I took a Comparative Political Systems class in college but that was years ago so I went out on Wiki and did a little refresher. I decided to post some major highlights and what I was looking at.
Promotes a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production in general.
Generally considered to be a branch of socialism however...see below.
A theory of communism is the only way to solve the problems that come from capitalism, imperialism and nationalism is for the working class to replace the wealthy class (the ruling class) and establish a peaceful, free society, without class or government.
Okay, in theory. Communism sounds like a great socioeconomic system. In theory. In practice, it has not worked. I really don't understand why this political theory has gotten so much flak that it does other than that fact that most of the people that oppose are such gung-ho capitalist they can't fathom a world where there is no separation between wealthy and poverty.
Economic theory of social organization that advocates state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
From what I can remember, I always thought that socialism was the system of government in which the government itself owned and administered the means of production (while in a community system, in theory, the people collectively owned it).
It seems to me that socialism is a very broad term and I'm not really sure I can really nail it down to one specific set of rules or theory.
The economic system where all the means of production are owned privately and operated for profit. There is a term used quite often when talking about capitalism and that term is free market. Free market basically refers to a market where property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely between buyers and sellers.
Okay, this is what I have to say about this. First of all, that last part about free market. Apparently we do not live in a free market system even though a lot of people may think we do. The reason I think this is because we do not live in a society where the price of goods are arranged between buyers and sellers. What have you ever bought anywhere that you have already agreed to a pre-arranged price with the seller? Next time someone tells you we live in a free market system ask them when the last time was that they had a part in the decision making process of how much they would have to pay for gas, or groceries, etc.
Furthermore, I can't really see anything good about a system where the entire economy is determined by profit. The only people that benefit from this type of system are the people that have all of the money. There are those who might say that in this sort of system, the hope of a better financial system forces (for lack of a better term) people to work harder in order to achieve that goal. I personally think that this theory is a load of crap.
I think in a system like this there are always going to be super wealthy people that could give a crap less about anyone else (there are a few minor exceptions) and there are going to be people starving and begging for their next meal.
This isn't really a system of government. It is quite the opposite. It is actually a political philosophy that supports the idea of completely eliminating compulsory government (or abolishing the state).
To me, this is similar to the idea of communism in that both believe that all there should be no private property. That is, all goods and services should be collectively owned by the people, not by any private company or individual or by the government itself.