Itt: countless people who have never read a single work by a communist or socialist philosopher.
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
Apart from the specific definitions and history of practice there are people who help people and people who help themselves. All systems have been derived from this.
Man I actually read Lenin and now this thread is making me question what I know. I guess theres what Marxist philosophers say and what is considered in the modern usage.
Marxists say that communism is the ultimate end point. A stateless classless moneyless society. Something so different from our understanding of society as it is currently conceived. I think Ursula K Le Guin probably best imagined what this might look like in “The Dispossessed” (she calls herself an anarchist, but I think this what Marx himself envisioned). Where the way labor roles are divided up by the needs of the group and the choices of individuals. Socialism is said to be the transition state from capitalist society into a communist one. Where the machinery of capitalism is no longer used for the benefit of individuals and is used for the benefit of all. Marx imagines that a society that uses it’s tools for the good of all will naturally evolve into a communist society.
Then there is the modern usage of the terms which seem to vary based on who invokes the them. For example, Republican politicians will use the term socialism to mean communism and vice versa. Some politicians like Mamdani or Bernie will describe socialism to mean a more humane type of capitalism that has other priorities other than pure profit seeking. Some people use communism to describe an authoritarian system that has no regard for human agency. I’m not an expert on this particular topic, but I think this thread is proof that multiple people will have multiple definitions that most often don’t align with how Marxists describe communism and socialism.
I think part of the problem is the history of the Soviet Union. It billed itself as a communist society, even tho it never really achieved anything described as a stateless classless moneyless society. I think at best it probably achieved a form of socialism(by the Marxist definition). Guy Debord(who is a Marxist philosopher) criticized the Soviet Union for creating a new type of class without intending to do so. So a lot of people today hear the Soviet Union call itself a communist country, and so that’s the popular misconception of communism.
I personally think the lack of consensus around these is an intentional bit of propaganda that makes it easy to demonize these terms because most people who grew up in capitalist centers of power have been fed a steady diet of red scare propaganda for decades. It’s easy to throw these terms around to scare people into not even exploring the academic thought that devised them.
Then there is the modern usage of the terms which seem to vary based on who invokes the[m]
I think the thing to keep in mind is: 1) words evolve over time, and 2) the people using those words might be abbreviating what they actually mean, because they don’t know that there’s another related concept that is named similarly. The best example of the first is how “truck” in the 1910s meant what we now call a “hand truck”, and “car” from that era meant traincar. Whereas in the 2020s, “truck” and “car” both refer to automobiles, and we had to create the backronyns of “hand truck” and “rail car” to avoid confusion.
I don’t think your theoretical understanding of Marxism is wrong – though I’ve not read enough to confirm – but I would hazard against using other people’s wrong definitions and usage guide your own understanding. If you understand the ideology, then it’s a matter of rendering it using the right words; that is, it becomes a communications problem.
For example, Republican politicians will use the term socialism to mean communism and vice versa
I would especially not suggest relying on right-wingers to properly use – let alone understand – left-wing ideology, since their objective is to denigrate leftists through FUD and infantile repetition. Basically, the maxim of “if enough people are ‘talking’ about something, it must be controversial” or “I’m just asking questions bro”, neither of which are anywhere approaching a good-faith discussion on the merits.
Some politicians like Mamdani or Bernie will describe socialism to mean a more humane type of capitalism that has other priorities other than pure profit seeking
How the two use the word “socialism” is almost always understood as a shorthand for what Europeans would call “social democracy”. So it’s definitely on the list of valid implementations of socialism, but is specifically about reforming an openly capitalist system into something more egalitarian. That said, “social democracy” still leaves out a lot of details which need clarification: do Mamdani or Bernie support (re)building the social safety net? Does the state need to also own railroads the same way that they own highways? For the former, there’s the standalone word “welfare state”, but I’m not aware of a compound phrase that means “social democratic welfare state”, if that even describes Bernie or Mamdani at all. I’d certainly love a word that means “social democratic welfare railway state” but nothing has caught on.
I think that should underscore my point: even after resolving exactly which word they might be abbreviating, there aren’t enough short words to succinctly describe any particular ideology. Rather, the words are useful to get a rough idea of a person’s views, but ultimately, every one and every candidate is going to have a slightly different take on certain questions.
