Difference between socialism and communism.

[luiz]

Its funny, I think Marx's mind loops he sends readers through could benefit more from being edited out (into a condensed version, that is) than Smith's silver price lectures. Both men could do with a health dose of parataxis.

Indeed.
As a matter of fact I would recommend that you read a condensed version of Kapital instead or facing Volume I upfront. There are plenty of good condensed versions by marxist scholars which make for a far more productive read than the original.

I wonder, though, who is he a "bigot" against? Marx, I mean, not Bakunin.

Non europeans in general, I suppose.
There was a letter in particular in which he said that to reach global communism it would be necessary to get rid of a couple of lesser races.
To be fair, though, in the 19th Century it was almost a consensus that some races are superior. More noteworthy than his racism, which was normal, is his typical ruthlessness.

 

[aelf]

Not really. What sort of idiot would focus on mere inequality in income, when talking about a country where income doesn't even matter much, like Maoist China?

No, we're talking about inequality. And Maoist China was extremely unequal, thus Alassius was correct.

How heavy are the goalposts? Well, mustn't be too heavy with two people doing the job.

 

[Alassius]

Anyone with 1/4 of a brain should know that we're talking economic inequality here.

Communism, from the beginning, was about equality in power. Marx saw the entire mess called "the economy", from trade to wage to money, as a tool of which the sole purpose was to exploit the underprivileged. He would rather do without economy at all: his idea was that if you remove the tool, nobody would be able to exploit others. Well, turns out when you remove money, or at least made money next to useless because everything was rationed, some people higher up invented a new tool called rationing coupons. The exploit became even worse than before.

 

[aelf]

That sort of (power-based rather than economics-based) exploitation wasn't anything new. It had been around for a long time. If you think Marx made no mention of it, then you're delusional. What Marx did was to point out that despite the freedoms that bourgeoisie has fought for and attained, many people are still unfree. His idea was not quite that if you remove capital "nobody would be able to exploit others", nor is the removal of money synonymous with that. Rather, the removal of the concept of capital would complete the struggle for freedom.

Major understanding fail.

 

[BasketCase]

Rather, the removal of the concept of capital would complete the struggle for freedom.

Remove the concept of capital, and society will be run by the clenched fist.

That's the reason we developed civilzation and rules and capital in the first place. We are more free with capitalism than we would be without it: because it gives the physically weak a better shake of the dice.

 

[Newbunkle]

Remove the concept of capital, and society will be run by the clenched fist.

That's the reason we developed civilzation and rules and capital in the first place. We are more free with capitalism than we would be without it: because it gives the physically weak a better shake of the dice.

Indeed. Money gives me the power to convert my time and effort into something specific that I want. In a society without cash, how will the collective/government provide me with the things that I want, and how can I travel abroad if I don't have my own resources to take with me? Will the hive send me abroad whenever I wish and arrange for all my needs to be met while there? Will they import foreign food, clothing, and gadgets so that I can use them whenever I desire? I doubt it.

My instincts tell me that (at best) I will have to go on a waiting list if I want to travel, and the hive will only allow me to go to certain places, because it can't afford to send everyone there and its more "fair" to restrict everyone's movements than allow only a few to go. I also expect there will be limits to the amount of time I'm allowed to be gone, or I'm eating up more than my "fair share" of time off.

Basically, without money I'll be wearing the clothes, eating the food, and travelling to the places our imperious leaders graciously decide that I'm allowed to. This is simply not acceptable. This choice is mine and mine alone, and the government should have as little control as possible over what I do.

 

[aelf]

Remove the concept of capital, and society will be run by the clenched fist.

A very logical argument.

By the way, I love how people think that capital = money

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Remove the concept of money, we'll have to use lolcats as currency. In other words: AWESOME

 

[Dumanios]

Remove the concept of money, we'll have to use lolcats as currency. In other words: AWESOME

 

[a_propagandist]

Indeed. Money gives me the power to convert my time and effort into something specific that I want. In a society without cash, how will the collective/government provide me with the things that I want, and how can I travel abroad if I don't have my own resources to take with me? Will the hive send me abroad whenever I wish and arrange for all my needs to be met while there? Will they import foreign food, clothing, and gadgets so that I can use them whenever I desire? I doubt it.

My instincts tell me that (at best) I will have to go on a waiting list if I want to travel, and the hive will only allow me to go to certain places, because it can't afford to send everyone there and its more "fair" to restrict everyone's movements than allow only a few to go. I also expect there will be limits to the amount of time I'm allowed to be gone, or I'm eating up more than my "fair share" of time off.

Basically, without money I'll be wearing the clothes, eating the food, and travelling to the places our imperious leaders graciously decide that I'm allowed to. This is simply not acceptable. This choice is mine and mine alone, and the government should have as little control as possible over what I do.

No, money merely makes transactions in society simpler and more streamlined.

 

[vesley1987]

Remove the concept of capital, and society will be run by the clenched fist.

Or by hammer and sickle.

 

[Phlegmak]

Anybody care to explain in layman terms, please?

Thanks

Sure. Socialists groom each other for fleas. Communists carry their own shells on their backs and move very slowly. This is in sharp contrast to capitalists which swim in the ocean in a slow gliding manner, hoping to ensnare food in their tentacles. Then you got your anarchists, which crawl underground, and eat dirt. Then you got your libertarians, which is a very strange person indeed. They crawl on trees, eating leaves.

 

[Angst]

You forgot about the theocrats.

 

[BasketCase]

A very logical argument.

By the way, I love how people think that capital = money

I didn't. Capital=tools in producing stuff. Remove that, and all you have left to survive with is your brains and your fists. Which places you at the complete mercy of somebody with stronger fists than yourself.

