NationStates Jolt Archive

Could somebody tell me the main differences between socialism and communism. I mean what constitutes to being socialist and communist. Thank You ;) .

Socialism believes that the state should manage all means of production.

Communism believes that production should be communally held, and the state does not exist, but most communists believe that socialism must be brought about before this is reached.

Note that the USSR never called itself communist, hence "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"

Hope that helps.

Both words can used to describe the same thing, the community owning the means of production. The difference is that "socialism" is a far broader term and can be used to desribe anything from communism itself to some of the more moderate socialist systems, such as the UK's old Labour government and and Jaques Chirac's government in France (these are often referred to as democratic socialism or Eurosocialism). The term has even been used to describe the Nazi regime as "national socialists", although it was often the nazi's themselves who used this phrase, a Marxist will probably laugh it off. Even Tony Blair's New Labour party have been known to still call themselves socialists from time to time, although the correct term would be "social democrats". Don't let Blair's friendship with ultra-conservative Bush or his coalition with him on Iraq fool you, his home policies are quite liberal and he's extremely gay-friendly although he can't really pass legislation to allow gay marriage, largely because of the bigoted, homophobic old bureaucrats in the House of Lords.

Socialism is when the means of production is controlled democratically by the workers.

Communism is when the state controls all industry, and all people are economic and social equals.

Of course, those are just basic definitions.

I'll contact an old communist nation for you because I dont remember exactly what he said the difference was.

Communism is when the state controls all industry, and all people are economic and social equals.

No, it's the end result of Socialism, as described in Marxist theory. Your definition more closely fits State Capitalism.

Communism is the "ideal state" of the socialists.

Socialism is the movement towards a humanist economy - where economic activity in an area or population is directed towards the benefit of all those who contribute.

Ooops, left a bit out; a true communism would be when the economic activity is directed by those who contribute, for the benefit of their community.

Both words can used to describe the same thing, the community owning the means of production. The difference is that "socialism" is a far broader term and can be used to desribe anything from communism itself to some of the more moderate socialist systems, such as the UK's old Labour government and and Jaques Chirac's government in France (these are often referred to as democratic socialism or Eurosocialism). The term has even been used to describe the Nazi regime as "national socialists", although it was often the nazi's themselves who used this phrase, a Marxist will probably laugh it off. Even Tony Blair's New Labour party have been known to still call themselves socialists from time to time, although the correct term would be "social democrats". Don't let Blair's friendship with ultra-conservative Bush or his coalition with him on Iraq fool you, his home policies are quite liberal and he's extremely gay-friendly although he can't really pass legislation to allow gay marriage, largely because of the bigoted, homophobic old bureaucrats in the House of Lords.

Socialism and communism do not describe the same thing, at all.
Socialism is any system whereby the social requirements of the populace are seen as the responsability of a central authority. This can be a democratic government, a church, a benevoilent dictator, whatever. What socialism does not address is the ownership of the means of production, to use Marx's phrase.

Here is where communism comes in. Communism does not actually propose anything about meeting the social needs of the populace. Instead it concentrates on the ownership of property. (Not all needs are material after all.) Here, in the limit, there is no private property whatsoever. Everything is held in common. The exteme case is, of course unachievable, as your smalls tend to be thought of as belonging to you, regardless of your political views.

The confusion arises as socialist governments tend to place into common, i.e. government, ownership, the means by which the social needs of the populace can be met. There is actually no reason why a socialist government could not be completely free market driven, economically. It would just leave the meeting of the social needs a little difficuult to budget for.

Ok, i am getting the jist of it now. Just one more thing, Hitlers regime was known as national SOCIALISM. Is their many differences between Socialism and National Socialism? (BTW, i mean in terms of how the country was run economically, not the evil persecution. Cheers.

Ok, i am getting the jist of it now. Just one more thing, Hitlers regime was known as national SOCIALISM. Is their many differences between Socialism and National Socialism? (BTW, i mean in terms of how the country was run economically, not the evil persecution. Cheers.

