Well, being a reactionary, uneducated Republican, I don't really have the intellectual stamina to read pages 2-14. However, I'm willing to bet good money that a lot of people are going to take (or already have taken) issue with your use of the word "socialist. As a fairly conservative guy, I'm quite sympathetic to your identification of socialism and tyranny, since I believe the former can often lead to the latter, if taken to an extreme, but a lot of people are going to object to that characterization, and it might get you derailed from your main topic.

Instead, I'd call them Fascists or Nazis, since everyone hates those. Or if you want to avoid Godwin, just call them unfair;)

We already did this. We determined they were totalitarian.

Yes already been covered. Fascist and totalitarian were raised as closer defintions.

Edit: To curtail the off topic argument, let's just say that some people will strongly disagree with linking socialism and tyranny. What with them being polar opposites and all ;).

My problem with this is that this argument is used to justify pretty much everything. The system isn't that bad, your lack of employment rights is not a big issue, healthcare isn't that important- the economy is failing we can't fix all this other stuff.
If you lie down now it becomes habit, you come toa ccept your own lack of power and the dominance of the system. You can't compromise.

FTFY

Also, I'd just like to say I'd be interested in hearing about the supposedl blown-out-of-proportions reaction(s) to your essay, MM. All power to ya'.

EDIT: See, Barrel had the right idea. :p

EDIT2: I think the equating socialism to tyranny comes from the examples of Communism we have. Like, Stalin is a well known one.
Or in other words, yes, socialism doesn't have anything to do with tyranny by itself, it's when socialism is taken so far as to not be socialism at all that's the issue. But then, at that point, why call it socialism? I dunno.

EDIT3: Well heck let's go back on topic then. My school never had problems, and neither should yours. If your school does have problems, please, if not for yourself, than for those that come afterward, say something. You'd make a lot of people happy, I'm sure.

I think he's confusing Socialism's goals with how Communism has been applied. Most Republicans think they're more or less the same thing, though I don't remember my Government classes well enough to recall the actual differences, I'll admit.

Socialism is like Canada or many nations in Europe. Communism is like China. The difference is the addition of a hint of fascism to the system. Socialism works to improve the living quality of the people with aid; communism works to centralize all the wealth and power by making everyone beneath the leadership equally miserable.

.......
Every sentence here has at least one thing wrong with it. That's got to be a record.

To clarify for people:
Socialism is a transitory state between capitalism and communism. The simplest way to look at it is that in communism there is no state anymore, socialism still posses a state, still possesses classes and still possesses an economy based around incentives and rewards. It is designed as a point of transition between capitalism and communism, to exist when the economies are still shackled by capitalist ways of working and under-mechanisation and there is a lack of "super-abundance"- ie want has not been eliminated.
The way to remember the difference is the classic statements:
Socialism "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"
Communism "From each according to his ability, to each according to his beed"
Communism relies upon a super-abundance of goods such that "want" is eliminated and everyone is satiated.
Socialism is the stage before this has been achieved, when scarcity is still present and there is still unequal division of goods. People are rewarded based upon their contribution to the social good in this situation.

Calling Europe or Canada "socialist" is about as laughable as calling China "communist", they are all through and through capitalist havens.

we should rename this thread "One Giant Slippery Slope"

I'd really love it if you could provide your own examples of socialist and communist states. Pretty sure the entire "cradle to casket" thing is socialist, and, well, I know your opinion on China as a communist nation, but it's pretty much one of the only ones in existence because, uh, communism doesn't work. For really obvious reasons. In any example of a communist nation, you got a small class of people who were "more equal" than others, and guess who was on top of the system? True communism is a pipe dream reliant on a utopian society, where people are fully willing to give their all for absolutely no incentive, which is just not how humanity works. In practice, you get rampant laziness and a shortage of resources that somehow doesn't manage to affect the elite that's not supposed to be there pulling all the strings. That same elite, like any elite, likes to stay in power and thus puts down the opposition of the people they're not supposed to be any better than. That's where I drew the fascism comparison, because, like it or not, that's the most similar system. Absolute state control is absolute state control. It's just a matter of degree of violence and a difference in the honesty of the government in what they're doing.

You know what's REALLY funny?

You guys comparing economic models and governance models.

Ok, let me break this down, here--Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism are NOT ways you run your country. They are economic models. They are ways you control your money, NOT your people.

Fascism, totalitarianism, and democracy are all forms of government. These are ways you run your country. They are NOT economic models. They are ways you control your people, NOT your money.

To break this down further, you can have fascist/totalitarianist capitalism. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how Nazi Germany rolled. In fact they employed Keynesian economics and saw the largest and quickest unemployment drop of any country during the Great Depression, but that's an argument for another thread.

Meanwhile we have China, which is a fascist capitalist government that calls itself communism. They used to be fascist communist, but they've implemented so many capitalist ideas to strengthen their economy that it can't be, truthfully, called that, anymore.

While Soviet Russia was a fascist communism.

And then we have Sweden which is socialist enough that I have no issues calling it a democratic socialist country (though they still roll with capitalism too--it's just a mix leaning stronger toward socialist than capitalist).

Canada, in the meanwhile, is a capitalist democracy with lots of socialist programs, but still leaning hard enough to capitalism that we can't really call it socialist.

Etc. etc.

We haven't seen a democratic communist country, yet, but you can't base your problems with communism off of fascist communisms. At least not when all your problems are with the fascist parts.

Do we have a better understanding now?