Great, so you agree the definitions are essentially the same.
Actually, what was stated was that definitions from a dictionary are not the same as showing credible intelligence on how systems are played out...nor does bringing up the dictionary show where you don't already promote such in your own actions/parties you support
As said before, quoting a dictionary doesn't do squat in showing something with the label of socialsim (or communism) as a negative when it comes to ignoring what was actually played out...especially when encylopedias have gone into more-depth/noted where dictionaries are limited in explaination of complex issues.
As said before, anyone agreeing with Mitt Romney (when it comes to speaking against socialism) already endores socialism...especially as it concerns Corporate Welfare and looking to governments to enforce buisnesses. ..which goes directly back into what has been told to you before when it comes to understanding Corporatism....and the bottom line reality that both of those candidates (Romney and Obama) support corporatism (really corporate socialism or State Capitalism)– the conjoining of interventionist government with politically favored corporate interests. In substantive terms, there simply isn’t that much separating those two candidates. But then, this is nothing new in presidential politics.
Romeny also pointed out support for socialism on other levels as well, if unaware (or avoiding where RomneyCare is essentially about that):
Romney Endorses Israel's Socialist Health Care System - YouTube
If you're fearful of anything connected to "communism" when bringing up dictionary, one would not need to be a part of the early church since they had COMMON ownership of resources/all looked out for one another even with private property (
Acts 2:35 and
Acts 4:26 ..same principle seen in
Deuteronomy 15:3-5 /
Deuteronomy 15 ), in line with the ways the Essenes (a camp in Judaism ) practiced things in their own communities.. The same thing goes for the Christian/Byzantine Empire in how it looked out for others....and for other groups who were based on the concept of community, you'd have to avoid others who had resources and yet gave in order to ensure that there was equity practiced amongst the members.
There's also the reality of the many other types of non-Marxist communism that have existed for awhile. One of them being anarcho-communism, as it is basically voluntary and from the bottom up rather than something focused on looking up to the state when it comes to common ownership. Anarchist-communists and some green anarchists (especially anarcho-primivists) argue that hunter-gatherer tribes, like families, were early forms of anarchist-communism, due to their egalitarian nature. Early Christian communities have been described by Christian anarchists and some historians as having anarcho-communist characteristics. Other movement included the egalitarian religious communities such as the Diggers Movement during the English Revolution.
There was also the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution and the Free Territory during the Russian Revolution. For through the efforts and influence of the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 anarchist communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia, as well as in the stronghold of Anarchist Catalonia--with many seeing in the Spanish Revolution what communism was meant to be about when it came to the people actually being in control--more discussed at
An Anarchist Perspective on the Spanish Civil War. Of course it has
often been debated concerning what happened in the Spanish Revolution and whether or not the people/groups seeking revolt against what they deemed to be tyrannical governments were automatically less tyrannical when they came to power---as people being empowered always carries with it the risk that some will seek to make equality and yet have some more "equal" than others/dominant and thus repeat the process (similar to what's often done in the name of "democracy" when select choices are given which really aren't choices at all...with people thinking they've been empowered when they really had an exchange of tyrants).
Whenever it gets to the point that people do things in the name of "community" and yet don't respect others in the community (as it concerns demanding others cannot have private property and that the State has freedom to take that away), things are off...and for groups within Anarchist Communism advocating such, that's a problem. That said, on the positive side, I've been rather amazed at the concept of
gift economy and
and how Anarchist Communist tend to go toward that (more
here ,
here,
here here, and
here).
Some good views on the issue:
__________________
It's ignorant trying to equate all forms of socialism or communism to the mess that happened in the U.S.S.R..no different than trying to ascribe all the mess happening in corrupt buisnesses/organizations that take advantage of the poor or slavery to capitalism. Things are always complex.