Not really...but there is one distinction.

Nazi Germany had nationalized industry and strong welfare programs (If you were ethnically German) as most socialist nations do, however, there was also an elite that earnt many times the average pay and enjoyed special privelages, in addition to there being some private industry. It was state-capitalist.

Ok, i am getting the jist of it now. Just one more thing, Hitlers regime was known as national SOCIALISM. Is their many differences between Socialism and National Socialism? (BTW, i mean in terms of how the country was run economically, not the evil persecution. Cheers.

Nazi germany was socialist in name only. The ideals of the NAZI party were actually the opposite of socialism. I dont know why they chose that term but it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

No, it's the end result of Socialism, as described in Marxist theory. Your definition more closely fits State Capitalism.

There's no such thing as "state capitalism". Capitalism involves the state completely leaving the economy alone. A state which controls the economy is a socialist state, not a capitalist one.

There's no such thing as "state capitalism". Capitalism involves the state completely leaving the economy alone. A state which controls the economy is a socialist state, not a capitalist one.

State-capitalism is psuedo-socialism. It is the controlled economy without the social equality. Core industries such as steelworking are (mostly) owned by the government, while the private sector controls nearly everything else. In effect, the state is acting as a corporation, monopolising key industries deemed essential to its survival and success. It was especially prevalent and a popular ideology particularly in the mid-to-late 19th century.

It is distinct from socialism, of which the primary goal is the redistribution of wealth.

State-capitalism is psuedo-socialism. It is the controlled economy without the social equality. Core industries such as steelworking are (mostly) owned by the government, while the private sector controls nearly everything else. In effect, the state is acting as a corporation, monopolising key industries deemed essential to its survival and success. It was especially prevalent and a popular ideology particularly in the mid-to-late 19th century.

It is distinct from socialism, of which the primary goal is the redistribution of wealth.

To call it capitalism then is misleading. An economically-interfering government is to my mind enacting the antithesis of capitalism.

State capitalist is still capitalism: a market economy run for profit (surplus value made through the exploitation of the workers). The difference is, the means of production are owned by the government.

National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism. It was possibly an insurance policy by Hitler to ensure that a 'socialist' superpower would never arise if the Third Reich fell. He failed. Miserably.

Nazi germany was socialist in name only. The ideals of the NAZI party were actually the opposite of socialism. I dont know why they chose that term but it has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

They probably chose it to seem more appealing to the voters of the time, who were suffering through the Great Depression era.

To call it capitalism then is misleading. An economically-interfering government is to my mind enacting the antithesis of capitalism.

However, it was commonly accepted at the time, and done in the broader interests of the business community. For example, the British control of the opium trade in China was state sanctioned and run, but the profits went to an entrepreneurial elite that established their own enterprises and helped along the industrialisation process.

It was also done to ensure military dominance, eg. having the government controlling the steel and armaments factories in time of tension ensures that foreign businessmen cannot close their factories overnight and cripple the war machine.

edit-Anyhow, that's basically the system Nazi Germany used.

I aint read all,but id just like to add that in socialism you can have your own company.Most of companies are posesed by the goverment,thou. :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Stop with the gun smileys. PLEASE. What the hell do they have to do with your post?

Socialism and communism don't work and they can't work. Capitalism is superior to these systems. I like a whole lot of money. Cheers to keeping the working class down! :D

Even Tony Blair's New Labour party have been known to still call themselves socialists from time to time, although the correct term would be "social democrats". Don't let Blair's friendship with ultra-conservative Bush or his coalition with him on Iraq fool you, his home policies are quite liberal and he's extremely gay-friendly although he can't really pass legislation to allow gay marriage, largely because of the bigoted, homophobic old bureaucrats in the House of Lords.


Tony Blair, progresive? Well, it is nice that he's all about the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc persons. But he's hardly progressive.

