Difference between socialism and communism.

Indeed, though less so, the left is so splintered in France, they refuse to have anything do wiuth each other. The LEninists hate the Trotskyites, who hate the Radical Socialists, who hate the Agricultural Socialists etc :lol:

SPLITTERS
 
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.
Given that the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", a major Marxist concept, is rendered meaningless by such a definition, I'd hazard that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Certainly, the term "dictatorship" could be used to refer to autocracy or oligarchy, and as a pejorative, but it was in no way inherently the case. Indeed, the very same applies today, all that has changed is who people percieve the term.
Besides, such a definition would merely render the phrase meaningless and self-contradictory, and I think even the most vehement anti-socialist can at least credit Marx with being able to construct a basic sentence.

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.
That makes certain assumptions about the nature of the revolution, and about the nature of the state it establishes. The Russian experiment failed because they attempted to force unnatural change using flawed methods, allowing the constructing of a centralised, beauraucratic oligarchy. If the revolution had occurred and a different manner, with different goals and different means, it's entirely possible that we would also have seen different ends.
After all, what you're essentially arguing against here is democracy, of which socialism is merely an economic extension. A democratic state is, one would assume, non-dictatorial, so why must a social democratic state result in tyranny? I would argue that such an end is the fault of a flawed democratic system, not of socialism.
 
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.
I understood we had different connotations saying this, alright. However, your way of saying it was such that I could not help but poke a bit fun at you - of course hinting at the sad fact that about every country that has ever proclaimed itself to be socialist managed to end up with a ruined economy.
And yes, I do think the "economic liberty" as you describe it is unworkable. Also "economic liberty" is the last thing I would call it.
 
I understood we had different connotations saying this, alright. However, your way of saying it was such that I could not help but poke a bit fun at you - of course hinting at the sad fact that about every country that has ever proclaimed itself to be socialist managed to end up with a ruined economy.
And yes, I do think the "economic liberty" as you describe it is unworkable. Also "economic liberty" is the last thing I would call it.

And as I have stated, every country which has claimed to be socialist was Marxist, and thus condemned to the brutality of a totalitarian state-capitalist system (which, due to being even more centralized than a market capitalist system, is even more damaging to the populace).

Why is it not liberty when all have equal access to the means of production? What is it about being entitled to the full value of one's labor, without being forced to subject oneself to the rule (and extortion) of a capitalist?

Economic liberty means the liberty to work, to support oneself, without being forced to subject oneself to the rule of a capitalist or state. To receive the full value of one's labor without the extortion of the aforementioned parties. Economic is not, as you capitalists believe, the right of the capitalist to do whatever the hell he wants without the trade unions or the state from interfering - this "liberty" inevitably results in the reduction of the populace to virtual slaves, receiving only sufficient wages to survive. Slavery is inconsistent with liberty, therefore the capitalist notion of economic liberty is inherently contradictory.

On the issue of feasibility: why is it impossible for the producers themselves to administer the property they use every day? They have the most experience using it, history shows that workers' self-management and the revolutionary syndicalist trade union are far more efficient than the classical capitalist method of organization, I fail to see the logic in your opinion.
 
That makes certain assumptions about the nature of the revolution, and about the nature of the state it establishes. The Russian experiment failed because they attempted to force unnatural change using flawed methods, allowing the constructing of a centralised, beauraucratic oligarchy. If the revolution had occurred and a different manner, with different goals and different means, it's entirely possible that we would also have seen different ends.
After all, what you're essentially arguing against here is democracy, of which socialism is merely an economic extension. A democratic state is, one would assume, non-dictatorial, so why must a social democratic state result in tyranny? I would argue that such an end is the fault of a flawed democratic system, not of socialism.

The State IS a "centralized, bureaucratic oligarchy." That is the inherent nature of the state; to rule over the populace, and to repress them so that the interests of the privileged elite (i.e. property owners) may be preserved. Since any society with a government will necessarily experience stratification into separate propertied and producing classes, with the former controlling the state and ruling over the latter, the State is inconsistent with both democracy and socialism.

