Wrong! The socialism fights with laws and the majority for the same rights of all citizens. The communism fights with force for the aims of its own. As by banged and confused these may be also.
I am a social democrat. This does not correspond to exactly the democrats in the USA, is, however, similar. We fought for the vote for women; for the social market economy, (that is a controlled capitalism); and a free health insurance and social insurance.
We are in Germany beneficiary of it today:
Not more than 1% of the gross salary may chronic sick person pay for medicine and doctors (all other things pays his health insurance company). And all people who do not get work get money (390 euros plus rent and heating cost). Without SPD (social democrats), this would have been impossible.
Does it look how in the USA in front of Obamacare, then?
The people got poor and homeless if they got ill; because they must pay all doctor invoices themselves (see SICKO of Michael Moore). They lost their job and their houses because avaricious banks and capitalists did not get enough money. Who pays the check? The American taxpayer. Thank George W. Bush, Banks and rich enterprises which caused this crisis; paying nothing. They were the winners of the crisis.
May I offer contribution in regard to communism and socialism? Yet forgive me for being so threaded, and please know that I do deeply respect you as my fellow family member in the kingdom of God, and am exceeding glad to exchange here in this great forum.
Can we agree that the proto-socialist movement that first originated in schools of thought came from France and England, which later provided the foundation for communism in the Marxian/Engel tradition, where at first it seeks to socialistically become a highly anarchical collectivist campaign, but then will always mutate to authoritarian ends being interrupted by authoritarian collectivism? Though anarcho-collectivism is the Marxian goal by the modern communist most oft, can we understand the primordial nature of Satan described in scripture, where the despotic nature that resides in lustful throes for power, then contained by lustful men will not fall to the Marxian benevolent whims to dissolve of the state, but instead will crush a nation with each opportunity as we have witnessed across many nations in the last century.
Shall the proto- and modern socialistic logic say for two hundred years, “We need ambiguous authority to remove ambiguous authority, yet it’s a contradiction which dissolves to despotic authority. Can we reference a plethora of historic examples where it simply evolves to mature despotic authority that would overrun society with despotism in the repeated historic legacy of the likes of Stalin and Hitler? Shall socialism move both in its beginnings from dead center (not left nor right) but with a central pragmatic notion to fix something ambiguous, and then mutate to both political logistical sides unto more authority, to the exampled right wing authoritarianism in Germany under Hitler and the exampled left wing authoritarianism is Russia under Stalin. Shall 60 million die on the right and 40 million die on the left when authoritarianism matures just with these.
Can we agree that socialism to be lawful pragmatism, where compromise in the law moves the throes of ambiguous compulsory law to rescue society on the grounds of ambiguous morality, fairness and safety? Can we agree that we have 40,000 new ambiguous compulsory laws just this year alone (2013)? Shall the laws passed upon this ambiguous foundation then cause insurmountable authoritarian gains, which in turn will leverage legal-plunder, egregious economic intervention, uncontrollable debt, and compulsory expropriation till all liberty of the individual is lost. Then shall the mighty despot do his hideous work to steal, kill and destroy ruthlessly, where no liberty can repel. Yet I believe we as the church will stand together to repel despotism before that time using a simple peaceful vote in one accord, yet can we escape the economic woes that are coming quickly?
Thus I offer this perspective with kind suggestion: that socialism is the pragmatic premise of compromise where the law rescues falsely unto a transfer of power giving all authority to a controlling few, and where liberty of the individual dissipates to a point where individuals can no longer defend their right to be free, prosper, or worship Christ. Then if a country leans right with this socialism on the rise then fascism devours, yet if the country leans left with the same socialism then communism devours. For authoritarianism is the end on either side going up where political authoritarianism creates demi-gods crushing humanity, seeking to be worshiped. Shall this be a process of a transfer of power, and shall our process in America start in the late 1800’s where scrupulous men finally figured out ways to overcome the many restraints in our constitution, and centralize power over our monetary system and create much ambiguous compulsory law to route society. Shall it now become deadly to our liberty.
However to your wise assertions regarding abstract behavior in government, they are indeed at times highly flawed, and even from the beginning even till this day. For how slaves and women were horrifically treated as many in our country would not stand on the virtuous foundation of our bill of rights and the non-aggression principle giving all people equality with individual liberty. For slavery and terrible treatment of women is a hideous scar on our classical liberal tradition.
Also shall our founders be in high disagreement regarding monetary policy enabling even from the beginning a Hamiltonian styled compulsory central bank strategy to take root, only to fail twice before the socialistic Wilson succeeded in creating monetary calamity. Shall all Americans, who once had the God given inalienable right to engage in voluntary exchange, then instantly be cut off with a few strikes of the pen, which created a new legacy of plunder till this day. Shall your astute accusation of large banks be a powerful and valid point for our most dreadful financial state, as they use an immoral premise to do business with economic interventionist advantage without our consent, controlling almost every aspect of our financial lives.
Shall we agree on some things but disagree on others? Please forgive me, as I am often guilty of too much information in a post.