I speak as an American who failed at the John Kerry coup last November, and I can say that I never held any illusions that he was progressive either. He was better than King George II, I guess.

I'd *really* love to have a conversation what other people in other countries are doing to oppose the war in Iraq in and the broader sorts of awful things the elites of the U.S. are doing. I do some organizing myself here, so it would be interesting for all sides, I think.

Socialism was an idea that the rich should help out the poor through paying extra taxes which the government would use for public services. communism is a specific way of running a country that makes every thing owned by the government. this, it is hoped will ensure wages remain high, working conditions good, ect. this is kind of like making everybody a stockholder and employee of the government. why Communism often fails so dismally is that industry is the life blood of civilization. communism sevirly limits industry and so foreign industry often doesn't go to a communist country and since government controled industry has absolutly no compitition in the country it controls developement is slow to come. one last thing. communism is very easily corrupted. "power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutly". the president of a communist state would have absolute power over every thing and everybody in the contry. take note of that next time you want to build an "perfect" communist state.

Socialism is all about big government, but not oppression.

Communism is about power and oppression.

To call it capitalism then is misleading. An economically-interfering government is to my mind enacting the antithesis of capitalism.
About that whole "State Capitalism"/Capitalism thing... Capitalism is not defined as a state without government interference, but rather as a state where property, the "means of production" or CAPITAL, if you like, are in the hands of private owners: Capitalists. So as long as they own property, whether or not the government interferes, it's technically capitalism.

Furthermore, when it comes to Marxist theory, there are a few major problems with capitalism: Alienation, wherein the workers are seperated from the products of their labour (because they belong to the capitalist), as well as eachother (because they're in constant competition) and themselves (because people are defined by their labour, and being alienated from it means losing a part of themselves), and Surplus Value, wherein the workers produce more value than they are payed for, thus working many hours for free solely to make profit for the capitalist, and being exploited as a result. So, when someone refers to "State Capitalism" with respect to, say, the USSR, they mean a system with all the negative aspects of Capitalism but where the State owns everything instead of capitalists..
Hence, workers are still alienated from their labour, eachother, and themselves, because the state owns their labour and they don't, they still produce surplus value for the State, and there is still even a class structure, with a Party elite.

Socialism is all about big government, but not oppression.

Communism is about power and oppression.
Well, as I assume you're talking about the USSR there, their system was actually a type of Socialism: hence United Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism is actually defined by a lack of government, where property is held in common. As such, it is an entirely theoretical concept. However, Marxists believe that they need to have a socialist state where the state owns business etc. before they can get to their goal: communism.

Communism is about power and oppression.
Not quite. In a real communism there is no need for a central government, people share what they need communally, and if there is a government at all it's solely to aid in that purpose. Most communisms don't even believe that there should be a militray. Just because you've seen governments calling themselves communist doesn't mean that they are really following it's doctrine. Please do a little more research on the topic.

Most communisms don't even believe that there should be a militray.

This is exactly why communism won't exist.

And if, by some miracle, it will, it will not last very long.

i think that saying communism is about power and oppression is utterly wrong. the problem is that the person who said this was taking stalinism (which certainly was about power and oppression) as THE example of communism. but my opinion is that true communism has never existed, countries have come close, but the problem is that they have been surrounded by a capitalist system which has made them unworkable. once the whole world comes round to the wonderful IDEA of communism, then it will work. unfortunately i think capitalism may destroy the world before that happens.

once the whole world comes round to the wonderful IDEA of communism, then it will work
I agree with that, but I think that the major problem aren't the capitalist states but the selfishness which lies inside every human being, even in communists. Only very few people in history were altruistic enough (I would say mother Theresa was such an example.) to be citizens of a working communist society.