Socialism is the abolition of class relations; of property owner and producer, capitalist and wage-slave. These are all anti-authoritarian objectives; the desire to liberate the exploited from the exploiter, the oppressed from the oppressor. How can the state, an authoritarian organ, possibly bring about such a society? The Social Revolution can only succeed when all forms of oppression are destroyed; the state cannot abolish capital any more than capital can abolish the state. They are inextricably linked, and as they live together, so, too, must they die together.

The natural political system of any socialist society must be anarchy. The individual communes are banded together by Federations formed by voluntary association, and these federations do not issue laws or decrees, but are fora for delegates from the communes to discuss matters of joint concern (e.g. the transportation network). There is no need for an authoritarian state (no matter how "libertarian" it may seem in theory) to dictate matters to the people, the decentralized administration of all societal matters by the populace itself is more efficient than any government possibly could be, and hence Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is entirely unnecessary, as well as infeasible.


Edit: incidentally, on the issue of the Russian revolution, it DID, in a sense, take a different course. Libertarian socialist communes did spring up (even forming Federations, e.g. in the Ukraine), only to be crushed by Bolshevism (and I am not speaking of Kronstadt; that was just one final, futile cry for liberty against the deaf ears of the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevik repression of the left began early on in the civil war)
 
"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.

Erm... Communism eliminates wealth, not socialism. Socialism is were the means of production are owned by the state(Transportation, Power, Water, Resources, etc.) but individuals can still hold private property. You can not say socialism eliminates wealth while communism eliminates classes - as long as there are classes, there will be varying degrees of wealth.
 
I think you are confusing socialism and communism. Communism is inherently anarchist, but socialism is not. Socialism is how we teach people to ultimately live in a communist way. As the transition between capitalism and communism, it by nature must have a state. But to pretend that any and all states protect propertied interests is false.

EDIT: Crosspost
 
Given that the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", a major Marxist concept, is rendered meaningless by such a definition, I'd hazard that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Certainly, the term "dictatorship" could be used to refer to autocracy or oligarchy, and as a pejorative, but it was in no way inherently the case. Indeed, the very same applies today, all that has changed is who people percieve the term.
Besides, such a definition would merely render the phrase meaningless and self-contradictory, and I think even the most vehement anti-socialist can at least credit Marx with being able to construct a basic sentence.
I absolutely disagree with the notion that the sentence becomes self-contradictory. A dictatorship of the majority is not the same as a democracy. Democracy means everyone has a voice, even the defeated side. Democracy means shared power, it means representation.

Marx did not believe in giving the enemies of the revolution a voice, he believed in a dictatorship.

I have no idea where you think the self-contradiction is.
 
The State IS a "centralized, bureaucratic oligarchy." That is the inherent nature of the state; to rule over the populace, and to repress them so that the interests of the privileged elite (i.e. property owners) may be preserved. Since any society with a government will necessarily experience stratification into separate propertied and producing classes, with the former controlling the state and ruling over the latter, the State is inconsistent with both democracy and socialism.

Socialism is the abolition of class relations; of property owner and producer, capitalist and wage-slave. These are all anti-authoritarian objectives; the desire to liberate the exploited from the exploiter, the oppressed from the oppressor. How can the state, an authoritarian organ, possibly bring about such a society? The Social Revolution can only succeed when all forms of oppression are destroyed; the state cannot abolish capital any more than capital can abolish the state. They are inextricably linked, and as they live together, so, too, must they die together.

