Why are socialism and communism equated with one-another in the US?

[Agent327]

I think perhaps he meant real existing socialism and communism, to which those 'definitions' hardly apply. Historically and doctrinewise anarchism and communism as well as socialism were rather at odds, to put it mildly.

 

[REDY]

There is not country in Europe which has socialist system. They have capitalist systems where are just higher taxes and welfare. Parties which supporting these ideas are known as left, labour, social democrats or commonly socialists but the very definition of socialism ïs about controlling all without free market - it refuses private ownership. The real difference between American Liberals and European socialists is just rate of taxes/welfare, not different system.
Communist would say that only at least partialy socialist countries would be these which were commonly known as communist ones - USSR and its satellites, China, Cuba, North Korea...
Majority of european socialists would talk about social justice and welfare - they made term of socialism unclear. Real democratic socialist would talk about socialism as some goal where should country develop. They consider that when people will see benefits from bigger redistributing there will be development to socialist society which would approve socialist system democratically.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think perhaps he meant real existing socialism and communism, to which those 'definitions' hardly apply. Historically and doctrinewise anarchism and communism as well as socialism were rather at odds, to put it mildly.

That's rather like disputing the typical image of the unicorn because the "real existing" unicorn is a great big chunky grey thing in Africa.

 

[Agent327]

Not at all: unicorns do not exist in reality - and the question certainly wasn't what socialism and communism should be, but what they are. Which is quite a different thing.

 

[Ruggerbunny]

I doubt that people in France, the UK, Italy, Norway, and Sweden would agree that you can't have a socialist system without a communist govt.

Those are not socialist economies, they are free market economies with socialist elements. There is still private ownership and free enterprise.

I challenege you to show me one true socialist economy in post industrialism history that was not set up by a communist government. I do know you could reference tribal societies, but they are hardly what is being discussed here. The fact is that you can't have socialism without communism. That may not always hold true in the future, but up until this point it has held true.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I challenege you to show me one true socialist economy in post industrialism history that was not set up by a communist government.

I challenge you to show me one true socialist system that was set up.

 

[Karalysia]

What the hell is a communist government?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm sure he means a government controlled by the communist party or by communists.

 

[Ruggerbunny]

I challenge you to show me one true socialist system that was set up.

I don't believe either exist, thats my point. You can't have socialism without communism, and once you have communism you no longer have socialism. Is it any wonder they are considered the same thing?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What the hell is a communist government?

A one-party-system upholding socialist ideas?
Just a wild guess.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not at all: unicorns do not exist in reality - and the question certainly wasn't what socialism and communism should be, but what they are. Which is quite a different thing.

My point was that if a thing does not exist, it is not sufficient to merely cast about for an approximation. "Theoretical" or "conceptual" is a legitimate state of existence; something need not be put into practice before it becomes "real".

I don't believe either exist, thats my point. You can't have socialism without communism, and once you have communism you no longer have socialism. Is it any wonder they are considered the same thing?

Pardon?

 

[Karalysia]

I don't believe either exist, thats my point. You can't have socialism without communism, and once you have communism you no longer have socialism. Is it any wonder they are considered the same thing?

We commies call this doublethink.

 

[citedon]

Those are not socialist economies, they are free market economies with socialist elements. There is still private ownership and free enterprise.

I challenege you to show me one true socialist economy in post industrialism history that was not set up by a communist government. I do know you could reference tribal societies, but they are hardly what is being discussed here. The fact is that you can't have socialism without communism. That may not always hold true in the future, but up until this point it has held true.