Some people use communism to describe an authoritarian system that has no regard for human agency
I personally refer to this definition as “Stalinist communism”, because it does accurately describe how the USSR was operating under Stalin. Essentially, it wrapped a cult-of-personality in the trappings of communist thought, though people like Trotsky pointed out how communism could be done much differently. Obviously, history is quite clear that the Stalinist approach was not adopted as-is by any other country, nor retained in the USSR after Stalin’s death. Indeed, I’ve never come across anyone who genuinely refers to themselves as a Stalinist or who seriously proposes to the adoption of Stalin-style, top-down authoritarian communism. Maybe some right-wing Russians do, but idk. My point is that, like the Republican examples above, Stalin and authoritarian communism is usually only brought up as a “thought terminating answer” rather than to seriously debate the merits of communism, either theoretically or practically.
multiple people will have multiple definitions that most often don’t align with how Marxists describe communism and socialism
Yes, because they’re usually talking past each other about different things. Being able to detect which definition someone means to use, that’s a skill that you can develop for yourself, to have a clearer picture than they do.
I’m primarily writing this comment because I abhor the idea that an idea – it could be anything, from rocket science to theorrtical mathematics – is perceived as being an arena where everyone is just making up stuff, and if that should lead to people becoming turned off the idea of studying it for themselves, that’s a net-negative. No doubt, some countries, politicians, and agencies want to denigrate or prop up their own definitions, but that just makes it easier to identify fake socialists and “communists in name only”.
The merits and failures of socialism and communism deserve to be comprehensively hashed out in the public mind, and it only serves the status quo that this not happen. And the longer the conversation is delayed, the more that the indisputable ails of the status quo will take more victims.
Socialism - Everyone contributes money to social programs that benefit everyone. Taxes are higher, but the money is used for the benefit of all. The government exists to oversee the programs that support the people. This HAS worked in many countries around the world. It is not about everyone being economically equal in society, it’s about accessibility of care and benefit for everyone regardless of their starting point.
Communism - Everyone is to be on equal footing and wealth is to be evenly distributed among everyone. Everything is, in theory, shared and belongs to everyone. The government exists to oversee the transition of society, then is meant to step aside rather than remain above the rest of the people. This has NOT worked as no one has ever successfully established this and then stepped aside. It leaves the door wide open for abuse of power.This is completely incorrect, cite any socialist or communist philosophers agreeing with you.
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
That’s just social democracy, not socialism.
In your communism definition, the government is not supposed to step aside, it’s supposed to stop having a function as classes are eliminated, because the state’s purpose is the oppression of one class by the other.
More simply, socialism is about indirect redistribution of wealth through taxes paying for social programs that benefit everyone. Communism seeks literal redistribution of wealth to maintain equal economic status for all.
Socialism might also seek the direct redistribution of wealth via wealth taxes.
The difference is primarily in collecting wealth via taxes after the fact, rather than having a central body try and actively redistribute everything before payment.
Glad I learned something today. I didn’t know the difference until now. Thanks.
Just FYI, the 2 parent comments are completely wrong and you shouldn’t remember these definitions.
Socialism = means of production are owned by society, but classes still exist (the working class rules over the former bourgeoisie)
When that process is finished and classes and contradictions that lead to them have been completely abolished, that’s communism.
Which is the same society that Anarchists want to achieve, the only difference is that Anarchists don’t have a coherent plan on how to get there.
It’s important to consider the fact that an economy does not have to be entirely Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist.
Most countries already have Socialist and Capitalist components at this point.
What I’d personally like to see is Land be a communist system. Necessities be Socialist. Luxuries be Capitalist.
Every citizen of a country should own and share in the land of the country equally. It should not be possible to privately own land. If land is leased or rented from this pool for individual or corporate use, that money should be given to everyone equally. Likely that would be handled by a government in reality, but it should be fairly hands off other than facilitating the transfer of value.
Necessities like Basic Housing, Basic Food, Public Transportation, Medical Care, Parks, Rec Centers, Schools, Police, Courts, etc. should be all handled with socialism. Where the government collects taxes from the land value and capitalist markets, and operates these systems itself for the benefit of everyone who needs them.