The natural political system of any socialist society must be anarchy. The individual communes are banded together by Federations formed by voluntary association, and these federations do not issue laws or decrees, but are fora for delegates from the communes to discuss matters of joint concern (e.g. the transportation network). There is no need for an authoritarian state (no matter how "libertarian" it may seem in theory) to dictate matters to the people, the decentralized administration of all societal matters by the populace itself is more efficient than any government possibly could be, and hence Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" is entirely unnecessary, as well as infeasible.
I think the issue here is that we differ in our definition of "state". While I entirely agree that any true socialist socialist society- and any true democracy, for that matter- must be anarchist in nature, I do not believe that this rules out the possibility of a state or state-like entity emerging as a coordinating body. All that is required is that the be controlled by the greater mass of the populace in a truly democratic manner. Anarchy does not rule out heirarchial systems, after all, merely those which are imposed. I, at least, see anarchy as entirely compatible with the principal of subsidiarity- that all issues are best resolved by the lowest competent authority- given that all authorities are democratically appointed. If this ineed the case, then I see absolutely no problems with an anarcho-socialist society engaging in anything up to the level of international government.
I agree, for this to occurr it is necessary for traditional states to be eventually dismantled, not merely usurped, but that does not mean their nominal role can be filled by a truly democratic entity. Case in point...
incidentally, on the issue of the Russian revolution, it DID, in a sense, take a different course. Libertarian socialist communes did spring up (even forming Federations, e.g. in the Ukraine), only to be crushed by Bolshevism (and I am not speaking of Kronstadt; that was just one final, futile cry for liberty against the deaf ears of the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevik repression of the left began early on in the civil war)
The Russian Revolution failed because the Bolsheviks merely usurped the Tsarist state rather than replacing it with the soviets which nominally held power. If the revolution had gone differently, and "all power" was indeed handed to the soviets, then there would have been nothing to stop these soviets from forming coordinating entities in the manner of a federal government. Which is really what Marx meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat"; he wasn't refering to an entity, as we often percieve the term "dictatorship", but to a sate of society in which the working class held power. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" merely means the self-governance of the proletariat, and does not refer to any authoritarian state, it's simply the case that many authoritarian states have falsely claimed to enacting said self-governance. They've also claimed to be democractic, too, which, apart from meaning more or less the same thing, was also a lie, so I think we can make certain assumptions about the truth of other statements they chose to make.

I think we in fact agree on many points, but have encountered a degree of miscommunication and differing understanding of terminology. and, perhaps, disagree on the role or possibility of a democratic "state", but it's nice to know that we are, at least, on the same page. :goodjob:

I absolutely disagree with the notion that the sentence becomes self-contradictory. A dictatorship of the majority is not the same as a democracy. Democracy means everyone has a voice, even the defeated side. Democracy means shared power, it means representation.

Marx did not believe in giving the enemies of the revolution a voice, he believed in a dictatorship.

I have no idea where you think the self-contradiction is.
I am rather convinced, at this point, that you have no idea what Marxism actually is, but, none the less... "Dictatorship of the proletariat" simply means the self-governance of the working class, it does not imply the "tyranny of the majority" any more than "democracy" does. Let's not forget that "democracy" is derived from the Greek "dēmokratía", the "government of the people", and, consequentally, means the same damn thing as "dictatorship of the proletariat", merely lacking the particular reference to class. It refered not to a system, but to a state of society in which the people self-govern, both as individuals and as collectives, free from the social and economic bonds of the class system. In particular, it describes the socialist and communist societies invisioned by Marx, both explicitly imaged as democratic and, eventually, anarchistic, and entirely incompatible with the authoritarianism represented by your so-called "dictatorship".
That is why your reading is contradictory.
 
Socialism is all about the equal distribution of economic power.

Communism is all about the equal distribution of power, period. Generally by way of a classless society.

My regards to Cheezy if he's in here. With reference to that other thread: bollix.
 
Erm... Communism eliminates wealth, not socialism. Socialism is were the means of production are owned by the state(Transportation, Power, Water, Resources, etc.) but individuals can still hold private property. You can not say socialism eliminates wealth while communism eliminates classes - as long as there are classes, there will be varying degrees of wealth.

Speaking as a socialist, I can quite confidently say that all socialists believe in the abolition of wage-slavery. Marxists simply aren't socialists and "democratic socialism" cannot possibly work so that leaves only libertarian socialism. Being libertarians, we believe in destroying the state, not strengthening it (you're thinking of Marxism). Economic monopoly leads to wage-slavery and as such does not exist under socialism. However, all forms of socialism, including communism, recognize an individual's right to personally possess her own plot of land - so long as she does not make use of wage labor to till it (i.e. she does the work herself).

