Yes it is. No. Communism is abolition of private property, as the Communist Manifesto states explicitly. You may have been confused by the 20th century countries -- some of which persist to this day -- whose ruling parties called themselves communist, but whose economic systems were actually socialist.
These statistical comparisons with normal distributions are not really relevant because with voting, the trials are not independent. I.e., the voters of a given precinct are not a random sample of the population; they tend to have political interests and views in common due to distinctive local conditions. The smaller the vote total, the more likely the sample is to be highly skewed.
Democrats have been the original, unsurpassed masters of the election cheating process ever since Lyndon B. Johnson stole a senatorial election from Republican Texas Governor Stevenson in 1948. Stop and think how very, VERY much better it would have been for the United States of America if a power-mad, delusional autocrat like LBJ had never been elected to ANYTHING! . Two of the five worse presidents in American history -- FDR, and his star-pupil, LBJ....
We will have to differ. Here in Europe socialist principles are regarded as benevolent, and an acknowledgement that collaboration, sharing, and the benefit of trying to do things for the common good is desirable. It is not defined as common ownership of the means of production, but a desire that the fruits of production are shared in such a way that a community will gain from.
So the proofs of electoral fraud in Russia published by Washington Post and Proceedings of National Academy of Science were fraudulent themselves?
They might not have been well founded. Getting 100% of 100 votes is different from getting 100% of 1M votes.
Such a definition is too broad to be useful in political discussions: most capitalist countries are "socialist" by that definition.
Well quite. By the same token using the term ‘socialist’ as a trigger term for negativity isn’t useful in political discussions.
I agree. It's absurd to use it as an all-purpose pejorative, as American Republicans typically do. They also use "liberal" the same way. That's why for purposes of discussing economic systems, the specific economic definition of socialism that I gave is correct.
Well sometimes the butchery is limited by the available eligible population to kill, so you should be dealing in proportions, not absolute numbers. It's also important to consider the intent and potential. Hitler wanted to kill far more than he did and would have in different circumstances. Stalin had a relatively free hand because he was one of the victors of WWII. That said, any system that doesn't recognize the rights of individuals has the potential to do this whether it's socialism, theocracy, or fascism. The common thread is losing sight of the humanity of others. Socialism just means that the state owns the means of production. One could argue that for most industries it's less efficient, but it's not, in itself, a cause of genocide.
Gentlemen, this is not about America falling down into the classic definition of "Socialism", per se. This is an insidious newer variety of "neo-Socialism", where, for brevity's sake, we are being pushed toward a reality reminiscent of Orwell's "1984". It's about an essentially 'bypassed' proletariat that has been reduced to insignificance, poverty, and dependence on welfare and "subsidies", by the centralized, neo-Capitalist economy and the 'woke', hyperliberal government it has propped-up. BUT, this 'proletariat' is allowed to VOTE! And that is of paramount importance! When people who suck on government handouts retain the ability to vote in all elections, then 'takers' will outnumber 'makers'. How can anyone see anything good in this...?! . "Well, it sounded pretty damned good to ME...!"
Hmmmm went to the link and this is what I found so someone has paid to put this up it has no evidence to back it and was not peer reviewed
Yes they are only we have expanded it now Mind you those countries have other things in common too Blue skies Sunsets Sunrises Starry starry nights……
Only when they have been compulsory on a societal scale. The Mondragon cooperative and the Israeli kibbutzim are examples of small-scale, voluntary -- i.e., "private" -- socialism that seem to have worked fine. There are probably good reasons why socialism doesn't scale and can't work when imposed by force.
They are not socialist, and if you rell a Swede he is socialist he will not respond kindly. There is a world of difference between "welfare" and "socialism".
Thats very true. Socialism does not scale up well at all. And there is a very good reason for that - small scale, "private" socialism is voluntary. If a person does not like the kibbutzim or the hippie town or whatever he can leave. The only people there are the people that want to be there, who agree with the socialism. And in order to stay in operation, that voluntary aspect means the socialist demands are capped, they cannot be too burdensome and certainly cannot be implemented by force. And the little socialist community does not have to be selfsufficient, it can and does rely on outside non-socialist communities to provide services and goods. And the "private " socialist community is subserviant to the larger community (the state and nation in which it resides), the people in the community have legal and political recourse above the socialist body. The evils of socialism are not allowed (cannot) to rise to the surface in "private" socialism. They do when socialism is the ruling authority.
Those objections that one should not expect Gaussian distribution in election results are quite old and appeared ten years ago in the context of Russian elections in Significance (a magazine of Royal Statistical Society). However a well known statistician Andrew Gelman criticized those articles in his blog. Afterward the articles, linked in that blog, went down the memory hole.
‘He will not respond kindly’. Of course he will, why on earth not. I have not introduced the notion that socialism is welfare, although welfare is part of a socialist approach to a collaborative society. Even America has support systems, even if it is through reluctance from some.