I agree with that, but I think that the major problem aren't the capitalist states but the selfishness which lies inside every human being, even in communists. Only very few people in history weren't selfish enough (I would say mother Theresa was such an example.) to be citizens of a working communist society.

this is currently absolutely true, but i believe capitalism to be unsustainable, and in the future when capitalism has taken us to the stage where there is a huge world population, and huge amounts of money, but a huge disparity in the distribution of that money, then hopefully people will realise communism is the way. whilst there is still a small chance for a person to get rich, then they will support capitalism. i do not believe there is any chance of me becoming rich.

This is exactly why communism won't exist.

And if, by some miracle, it will, it will not last very long.
Well, that's keeping in mind that that doesn't mean people won't take up arms for what they believe in. The whole population getting up to fight, given that their responsible for their own freedoms, would be much more powerful than any traditional centralized military. Though this theory is riddled with problems, I will point out that it probably wouldn't be the lack of a military, it would be the regression back to capitalism amongst the people. Since there is really no centralized control of keeping things in a communistic order, there would be nothing to tell a commune from starting to employ capitalist ideals, and since the visual benefits of capitalism are much more appealing than the idealistic ones of communism, people would inevitably do as such.

The best form of government is an appropriate balance of ideas. Almost all extremists eventually fall to failure, history has shown us this, but take the best things from both sides and you will eventually come up with the best form of government, or at least, the closest you can really manage. The problem with this though is that people like extremism, seemingly by nature, so we fall back into the old pattern, swinging from left to right as people try to obtain the best of both worlds, and when it falls to rest in the middle human nature gives it a huge push in either direction again. I personally don't think we'll ever settle on a form of government, and that's really defines humanity. We don't look for the best state of being, just for the most interesting given our current one.

this is currently absolutely true, but i believe capitalism to be unsustainable, and in the future when capitalism has taken us to the stage where there is a huge world population, and huge amounts of money, but a huge disparity in the distribution of that money, then hopefully people will realise communism is the way. whilst there is still a small chance for a person to get rich, then they will support capitalism. i do not believe there is any chance of me becoming rich.

I'm pretty sure that unless the human race undergoes some serious evolutionary deviation, our desire for riches will always prevail. Long live greed.

I'm pretty sure that unless the human race undergoes some serious evolutionary deviation, our desire for riches will always prevail. Long live greed.

yes yes, well done you.

Most Americans are not taught any details concerning socialism. Despite being a republic founded on the core concepts of socialism, the education systems believes it’s best just to teach in extremes. So we tend to think in very simple terms; that democracy is good and communism bad.

Socialism is a very broad tree of thoughts and ideas. Communism is a narrow branch of socialism that defines the state, law and economics in such a way to abolish all private ownership of land or property.

We often refer to the limited examples of government we have seen. Socialism is typically associated with Nazi Germany, a police state that was not really socialist in any way. For communism we look at the USSR or Communist China. Both are nations that through revolution became communist. Still neither the USSR or China are “true” communist states. Both exclude free elections. China is the least like a true-communist state, permitting private ownership of property.

Actual Socialism is any form of government that regulates a spectrum of its population’s decision making. Such as a Social Democracy that permits free elections but automatically spends tax dollars to provide for universal education & health care programs.

Economic Socialism stresses internal cooperation between companies instead of competition. Typically in America, we only permit economic socialism during war. The president will take control away from private industry (such as during WWII and the Korean War) to manage war time production.

However even Americans have a limited, permanent, socialistic economic model. Citizen control the ownership of companies but money itself is regulated through a privately owned, government sanctioned body, the Federal Reserve.

Socialism is any economy where the working class controls the means of production. Communism is an economy where society as a whole controls the means of production.