That's why communism must always fail. Because it is always polluted by that one guy who is the strongest. Whereas capitalism dilutes the strength of the physically strong and gives everybody else a chance.

 

[jessiecat]

Sure. Socialists groom each other for fleas. Communists carry their own shells on their backs and move very slowly. This is in sharp contrast to capitalists which swim in the ocean in a slow gliding manner, hoping to ensnare food in their tentacles. Then you got your anarchists, which crawl underground, and eat dirt. Then you got your libertarians, which is a very strange person indeed. They crawl on trees, eating leaves.

 

[Gustave5436]

I didn't. Capital=tools in producing stuff. Remove that, and all you have left to survive with is your brains and your fists. Which places you at the complete mercy of somebody with stronger fists than yourself.

That's why communism must always fail. Because it is always polluted by that one guy who is the strongest. Whereas capitalism dilutes the strength of the physically strong and gives everybody else a chance.

Communism in the Marxist sense is no different from capitalism. Both systems have a ruling class which originates from economic monopoly, i.e. capital, and that class exerts its control over the populace through the organs of the State. In Marxism, the ruling class is the State bureaucracy, in capitalism the ruling class is the private capitalist.

What communists wish to do is to get rid of the ruling class altogether. To do that, we form organizations for the purpose of resisting the rule of capital (trade unions), which we intend to ultimately grow powerful enough to overthrow capital altogether. Henceforth, society shall not be "rule by the one guy who is strongest." Instead, society shall have no rulers; it shall be administered in economic matters by the various trade unions in federation, and individual communes will function on the basis of free agreement of all residents.

The idea that anarchy means chaos, roving street gangs and warlords is utter nonsense. Anarchy means freedom from the rule of others - armed gangs and such coercing people is authoritarianism (not unlike the capitalist concept of the "police force," incidentally), not libertarianism.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

No, Communism in the Marxist sense doesn't start until the state has been abolished. The state bureaucracy is characteristic of the socialist stage, and is supposed to help prepare society for communism. It sounds to me that those you call communists are anarchosyndicalists, who are smart enough to realize that the leaders of a socialist state would quickly come to care more about maintaining power rather than moving towards the communistic utopia and dissolving the state once their purpose is one.

 

[aelf]

I didn't. Capital=tools in producing stuff. Remove that, and all you have left to survive with is your brains and your fists. Which places you at the complete mercy of somebody with stronger fists than yourself.

That's why communism must always fail. Because it is always polluted by that one guy who is the strongest. Whereas capitalism dilutes the strength of the physically strong and gives everybody else a chance.

That's not the concept of capital in Marxist political philosophy.

Still major understanding fail.

 

[Alassius]

That sort of (power-based rather than economics-based) exploitation wasn't anything new. It had been around for a long time. If you think Marx made no mention of it, then you're delusional. What Marx did was to point out that despite the freedoms that bourgeoisie has fought for and attained, many people are still unfree. His idea was not quite that if you remove capital "nobody would be able to exploit others", nor is the removal of money synonymous with that. Rather, the removal of the concept of capital would complete the struggle for freedom.

Major understanding fail.

Complete the struggle for freedom by making it impossible to exploit. Where was my misunderstanding again?

Communism in the Marxist sense is no different from capitalism. Both systems have a ruling class which originates from economic monopoly, i.e. capital, and that class exerts its control over the populace through the organs of the State. In Marxism, the ruling class is the State bureaucracy, in capitalism the ruling class is the private capitalist.

What communists wish to do is to get rid of the ruling class altogether. To do that, we form organizations for the purpose of resisting the rule of capital (trade unions), which we intend to ultimately grow powerful enough to overthrow capital altogether. Henceforth, society shall not be "rule by the one guy who is strongest." Instead, society shall have no rulers; it shall be administered in economic matters by the various trade unions in federation, and individual communes will function on the basis of free agreement of all residents.

Let me be pedantic and suggest that the ruling class in Marxism - both Stalinism and utopian Communism - is theoretically not the state bureaucracy but the proletariat itself. That is, basically everyone apart from a few stubborn reactionaries.

The lack of theoretical distinction between the ruling class and the ruled made it easier than ever for the ruling class to do anything it wishes. Nominally the people were ruled not by "the one guy who is strongest", but by one of themselves. If the ruling class is the people itself, how can you argue what it does was not for the people? "For the people", or "for the collective", was perhaps the most used sugar coat in Stalinist regimes.

The idea that anarchy means chaos, roving street gangs and warlords is utter nonsense. Anarchy means freedom from the rule of others - armed gangs and such coercing people is authoritarianism (not unlike the capitalist concept of the "police force," incidentally), not libertarianism.

To be precise, it is hoped that "anarchy means chaos is utter nonsense". No-one has ever demonstrated an absolute anarchy larger than a few hundred people would work.

 

[aelf]

Complete the struggle for freedom by making it impossible to exploit. Where was my misunderstanding again?

The proof of your misunderstanding is that you're making things up. The point is to dispel a remaining myth (like divine right) that tries to disguise exploitation. That is not synonymous with a cure-all. It just implies a better understanding and implementation of freedom.

The bourgeoisie can see exploitation in the old system, but they are ignoring or overlooking the exploitation in their system. It's just calling hypocrisy for what it is, not alchemy.

And so, to go back to what you said earlier, the fact that some horribly authoritarian regimes arose from the Marxist movement is an indictment of Marxist political philosophy as much as election frauds are an indictment of democracy. To say that Marxism does not solve inequality because people can use political power to exploit others is to miss the point.