Difference between socialism and communism.

[aimeeandbeatles]

Anybody care to explain in layman terms, please?

Thanks

 

[amadeus]

In theoretical terms, socialism is the existence of a state that redistributes wealth and uses public ownership as ways to have the working peoples' say in the means of production. In communism, the state would be absent and people would do this voluntarily.

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.)

Basically, it's best to shy away from both and promote individual economic and personal liberty, as those are the only true avenues to wealth creation.

 

[jessiecat]

Anybody care to explain in layman terms, please?

Thanks

Socialism is only a stepping stone to an ideal of pure Communism. For further details try reading Das Kapital. Otherwise see Wikipedia.

 

[Dumanios]

Anybody care to explain in layman terms, please?

Thanks

If have no idea what the differences are.

 

[PeteAtoms]

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.

 

[Elrohir]

Anybody care to explain in layman terms, please?

Thanks

From my rough understanding of the terms, socialism is technically defined primarily in terms of the workers owning the means of production. Basically, workers own the businesses that they work at in common. And generally, a socialist society would seek a more egalitarian distribution of resources. Although I imagine some would argue that this would inevitably follow from workers control of the means of production, and with that, wages and benefits, many others would probably require some sort of state intervention.

Communism is defined more in terms of all property - or at least all means of production - held in common by society itself, and is supposedly both classless, and stateless. Communists (notably Lenin, taking on some of Marx's ideas) often view socialism as a transitional state between capitalist and communist societies.

 

[kulade]

Traditionally, socialism is a transformatory stage when people begin "throw off the yoke of bourgeoisie oppression" and such and communism is the eventual classless society with popular ownership of production that socialist states will hopefully arrive upon.

Among noncommunists, the term socialism is sometimes misused as a capitalistic welfare state or something of the sort.

 

[.Shane.]

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.)

If you truly believe this there's no way you could ever accuse Obama of being "Socialist" (not saying you have, but given what I know of your political viewpoint, I would anticipate it, feel free to pleasantly surprise me). Nothing he (or the Dems in Congress) are proposing is beyond what most Western European countries do.

Additionally, given that our govt is freely (and recently) elected, there's also no basis whatsoever to compare Obama et al to communism because communism is predicated on a worker revolution. Its complete UN-democratic. So, contrary to what many on the right say, its not socialism when you lose and, thus, policies are enacted that you don't like.

 

[luiz]

Among noncommunists, the term socialism is sometimes misused as a capitalistic welfare state or something of the sort.

This is typically said by left-wing supporters of social-democracies. They usually say something like "but socialism is good, look at Sweden or France!". True socialists would of course loathe Sweden and even more France, countries where millionaires are allowed to exist (and do exist) and there are plenty of means of production at the hands of capitalists.

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 )

 

[Elrohir]

Additionally, given that our govt is freely (and recently) elected, there's also no basis whatsoever to compare Obama et al to communism because communism is predicated on a worker revolution. Its complete UN-democratic. So, contrary to what many on the right say, its not socialism when you lose and, thus, policies are enacted that you don't like.

Well, at the risk of losing my conservative credentials, neither socialism nor communism is inherently undemocratic. The idea of a 'Worker revolutions' conjure up images of factory workers seizing weapons and forcibly seizing control of the capitol, but that isn't part of the definition. There's no technical reason why, for instance, socialists or communists couldn't take over in the United States, legally, if given large enough majorities in the population. (Even Constitutional rules that could legally prevent a communist state could be overturned by new Amendments) Now, I think we can safely assume that this will never happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible - or that it can't be socialism, just because the other guys won fair and square.

But I agree with your overall point, that Obama isn't an actual socialist. His policies may be socialistic, in a general "we're going to help workers get more control, and make a more egalitarian society" sort of way, but the man himself isn't a socialist. Not if the views he's expressed so far are any indication, anyway.

 

[nonconformist]

In before the "no real Scotsman".

 

[amadeus]

If you truly believe this there's no way you could ever accuse Obama of being "Socialist" (not saying you have, but given what I know of your political viewpoint, I would anticipate it, feel free to pleasantly surprise me).

I've been using the term statist.

 

[Dachs]

I've been using the term statist.

Pretty narrow definition of 'statist' you got there.

 

[.Shane.]

But I agree with your overall point, that Obama isn't an actual socialist. His policies may be socialistic, in a general "we're going to help workers get more control, and make a more egalitarian society" sort of way, but the man himself isn't a socialist. Not if the views he's expressed so far are any indication, anyway.

I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist. So, I really don't give a rip how some intellectuals/revolutionaries/whatever defined socialism (or communism) in the 1800s.

