WhoKilledBambi wrote:
barrelracer89 wrote:
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 not 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.

you are right in saying that it has never been achieved. It may never be.
But the governments who were labelled as communist were called that because it was the end goal (in theory).
They were, however, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. Not communist.
So lets keep our terminology correct. It only encourages raging lunatics like PD when we use the terms communism and socialism incorrectly.
I do agree that the words "Communism" and "socialism" around carelessly (whether it be to insight fear or just out of ignorance), but you can see the ideals of Communism and socialism being promoted through American politics today. Not pure Communism, but the ideas are there nonetheless.