WhoKilledBambi wrote:
barrelracer89 wrote:
WhoKilledBambi wrote:
No, it's not communism.
More socialism, leaning on Communism. But the idea of "the government is there to take care of it's people" is socialist.

No, not at all.
In socialism, there would be no one strong leader, especially when it is leaning towards communism.
Actually socialism is when the government is RUN by the people. Communism is where there IS no government, only people.
Taking care of the people is social democracy.

If you look at examples of "Communist" governments that have existed in the past, a leader always has emerged. I suppose I was drawing the comparison there. Even in the USSR after Bloody Sunday and the abdication of the Romanov's there was a ruling parliament (I'm not sure if that's the right term). We will never have true Communism because humans need leaders to follow and it's that simple. To me Communism in its purest form is an unreachable goal.

Edited to remove double negative. . .lack of sleep is killing me. Hah.