I'm pretty sure that unless the human race undergoes some serious evolutionary deviation, our desire for riches will always prevail. Long live greed.

of course, if the desire to have more stuff was all that was at work, socialism of some sort would already exist. the best way for each of us to get more stuff is to cut out the parasitic middlemen - otherwise called capitalists - and end wage-labor. nobody gets rich doing wage-labor for a capitalist.

whilst there is still a small chance for a person to get rich, then they will support capitalism.
And whilst there is still a small chance to get influence over other people, socialism will turn out to some kind of dictatorship. Look at the Soviet Union or China. The KP politicians weren't rich but they had power, and so they messed all up.
It's a pity, but it's the truth.

of course, if the desire to have more stuff was all that was at work, socialism of some sort would already exist. the best way for each of us to get more stuff is to cut out the parasitic middlemen - otherwise called capitalists - and end wage-labor. nobody gets rich doing wage-labor for a capitalist.

In a capitalist system, workers with initiative can become self-employed anyway, there's no need to make it happen by lynching all the employers. Often though, being part of a large company is more lucrative than being employed alone, if for example you're not very good at advertising your trade, or if being part of a team allows you to divide labour more effectively. Capitalists who organize companies are often doing their employees a favour, and if they aren't, nobody's making their employees work for them.

I am not an expert in this subject, as you have proberly guessed by me asking about the subject. However, one thing i cant get my head around is the fact that China has as many Billionaires than Britain (9 i think). So how can China be classed as Communist??

In realistic terms - I dismiss all 'ideal systems' out of hand - communism is what they had in the Soviet Union and in cuba and elsewhere, it involves an authoritarian government and violent repression of dissent. This is coupled with a completely command economy.


Socialism on the other hand is practiced in scandinavia and the UK and elsewhere in europe, it upholds democratic ideals and puts great value on personal liberty. Socialism redirects proceeds from a market economy into certain public programs such as health care and education, as well as a financial safety net.

A good aphorism on the subject is:
Communism seeks to eliminate the "haves"
Socialism seeks to eliminate the "have nots"

In realistic terms - I dismiss all 'ideal systems' out of hand - communism is what they had in the Soviet Union and in cuba and elsewhere, it involves an authoritarian government and violent repression of dissent. This is coupled with a completely command economy.


Socialism on the other hand is practiced in scandinavia and the UK and elsewhere in europe, it upholds democratic ideals and puts great value on personal liberty. Socialism redirects proceeds from a market economy into certain public programs such as health care and education, as well as a financial safety net.

that's funny, cause the former call themselves socialist, while the latter call themselves social democracies. and nobody but communes and the occassional area under revolutionary circumstances describes themselves as practicing communism.

In a capitalist system, workers with initiative can become self-employed anyway, there's no need to make it happen by lynching all the employers. Often though, being part of a large company is more lucrative than being employed alone, if for example you're not very good at advertising your trade, or if being part of a team allows you to divide labour more effectively. Capitalists who organize companies are often doing their employees a favour, and if they aren't, nobody's making their employees work for them.

working together is almost always more productive than working alone. that is part of why groups even exist at all. and that's why it will still feature in a post-capitalist society.

exactly who suggested lynching all the employers? that would be bad. maybe the landlords, though...

anyways, the only favor the capitalists do is allow people access to the capital they own - they hire other people to do the actual organization and management, as well as the actual production. For this access they charge a fee to everyone who works there (obviously, they wouldn't employ you if they didn't think they were going to make more money from your work than they were going to pay out to you). this, in addition to other forms of economic 'rent', tends to concentrate the wealth in society very heavily towards a tiny elite of capitalists. they use this wealth to obtain more capital. which tends to concentrate wealth further. lather, rinse, repeat.

Socialism is when the means of production is controlled democratically by the workers.

Communism is when the state controls all industry, and all people are economic and social equals.

Of course, those are just basic definitions.

That's almost exactly backwards. ;)

that's funny, cause the former call themselves socialist, while the latter call themselves social democracies. and nobody but communes and the occassional area under revolutionary circumstances describes themselves as practicing communism.


Which is why functional definitions have so much more to offer us than self-stylings.

Which is why functional definitions have so much more to offer us than self-stylings.

and the functional definitions agree with the self-stylings in this case.