfocused anarchism. You can have capitalism, too, but only within a socialist framework, if you want social justice and equality linked to freedom of action and productivity. There's our Hegelian synthesis.

:sigh: The name "communist" and some Marxist trappings and rhetoric were hijacked by repressive Russian nationalists, and this somehow becomes everyone's historical misunderstanding of Marxism. That's why I won't use the term, though I prefer it to "socialist" for a number of etymological reasons. People are right to equate Hitler and Stalin—not much to choose between them, really. We need to look to ourselves and our motivations, always. Chauvinistic nationalism of any stripe is bad news, and that includes American nationalism.

Well, they call themselves Communists, but, really they are Totalitarians.