I think you are confusing socialism and communism. Communism is inherently anarchist, but socialism is not. Socialism is how we teach people to ultimately live in a communist way. As the transition between capitalism and communism, it by nature must have a state. But to pretend that any and all states protect propertied interests is false.

EDIT: Crosspost

Socialism is not a midpoint between capitalism and communism. That is an example of Marxist historical revisionism. Socialism predated Marx, as the simple viewpoint that the class system must be abolished (in other words, it was a proposed solution to the great social question). Socialism is, therefore, any ideology which seeks the abolition of economic monopoly (that is, property ownership). Since economic monopoly cowers behind the might of its protector, the state, socialism implies the destruction of the state as well. Thus, proper socialism (or, at least, realistic socialism) is inherently anarchist in nature, regardless of whether or not it is communist.

The state CAN NOT protect any interests but property. The state is a small, elite group of politicians, bureaucrats, and the like, who issue decrees on how the populace should behave. This system is inherently extremely hierarchical and authoritarian, as this is the way property designed it. The nature of capital is centralization; the more centralized society is, the easier it is to rule from the top down. The nature of a socialist society (that is, one dominated by the producers) cannot also be top-down, as such a state of affairs would rapidly result in stratification into economic classes once more (as seen in Russia). No, socialism is the opposite; bottom-up. Socialism is decentralized. The workplace is not ruled by a boss, it is administered by the workers. The commune is not ruled by a mayor, it is administered by the residents. The nation (or, in the case of socialism, anarchist Federations) is not ruled by a Congress or President, but the constituent communes.

The absurd idea that the working class can somehow take control of the government and use it to decree socialism from the top-down is blatant evidence that what the Marxists are interested in is not the well-being of the people, but the pursuit of power, just like any other capitalist. What makes Marxism so insidious is that it uses socialist terminology and rhetoric; not only does it steal away people from revolutionary movements, but it actively attacks them, not to mention how severely we all have been discredited by the tyrannical despotism of the USSR, PRC, etc.

The Russian Revolution failed because the Bolsheviks merely usurped the Tsarist state rather than replacing it with the soviets which nominally held power. If the revolution had gone differently, and "all power" was indeed handed to the soviets, then there would have been nothing to stop these soviets from forming coordinating entities in the manner of a federal government. Which is really what Marx meant by "dictatorship of the proletariat"; he wasn't refering to an entity, as we often percieve the term "dictatorship", but to a sate of society in which the working class held power. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" merely means the self-governance of the proletariat, and does not refer to any authoritarian state, it's simply the case that many authoritarian states have falsely claimed to enacting said self-governance. They've also claimed to be democractic, too, which, apart from meaning more or less the same thing, was also a lie, so I think we can make certain assumptions about the truth of other statements they chose to make.

I think we in fact agree on many points, but have encountered a degree of miscommunication and differing understanding of terminology. and, perhaps, disagree on the role or possibility of a democratic "state", but it's nice to know that we are, at least, on the same page. :goodjob:

Marx was not an anarchist, hence the quarreling between Marx's and Bakunin's factions in the IWA. Since the only society wherein the producers hold political power is anarchist, (as the mere existence of a government necessarily coincides with social stratification, and it is the elite, not the general populace, which controls the state) it follows that your interpretation of Marx must be in er.

There are indeed anarchist methods of administering everything from the factory floor to planet Earth. Communes are tied together by Federations. However, these federations do not have any authority and are not in any way hierarchical. Each commune sends its delegates, and these delegates deliberate over whatever subject the meeting was called for (say, the construction of a new railroad). They will draft an agreement, but do not sign it on behalf of their commune; no, each delegation returns to the commune so that a democratic decision on the matter may be made. While there are some cases of hierarchy in anarchism, the only one I can think of at the moment is the revolutionary militia, which does use the principle of voluntary association to resolve the potential conflict involved, so that the revolution may keep fighting the forces of the counterrevolution without sacrificing its own integrity.
 
