Difference between socialism and communism.

[REDY]

In practice: socialism=collapsing communism=collapse

In theory: Socialism is era between capitalism and communism where communism is goal. In communism all people would work just for society and taking goods how they want. Family, companies, shopts or state would not exist, it would be totaly different world than is todays.
All regimes in history which are commonly called communist were technically socialist. But in every that country one day communist leader said that socialism is over and communism starts. (I think that in Czechoslovakia it was in early 1960s).

 

[Gustave5436]

Anybody care to explain in layman terms, please?

Thanks

Socialism is any economic system which abolishes class relations (i.e. abolishes the economic monopoly of the rich property owners and makes property available to all to use; property being defined as the means of production, such as factories and farmlands).

Communism is the form of socialism in which both the means and results of production are made freely available to all.

In before the "no real Scotsman".

Due to its concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," Marxism is indeed logically inconsistent with socialism. In practice, this will always be a dictatorship over the proletariat, and class relations will continue on as before. The logical result of Marxism is not communism or any other form of socialism, but state capitalism, wherein the State has an economic monopoly over property and the populace are essentially its slaves.

 

[Traitorfish]

Due to its concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," Marxism is indeed logically inconsistent with socialism. In practice, this will always be a dictatorship over the proletariat, and class relations will continue on as before.

I do not believe that you understand what the word "dictatorship" means, at least in this sense. In Marx's day, it was yet to aquire the tyranical connotations it now holds, so the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply refers to a society which is controlled by the greater masses which comrpise it, rather than a limited elite. Put simply, it refers to a society which is not merely a de jure democracy but a de facto democracy. It is not even an inherently socialistic concept, let alone somehow a "logical" step towards tyranny.

 

[Tee Kay]

I can understand the confusion. All of these people are socialists, have been called socialists, called themselves socialists or are affiliated with a socialist organization, self-proclaimed or otherwise.

 

[El_Machinae]

When I buy shares of the company I work for, do I become socialist?

 

[nonconformist]

Lol, Mitterand a socialist?

 

[Munch]

I've been under the impression that socialism is an economic system and communism is political. So socialism is to capitalism as communism is to democracy. Or maybe it's the other way around.... I could be mistaken.

As far as I understand (and perhaps I will shortly stand corrected), to draw the distinction between an economic and a political system is to confuse the goals of socialist activity. That is to say, the goals of socialist agitation are not merely to achieve economic change such as fairer wages or working conditions, but to achieve political change such as the overthrow of an oppressive authoritarian regime, or I suppose in a more general context to gain greater democratic control of the state and greater representation of the interests of the powerless. Political change, then, facilitates and encompasses economic change.

 

[Dachs]

Lol, Mitterand a socialist?

Well, he said he was one anyway. I mean, Hitler a socialist?

 

[luiz]

I do not believe that you understand what the word "dictatorship" means, at least in this sense. In Marx's day, it was yet to aquire the tyranical connotations it now holds, so the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply refers to a society which is controlled by the greater masses which comrpise it, rather than a limited elite. Put simply, it refers to a society which is not merely a de jure democracy but a de facto democracy. It is not even an inherently socialistic concept, let alone somehow a "logical" step towards tyranny.

In think in Marx's day the word dictatorship meant dictatorship just like it does today, and Marx was very much talking about tyranny.

I know for a fact that "dictator" was a derogatory term before Marx wrote his BS.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Lol, Mitterand a socialist?

The Socialist Party was his party

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

In practical terms, it generally means little as far as differences between a socialist and communist regime, as the governments of Eastern Europe hailed themselves as being both in one way or another. These countries should not be confused with those that have heavy state interventionism but still allow a degree of political freedom, e.g. Sweden. (Sweden, however, isn't really "socialist" either as corporate taxes are actually lower there than they are in a place like the U.S.)

Oh, come on . The Social Democrats were voted into power for most of the post wwii period and so therefore we have socialized healthcare and education and so on. Note voted into power though, we're just as "free" politically as you guys. Not sure what state interventionism you are refering to either, spending tax-money on saving failing private banks and car-companies is an American thing, we prefer to let the market decide.

On topic I think the main difference is that the communists believe that an armed revolution is the only way to victory, where socialism says that this can be done without violence. Thats what I've been told anyways.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Socialism is were some wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor; generally the rich are sill richer than the poor, just not as rich.

Communism is were everything is communally owned; there are no rich or poor.

 

[Gustave5436]

I do not believe that you understand what the word "dictatorship" means, at least in this sense. In Marx's day, it was yet to aquire the tyranical connotations it now holds, so the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply refers to a society which is controlled by the greater masses which comrpise it, rather than a limited elite. Put simply, it refers to a society which is not merely a de jure democracy but a de facto democracy. It is not even an inherently socialistic concept, let alone somehow a "logical" step towards tyranny.

The state is inextricably linked to property. The former exists to perpetuate the privilege of the propertied elite, and it is this elite who controls the state. It is impossible for the 'greater masses' to comprise the state. As seen in Russia, the small faction which actually leads the "revolution" will merely seize the state for itself, not abolishing class relations but simply replacing the previous privileged class.

Socialism is were some wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor; generally the rich are sill richer than the poor, just not as rich.

Communism is were everything is communally owned; there are no rich or poor.

"Wealth redistribution" is a capitalist notion. Socialist society does not "redistribute" wealth, it abolishes it. Communism, collectivism, mutualism - all forms of socialism abolish entirely the class system; all socialists are vehemently opposed to wage slavery, and hence all socialists insist on the abolition of capital. Where various forms of socialism (and here I am discussing only libertarian socialism) differ is merely in the specifics of how a post-revolutionary society would administer itself.

 

[Angst]

We should understand that Sweden and France are actually capitalist countries that adopt some specific socialist (or socialistic) policies, but their strength comes from their developed capitalist economy (while their problems come from the socialistic policies, of course )

Because it's our fault the world economy is melting down, said the Dane.

 

[Yeekim]

Socialist society does not "redistribute" wealth, it abolishes it.

The best description of socialism I have ever seen anywhere.

 

[nonconformist]

The Socialist Party was his party

So? The Perti Socialiste hasn't been socialist since, say 1950 probably.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

How would you describe them?

 

[Gustave5436]

The best description of socialism I have ever seen anywhere.

Just to clarify, in the context of that post, "wealth" meant "economic monopoly" (i.e. the economic dominance of one person over another in the form of wage-slavery and such). This ought to be evident in that "wealth redistribution" takes the form of welfare programs, wherein the rich are taxed to give some baseline standard of living to the poor. Thus, what I was saying was that in socialist society there is no such thing as "rich" or "poor" as all are equal (and of course by "equal" I mean it in the sense of economic class, not that everyone would be identical or possess identical things, as is yet another silly argument capitalists like to use).

If you wish to argue that economic liberty (that is, the abolition of aforementioned economic monopoly) is unworkable, say so outright and explain why, please.

 

[nonconformist]

How would you describe them?

Mixed economy proponets, somwhat market liberal, somewhere, at the moment, in the moderate-right wing.

 

[jessiecat]

Mixed economy proponets, somwhat market liberal, somewhere, at the moment, in the moderate-right wing.

And like all things French and left-leaning, containing splinters of infinite variety and bewildering complexity.