If you want more than necessities, capitalism should stick around to handle those desires. Want a bigger fancier house, some fancy oranges from another country, a suit made of silk, go ahead and buy it on a capitalist market either with the money you receive from your portion of land ownership value, or through participating in the capitalist market yourself.
This is completely wrong. Social welfare and shared infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism is an economic model where the means of production are owned by the workers, nothing more, nothing less.
There is definitely a difference, and they are not interchangeable. I’ll let other people chime in with a rigorous definition for communism, but at a minimum, it must have abolished the state and social classes entirely. So one could say that communism is at the very end of the road, and the various flavors of socialism are the routes to get there.
Various flavors of socialism? Yes, I’ve written an earlier comment about that, and another one here. In brief, there are many ways to move beyond capitalism.
communism is an utopia ideal far more than an actionable form of government. I have never met a human being who didn’t function without a conception of social class. it only really works in small communities that have closed belief systems and practice social-isolation.
socialism is very actionable, it’s more of a policy than a form of government. you can have a socialist monarchy or dictatorship. most ‘communist’ countries were/are socialist dictatorships.
Humanity actually successfully implemented a decentralized egalitarian communist society without dictatorships in 1936 Spain, which bore out that it’s possible for us to achieve freedom for all while also ensuring everyone is able to live a fulfilling life by providing free housing, food, transportation and healthcare.
Some very specific outside circumstances caused it to be halted prematurely (namely, an unusual amount of industrialized fascist states and the USSR ganging up against it all at once, with very limited industrial capacity of their own to effectively fight back), but they documented how their society functioned while it existed quite well, and over 3 million people participated in it.
For most, it’s as difficult to imagine to an end to capitalism as it was for peasants to imagine an end to the divine right of kings, yet it did happen.
so strictly speaking socialism is a central planned economy with various ideals deciding who makes the plans. Thats what most people think of with communism. Many folks now a days though will use the term to mean a social democracy which generally looks for the state to run important things that everyone needs or if more individual choice is needed then maybe subsidises it. It collects taxes and regulates but otherwise lets unimportant things be run by private groups. It looks to have a floor to peoples quality of life that it does not go below and to encourage an overall high quality of life for the populace.
That’s not true at all, socialism is just worker ownership of the means of production and not related to centrally planned economies. Lookup market socialism for a counterexample.
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
Businesses (capital), labor (society), and the government are the three main components of a functioning state.
“Capitalism”, “socialism”, and “communism” are terms used to describe who is given the most control over the means of production in the economic system of a state.
“Capitalism” describes an economic system that places most of the control in the hands of capital (businesses). “Socialism” describes an economic system that places most of the control with workers (society), and communism describes an economic system that places most of the control with the government.
It should be noted that, even though these terms are VERY often conflated and even used interchangeably with terms that describe political systems, such as “authoritarian” or “democratic”, the fact is that these terms have nothing to do with each other and no combination of terms from either set are mutually exclusive.
To say it more simply, any capitalist, socialist, or communist society can also be democratic or authoritarian. The idea that socialism is the same thing as authoritarianism is propaganda created by capitalists who are scared to death of livong in a society that places the needs of the common working man above the needs of the biggest businesses in the country.
So close until you got to communism. Cite marx.
communism describes an economic system that places most of the control with the government.
I know you’re simplifying things for brevity but this is misleading at best. You can’t gloss over the goal of a classless, stateless society when defining communism, and it is explicitly a left-wing philosophy. Contrast with fascism, a right-wing political philosophy that places most of the control with the government by reinforcing control over capital and creating a clear national identity.
You can gloss over that goal if you don’t consider Marxism the only form of communism.
There are other types of communism possible, some that even already exist in smaller groupings of humans than at the state level.
The different types of Socialists disagree on how to achieve the classless society called Communism (including Anarchists, by the way), but the end goal of a classless society is the same. There is no seperate “Marxist” definition of communism, he just took an idea that was considered utopian before him and turned it into a science.
Communism in the strictest sense is the means of production are owned by the state.