I absolutely disagree with the notion that the sentence becomes self-contradictory. A dictatorship of the majority is not the same as a democracy. Democracy means everyone has a voice, even the defeated side. Democracy means shared power, it means representation.

Playing devil's advocate here, but democracy has immense problems representing the view of one individual. Most ideologies have though, and all that have been tried have more severe issues than democracy.

Marx did not believe in giving the enemies of the revolution a voice, he believed in a dictatorship.

Dictatorship of the majority. Hmm...

I have no idea where you think the self-contradiction is.

Thin about the phrase dictatorship of the majority.
 
I
I am rather convinced, at this point, that you have no idea what Marxism actually is, but, none the less... "Dictatorship of the proletariat" simply means the self-governance of the working class, it does not imply the "tyranny of the majority" any more than "democracy" does. Let's not forget that "democracy" is derived from the Greek "dēmokratía", the "government of the people", and, consequentally, means the same damn thing as "dictatorship of the proletariat", merely lacking the particular reference to class. It refered not to a system, but to a state of society in which the people self-govern, both as individuals and as collectives, free from the social and economic bonds of the class system. In particular, it describes the socialist and communist societies invisioned by Marx, both explicitly imaged as democratic and, eventually, anarchistic, and entirely incompatible with the authoritarianism represented by your so-called "dictatorship".
That is why your reading is contradictory.

Uhh.. Now I am convinced that you have not even read Marx, probably just marxist authors who whitewashed what was originally written.

When I say that Marx believed in denying the bourgeouisie a voice, I say that because that's what he wrote. He believed in class warfare, in the suppression of losing side by the victorious proletariat.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was described by Marx as a transition stage between Capitalism and Communism (in which people would supposedely self-govern).

Marx was not some peace and love hippie who believed in holding hands and singing under the rainbow. You seem to have no idea about the huge differences in ideology and methods between Marx and the non-authoritarian communists (usually called anarchists). Marx believed in an authoritarian and violent path that would eventually lead to a stateless and democratic utopia. If you dispute that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about (which you don't).
 
Uhh.. Now I am convinced that you have not even read Marx, probably just marxist authors who whitewashed what was originally written.

And you read authors who "whitewashed" Adam Smith, I presume?

luiz said:
Marx was not some peace and love hippie who believed in holding hands and singing under the rainbow. You seem to have no idea about the huge differences in ideology and methods between Marx and the non-authoritarian communists (usually called anarchists). Marx believed in an authoritarian and violent path that would eventually lead to a stateless and democratic utopia. If you dispute that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about (which you don't).

Not true. Marx supported party politics and disagreed with radicals who were not content with trying to change the system democratically. You might be thinking about Lenin.
 
And you read authors who "whitewashed" Adam Smith, I presume?
There's hardly any need to whitewash Smith, since unlike Marx he was not prone to bloodthirsty rants.

Not true. Marx supported party politics and disagreed with radicals who were not content with trying to change the system democratically. You might be thinking about Lenin.

Nope. Both Lenin and Marx believed that party politics could be useful, but they both were also strong believers in violent revolutions.

Look at what Bakunin wrote about the ditctatorship of the proletariat:

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

Now maybe you and Traitorfish want to argue that Bakunin, who personally met Marx and translated Das Kapital to Russian, had no idea about marxist concepts, but I find that ridiculous.

(Note that I am not defending or endorsing Bakunin, a bigot who also believed in violence. I am just point out that since its conception, the dictatorship of the proletariat has been interpreted as just that, a dictatorship).
 
There's hardly any need to whitewash Smith, since unlike Marx he was not prone to bloodthirsty rants.

Sure, whatever you say, bloodthirsty capitalist :lol:

luiz said:
Nope. Both Lenin and Marx believed that party politics could be useful, but they both were also strong believers in violent revolutions.

Look at what Bakunin wrote about the ditctatorship of the proletariat:

Now maybe you and Traitorfish want to argue that Bakunin, who personally met Marx and translated Das Kapital to Russian, had no idea about marxist concepts, but I find that ridiculous.

But Marx himself said that he is not a Marxist :smug:
 
Back
Top Bottom