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

[Dachs]

I wouldn't quite say hijacked. They were in the awkward position of having come into power almost immediately after being formed. I imagine if we could go back in time a century, the Marxists wouldn't be too proud of their volumous accomplishments in theory. They had done so in part because they could accomplish little else. Fascism had to rush to articulate ideas that they held at least implicitly, now that it was there job to actually articulate it. At the same time, this meant that Fascism homogenized to a much greater degree then Marxism (which is why Marxism is quite tricky to define). In the very early days (and very late days), there were actually Democratizing trends in Fascism not to mention Anarchist and Syndicalist ones, and it's very hard to say what would have happened to them had it had time to work out these debates, had Fascism not been immediately posed with the question of ruling.

Well, can we really speak of "they" here? Mussolini was in power three years after fascism got its ideological start, but, for instance, d'Annunzio wasn't (not that I'm trying to portray the two of them as having opposed views or something), and most of the authors of the original manifesto in 1919 had nothing to do with the government formed in 1922.

Might have ended up with something like the Baath Party. When it was founded in Syria, some of the important principles were stated by Michele Aflaq to be secularism, socialism, Pan-Arabisim, anti-imperialisim among others. The Baath Party generally failed to live up to its founding principles in both Syria and Iraq.

That's a rather negative way of portraying it. You make it sound as though 'Aflaq had a coherent vision of the Ba'ath that men like Saddam and Hafez al-Asad perverted. This was demonstrably not the case. Besides, if they wanted to crush SSNP support in Ladhiqiyah they needed to adopt positions that were actually popular with the majority of Syrians.

 

[ParkCungHee]

While the composition of the party certainly changed dramatically in those early years, there certainly was a "they" back then, and Mussolini hadn't cemented control of the party yet, much less the government. The leaders of the Squadristi for example, still were a force that he was careful around, and remained so until 1926. In 1921 Fascism certainly was not synonymous with Mussolini, and he wasn't in much of a position to decide what was orthodox yet.

 

[Dachs]

Wait, now I'm confused. Are we arguing?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't think so. I think we can both agree that any ideology Fascism had was nebulous to the extreme in 1921, and that any ideas after that point irrevocably had the stamp of Mussolini and the demands of actually running the country.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah that

 

[Elliot]

We need a new ism that means European style welfare state. We like to insult people by calling them an ism but there is no satisfactory ism to call them. So we call them socialists, just to confuse everyone.

 

[West 36]

Social Democracy could work.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

We need a new ism that means European style welfare state. We like to insult people by calling them an ism but there is no satisfactory ism to call them. So we call them socialists, just to confuse everyone.

Welfare Capitalism.

Social Democracy could work.

If you mean the above, then no. If you mean an American Kerensky of sorts, then yes, that is most likely better and more appropriate than Bolshevism.

 

[Elliot]

Nah, those don't work. It needs to be a one word ism. When I'm angry at someone, I need to insult quickly. I don't have time to say two words.

 

[Karalysia]

Welfareism

 

[West 36]

If you mean the above, then no. If you mean an American Kerensky of sorts, then yes, that is most likely better and more appropriate than Bolshevism.

An American Kerensky?
I did mean the above, the parties calling themselves Social Democrats and all.

 

[rollo1066]

In my opinion Americans tend to equate socialism and communism because both are to the left of the American political mainstream. (I am an American). Also one could argue that communism is a subset of socialism which tends to add to the confusion. (All communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists.)

 

[Jabarto]

Good point if that were my actual assertion. I'm merely pointing out that Marx was a man who was confined to his times. Following his opinions on sociology or economics are just as silly as believing in astronomy according to Ptolemy or biology according to Aristotle. What does this have to do with neo-Marxism or subsets of Marxism? Not that much, actually. Only insofar that their premises are shared with Marx's.

A few people have said this and it needs to be addressed. Marx was probably the most influential writer of the last thousand years. You can agree or disagree with his work all you want but none of that changes the fact that our modern understanding of capitalism would not exist without it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

An American Kerensky?

Yep. The April Theses were Trotskyist. The US has no need for the fantastic measures the Bolsheviks adopted to propel Soviet Russia out of the dark ages; we are already capitalist, and easily the most ripe nation in the world for socialism as Marx described it.

I did mean the above, the parties calling themselves Social Democrats and all.

I meant the above in my post, meaning "welfare capitalism."