The classless doctrine was proposed by Marx and is often inferred when talking about communism.
You can absolutely have a communist society with a caste system.
Communism in the strictest sense is the means of production are owned by the state.
Someone better tell the anarcho-communists
Communism in the strictest sense is the means of production are owned by the state.
Not off to a great start. “Common ownership” is not synonymous with “owned by the state.” There’s lots of ways to set up a government such that the means of production are owned by the state and almost none of them are communism.
The classless doctrine was proposed by Marx and is often inferred when talking about communism.
Yes, Marx was the political philosopher who described a possible outcome of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and is the de facto reference point for discussion about communism. Many subsequent people have built off those ideas or arrived at similar conclusions from another angle but it’s good practice to specify which when it’s important. Marxism-Leninism, anarchist communism, Luxemburgism, whatever. Marxist communism is indeed inferred without other context.
You can absolutely have a communist society with a caste system.
You can have a communist movement with a caste system but a communist society is classless by definition. It is post-scarcity and utopian. It might be literally impossible for humans to organize in such a way in significant numbers but moving toward that ideal is the unifying philosophy of all communist movements.
Both words can have more than one meaning.
Socialism may be among other things:
- an economic system where the “means of production” are owned by the workers (Marxist theory as I understand it)
- the economic and political system that was implemented in the Soviet Union and its allies (they described it as socialism)
- social democracy, ie government regulations of the free market in order to make it more socially just
Communism, in Marxist theory, is a future stateless moneyless classless society which Marxists claim will inevitably happen after socialism. (Nonsense, but that’s the theory.) But a lot of times the word is used, it just means the second point from above, ie the way the Soviet Union and its allies were ruled. That’s mainly because a lot of ruling parties in those countries called and still call themselves the Communist Party of (country), though others didn’t, eg the East German ruling party was called the Socialist Unity Party of Germany.
Socialism, social democracy, and communism all focus on a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income. To what extent and what their approaches are, differ, though.
Social democracy proposes a classless society, usually within the premise of an ‘electoral democracy’, often with trade unions, collective bargaining, worker representation, and strikes as a bulwark against further deterioration into capitalism.
Socialism, if distinguished from social democracy, also wishes for a classless society, but it goes further: it wishes to advance social ownership of the economy.
Rather than just politics, the economy is also fully democratised. Instead of a CEO possibly deciding for all, it’s the labourers that choose, that have a say.Communism proposes that a just society must be not just classless, but also moneyless and stateless.
Instead of money as transferrable and susceptible to wealth accumulation, other means for exchange are used; labour vouchers, community exchange systems, and so on. Instead of a centralised, repressive state, society would be decentralised and free, living in communes; if there is a military or a police, both should stand on equal footing with the people.Personally, I’m an anarchist communist and favour that model, though I also can see a case for market socialism or council communism, and feel sympathetic to the left wing cause in general. And that is what all of us should do: respect each other’s outlooks, and strive together for the left cause. The greater the strength is there, if comrades complement one another, supporting each other under the red banner.
Talking about “socalism” in a language beset by capitalist oligarchs applying the label to things as mundane as “feeding children” really does require we draw a distinction between the numerous resultant definitions.
Some people use “socialism” to mean the anti-capitalist ideal you describe, while others mean either “thing I dont want my taxes to provide” or “the things those guys keep blocking.”
Here’s the reality.
All political labels fall apart in the real world.
Think North Korea is a ‘democratic republic?’ Or that Hitler was a Marxist?
Look at the 1956 Republican Party platform.
Heck, billionaire GOP Mayor Mike Bloomberg pushed to lower the number of cars coming into New York, almost as if he were a Green.
My advice is to look at the actual candidates and leave the theory in the classroom
First off, the 1956 Republican party is not the same as the modern GOP. You conveniently chose the time immediately before the schism that essentially reversed the two parties.
If anyone wants to argue about this, I suggest you read about Strom Thurmond. Perhaps the most vile, openly racist politician of the 20th century US. Thurmond was a lifelong Democrat, until the party started supporting civil rights.
That’s when he and his fellow Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats) moved to the Republican party. You’re highlighting their platform from immediately before the influx of racist shit heads.