I'm interested in how socialism, communism, capitalism, democracy, etc... actually work when applied.

That said, socialism, as it has evolved, is an economic model that works very well w/ democracy (as noted in my prior post look at ALL of Western/Northern Europe) in which a country decides that it better serves the public interests for the govt. to run or own this or that industry. This country has always run certain industries in this manner: public education, fire departments, police departments, the military, social security, medicare, plus innumberable smaller and state/local programs. There is NOTHING wrong with because, as a democracy, these things do not get done except by govts. that have been voted on.

Now, we can debate the wisdom of the voters (god knows I'm a huge critic), but this is the govt we chose and we deserve whatever we get because WE elect these people. TBH, I think sometimes we over-criticize politicians because we could throw them out, but we don't. We could demand this or that reform, but we don't. Granted there are certain roadblocks that limit or prohibit us from driving these changes, but at the end of the day, if we had the collective will we could make changes.

So, in the end, if we deem that we want the govt. to have a greater role in health care, then so be it. I just hate all these fake, malicious, dishonest, and embarrassing arguments about death panels, authoritarianism, govt "taking over medicare" (talk about showing how stupid you are), govt running health care (if they are providing insurance or extending medicare they are NOT running health care, they are acting as an insurance agent, albeit a massive one) and lets' then have an HONEST debate about the real issues.

What are the real issues if we have the govt. expand some kind of universal health coverage? To me they are: cost, competitive fairness for private insurers, reform, and the general debate about should we continue to grow govt. But, the right will not let that happen. And, take my word on this, it may help them win this battle, but, in the end, it will cost them the war.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Communism is the utopia, the theoretical ideal towards which Marxists strive. They see Socialism as the a stage through which a capitalist society must pass in order to reach this class-free, property-free, and government-free ideal. Socialism is the stage where the state takes over the means of production and/or redistributes resources based on need rather than ability. There is a huge variety of different types of Socialism, and different schools disagree strongly on many issues. Socialism has been around much longer than Marx, and many (probably most) socialists see it as a means towards greater social justice or efficiency without any desire to move further into communism. Some anarchosyndicalists believe that socialism would make it much harder to throw off the dependence on and oppression of the state, and so would rather try to move directly to something closer to the communistic ideal.

In American parlance, Communism is often taken to mean the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist totalitarian socialist system. This system is extremely different than the theoretical communism, but was undertaken in hopes of expediting the utopia. Most Marxists today try to distance themselves from the failures of such systems, blaming all the problems on attempts to bypass the capitalist stage of development which Marx claimed was necessary in order to build up the wealth that the next stages would need. They would argue that socialism would work far better in a wealthy, modern, western society.

Many liberals (left-liberals, which is how most Americans use the term liberal, not to be confused with right-liberals/classical liberals/libertarians, which in Europe are still usually just called liberals) and social democrats believe that unfettered capitalism without a modicum of socialist policies would inevitably be so oppressive that it would drive the masses to support a soviet-style revolution. These types tend to almost idealize people FDR. Some socialists agree with them, but may think that such a revolution would be a good thing in the west where the rapid industrialization that led to so many communist atrocities would not be needed.

 

[jessiecat]

Finally. A coherent explanation. Thank you.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Thanks all.

 

[aelf]

I'm actually not too concerned about the difference. The fundamental principle is the same, and the principle is more important than the doctrine.

It's amusing how most people who have posted here have been reactionaries or conservatives. I guess other left-wingers aren't too hung up on the difference either.

 

[Yared]

This is my impression of the whole thing-

Communism -> Everything is owned by the state.

Socialism -> The more important institutions (e.g., hospitals) are owned by the state.

 

[Traitorfish]

Both systems advocate the control of the means of production by the people, the differences lie in the methods by which control is excercised. Broadly speaking, socialism is a system in which elected bodies, from local to national and even international levels- administer industry and public services, while communism is one in which the means of production are controlled directly by the workers, through methods of direct democracy such as workers' councils. A rough summary of this would be to say that socialism is a statist system, while communism is anarchist one.
However, it's important to remember that when the terms are used to describe ideologies, they refer to long-term goals, which is why communists often support the implementation of some socialist policies as a stepping-stone towards communism.
The definition of "communism" as "über-socialism", such as in Yared's above post, is the result of the frequent use of the term "communist" as a hyperbolic perjorative in the Western world applied to a broad range of leftist policies. This has some grounding in the totalitarian regimes frequently found in "communist" nations, but seems to ignore the important fact that claiming a communsit ideology is not the same as claiming to operate a communist system. That, and that the governments in question are well-established liars.