I agree that there are no true socialist nations in the post industrial world, but several with socialist elements. I would go a step further and say that there has not been a true communist state either. The progression to true communism always seems to stop with the dictatorship of the proletariat. I don’t think it is possible for either socialism or communism to exist in a pure state except in small groups like you have mentioned. Both seem to be doomed to failure in a larger industrialized nation. The reason is, according to well known political analyst Frank Zappa, “Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. “

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree that there are no true socialist nations in the post industrial world, but several with socialist elements. I would go a step further and say that there has not been a true communist state either. The progression to true communism always seems to stop with the dictatorship of the proletariat. I don’t think it is possible for either socialism or communism to exist in a pure state except in small groups like you have mentioned. Both seem to be doomed to failure in a larger industrialized nation. The reason is, according to well known political analyst Frank Zappa, “Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. “

1) "Communist state" is an oxymoron. Communism, in both it's Marxist and non-Marxist forms, is an anarcho-collectivist system.
2) The "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply refers to a system in which the proletariat own the means of production; both socialism and communism are represented. It does not refer to a particular system, let alone the autocracy so often perceived by those who don't know what the word "dictatorship" means.
3)Again, communism is anti-statist.
4)Communism advocates ownership-through-use; this means collective ownership (still a form of ownership) in most cases, but does not necessarily preclude individual ownership of capital, nor does it at all preclude the ownership of personal (as distinct from private) property.

 

[Ruggerbunny]

Pardon?

In an effort to not repeat, I left out my previous post. Up until this point in history, there has not been a socialist state without communism, barring tribal societies, though that is a debate for another thread.

Please explain to me how you would currently convert a state to socialism without communism.

We commies call this doublethink.

In the current state of mankind, this statement is true. See above. When you prove me wrong, I will change my stance.

The OP question was why are they considered the same, this is why. Of all the "socialist" states, none are without communism. Simple correlation, and for those not interested enough to research further, they stand as that.

 

[Karalysia]

You misunderstand the progression grievously.

 

[Traitorfish]

In an effort to not repeat, I left out my previous post. Up until this point in history, there has not been a socialist state without communism, barring tribal societies, though that is a debate for another thread.

Please explain to me how you would currently convert a state to socialism without communism.

I'll be honest, I find myself unable to answer that question, because your use of both terms is so ill-explained, and the dynamic which you assert to exist between them so baffling, that I am not able to comprehend it.

 

[citedon]

...The "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply refers to a system in which the proletariat own the means of production; both socialism and communism are represented. It does not refer to a particular system, let alone the autocracy so often perceived by those who don't know what the word "dictatorship" means.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be a transitional period which is to lead to a classless society. Unfortunately nobody seems able to get to that next level. What happens is that it becomes a true dictatorship with a small group of "haves" and a large group of "have nots" and the have nots are constantly reminded that they are much better off than those unfortunate people in the capitalist world whose high standard of living is indicative of their decadence.

 

[Traitorfish]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be a transitional period which is to lead to a classless society. Unfortunately nobody seems able to get to that next level. What happens is that it becomes a true dictatorship with a small group of "haves" and a large group of "have nots" and the have nots are constantly reminded that they are much better off than those unfortunate people in the capitalist world whose high standard of living is indicative of their decadence.

Come to think of it, that is rather key, isn't I? "Dictatorship of the proletariat" does at least imply some sort of class consciousness that would be, presumably, lost in the classless communist state. I suppose I may have to go away and reconsider my understanding of that particular concept.

However, I would suggest that the reason so many socialist states degenerate into dictatorship is because very few ever entertained the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the first place. Typically, what you'll find is a revolutionary vanguard trying to force a nation through the capitalist stage- these places always seem to be rather undeveloped- through the use of what amounts to state capitalism, and then forgetting to let go and allow democracy to take root. The exact causes of this, I'm not sure of, but it may be significant that it usually occurs in the face of great anti-socialist opposition from abroad. Perhaps, left to it's own devices, a nation would be able to progress to the socialist stage more easily?

 

[Agent327]

Indeed.

My point was that if a thing does not exist, it is not sufficient to merely cast about for an approximation. "Theoretical" or "conceptual" is a legitimate state of existence; something need not be put into practice before it becomes "real".

That may be, but let's not confuse "socialism" and "communism" in theory with what they are (or rather were) in practice - which was my point.