Second, nobody classifies North Korea as that, except for North Korea. That doesn’t mean that we cannot label it accurately.
Third, Hitler never claimed to be a Marxist, nor have I ever seen anyone make that claim. I’ve seen the “hurr durr Nazis are socialist because it’s in the name,” but there’s a distinction between socialism and Marxism.
Fourth, the logic of the Bloomberg thing isn’t sound. “Almost as if he were a green” as if wanting less cars is completely unique to the Green party. Not how logic works.
It’s funny.
My point was that political labels fall apart in the real world.
As far as I can see, everything you wrote proves my point.
You agree with me, but seem angry that I’m right.
Or that Hitler was a Marxist?
Hitler described himself as a socialist, but certainly not Marxist.
He only described himself as a socialist to other socialists. In front of other nationalists, he called himself a nationalist.
His party was called the “Nationalist Socialist” party. When he addressed nationalists, he would capitalize the N and call it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just a bunch of nationalists socializing. But, when he spoke to socialists, he would capitalize the S and call it the “national Socialist” party.
Hitler didn’t care about nationalism or socialism. He only cared about saying whatever he thought he needed to say to obtain as much power as possible.
Literally, ‘Socialism’ was in the name.
Also, the actual members of the Party hated to be called "Nazis’ because Nazi is a nickname for Ignatz. It was a bit like calling an american ‘Homer’ or ‘Jethro,’
Yeah, but he only emphasized the “Socialist” part of the name in front of socialists. In front of nationalists, he called it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just socializing with each other.
The truth is, Hitler supported the ideology of whoever he was addressing. He didn’t care about implementing any specific system, as long as he had absolute power over it.
Which gets us back to the original point; that there’s no reason to discuss political labels anywhere but a classroom.
Best not to ask .world and piefed users for obvious reasons. Socialism is the transitionary stage towards communism. Examples are Cuba, China, the former Warsaw Pact and USSR. Communism is the goal.
The inane screeching of .world (et. al.) users attempting to describe historical materialism — or even what the fuck mode of production is generally — could one day, technology permitting, be distilled and turned into a weapon that does psychic damage to anyone who has ever read a book.
My thoughts/understanding, without Google searching/copy pasting, is that communism is supposed to focus more on the structure of a community and specific ways to allocate duties and rewards to generally better the lives of a subset group of people (Community). Personal wealth and standing coincide with your communal position, while ensuring that the least standing members still have a good minimal quality of life.
Socialism is similar, but focuses more on everyone as a whole. Everything is meant to be setup and geared towards the betterment and equality of all, but in a less structured way. All things are done for the betterment of self and society. Rewards and standing depend on merit and deeds equally. Tangible reward is shared as equally as possible.
I’m not sure if I am conveying my thoughts right here. This is way harder to write out than I expected when I started, but I’m too deep now.
In my mind, communism would be more hierarchical in tangible reward, socialism would be hierarchical in subjective reward. (Think Star Trek).
I am probably way off, so if you want the text book definitions and differences, I’d suggest an online search for such.
Edit: spelling
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
I’m not educated enough to give you a fulfilling answer, but from what I understand:
These are two similar economic ideologies. They’re not interchangeable per se, but they share a lot of characteristics that make them seem identical from some perspectives.
Now, unless someone else comments who’s more familiar with this than I am, I do recommend looking this up for more information!
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
Communism is a specific type of socialism
Socialism is an economic term. Communism is a political term.
They’re both economic terms. Socialism gives society control over the means of production. Communism gives the government control. The reason people think they’re the same is because, in a democratic political system, the government represents their society.
China is an example of an authoritarian state where the government acts independently of the will of society, has complete control over the means of production, and enforces that control, so it’s considered communist.
Scandinavian countries are examples of democratic states where the people have control over the means of production, the government is simply a mechanism that enforces that control, so they’re considered socialist.
The USA is an example of a capitalist state where businesses control the means of production, the government is simply a mechanism that enforces that control, so they’re considered capitalist.
How in the world do you come to the conclusion that Scandinavian workers own the means of production? Nothing even remotely close to that is the case, they just have a relatively well-funded welfare state, that has nothing to do with Socialism.
