NationStates Jolt Archive

Could someone explain the differences between the two?

I've always heard that Communism is like Socialism exponentially, or somethin like that, but what does that really mean?

Thanks,

NS

Err, I know that socialism a midpoint between capitalism and communism.

I have an idea, but I'm not sure, so it's a good question!

There are various interpretations of socialism. I will work with one of the least radical.
Socialism. The social needs of the people are provided for by the government. This means education, health, pensions, childcare, unemployment benefit. A welfare state in effect. Now to do this, the government has to control the provision of these services. It can do this in two ways. It can contract non government institutions to perform the services, or it can provide these services directly. Under socialism it provides the services directly. It is not a voucher system, whereby you can get medical treatment from a privately run hospital which is paid for by the government, but a system wherby the hospital is owned by the government and the doctors and nurses are government employees.

This is about the minimum form of socialism, state controlled welfarism.

Communism. Everything is held in common, it is communal, hence the name. You have a place to live, but it belongs to everyone, not to you, you work to produce something, this product belongs to everyone, etc. Technically there is no private property whatsoever. In practice there have to be personal items (toothbrushes, clothes, diaries etc.) These items though, are available to those that need them, provided by the community. Beyond that, you will have to wait for a communist to reply, as I fail to see how it works in some things.

communism says a violent revolution is not only inevitable, but a necessary part of the transition between stages in Marx's historical materialist evolution. basically, every stage in human society can be defined by the primary methods of production and there is a clear path through these stages, from agrarian society, to capitalist (missing out a few stages) then to Socialist, then to communist. once we reach the communist end point, all classes will be the same, the class structure will fall, and the state will cease to exist. the state, after all (in communism), is merely a method of control for the bourgeois class. without that class there is no state.

both communism and socialism agree that human nature is malleable. the basic way people behave can be changed. right now everyone is greedy and selfish because this is how society, and our upbringing in it, has made us all. this can be changed.

socialism does not say there needs to be violent revolution, but instead we can slowly change human nature over time through education. we can become altruistic and work for the good of the many and the community, rather than the good of the one.



thats all i know, hope it helps :)

ooh...i see...

Isn't it also true that socialism is more of an social/economic policy, that can work under any government, be it democratic, or dictatorship, while communism the government is the people?

Thanks those of you who have posted so far.
:)

ooh...i see...

Isn't it also true that socialism is more of an social/economic policy, that can work under any government, be it democratic, or dictatorship, while communism the government is the people?

Thanks those of you who have posted so far.
:)

True communism is a form of anarchy, as I understand it. No government as such at all.

Socialism is certainly possible under any form of government, except minimal. It has existed under democracy, dictatorship, theocracy, monarchy etc.

Communism generally regarded to be the aim of the Marxist factions of Socialism. Communism is the state in which the proletariat, the social class which before would have been exploited by the bourgeoisie under capitalism, own the industries and control the government, it is democracy without the imposition of bourgeois values. The term "Socialism" is far broader and has been used to describe not only Communists but also non Marxist government such as that of Harold Wilson in Britain and Jacques Chirac in France and even the Nazis named themselves "National Socialist". Of course asking what "socialism" is these days is very much like asking "how long is a piece of string?". Most conservatives and libertarians see socialism as an economically authoritarian form of government but the principles of Marxism lie very much in the withering away of the state and many anarchists too describe themselves as socialists but most of the time if you get anybody these days describing themselves as socialists it will likely be either be a reformist, who believes that peaceful government reforms are the best means of creating an equal society or a revolutionary (a Marxist) who believes a violent overthrow is the only way to change the system one and for all, revolutionaries would typically view reformists as being petty-bourgeois opportunists who pander to the people whose interests lie in keeping the system the way it is. In their defence, I will testify that the last time we has a reformist socialist government in power here in Britain under Wilson and Callaghan, it ended in disaster, trade-union leaders became corrupt and the conservative press blamed the country's economic problems on the government, which were more a result of the rising global oil prices. Thatcher and her newly reformed, ultra right wing conservative party ended up being elected into government by people who were sick of the unions and she turned the country into a hellhole for the working classes, selling off most of the countries public services to private enterprises proved good for big business and Britain's GDP but for decent ordinary people, unemployment and crime rose enormously and the old socialist Labour party had to reform themselves twice, first into social democrats in the 1980's and then into simply another conservative party in all but name in 1996, they were re-elected the following year and after eight years in governent, they have still failed to repair the damage made by the cons, meanwhile the poverty gap in this country had continued to grow for the last 26 years. By the time I have finished university, I will owe AT LEAST £12,000 tuition fees along with God knows how much for my student loan and then I have to worry about my pension which apparantly I should begin investing in in my late teens so I can enjoy the fruits of my labour when I retire at 65 (I'm not allowed to retire any earlier because the government has wasted so much public money). But hey, look on the bright side, business is booming apparantly....

Labour still call themselves socialists.

So in a functioning socialist state, people still have a reason to go to work each day, because although the state provides a minimum level of service and care for its citizens you still want to earn a good living so you can afford to buy a home, drive a car, wear nice clothes, and go to Cancun once a year. If you get hit by a train on the way to the corner store, you will be cared for in hospital at no cost (although - horror or horrors - you may have to stay in a semi-private hospital room) and your family will not have to cash in their retirement funds and sell the house to pay for your care. No one need starve in a socialist society.

In a communist state, theoretically everyone works hard to provide for everyone else, but in reality there is no incentive to work because you know the state will feed you and house you whether you work or not. Working harder does not really benefit you in any way. Additionally, because the state takes all that is produced and redistributes it, the working man has no control over the goods he produces and no way of ensuring it is not being hoarded or resold by those in power.

Could someone explain the differences between the two?

I've always heard that Communism is like Socialism exponentially, or somethin like that, but what does that really mean?

Thanks,

NS

Actually...

I believe that Socialism is just a very broad term for Societies which use varying forms of Social structure to build their Government from...

Communism is just a more specific form of Socialism. While many different Systems can be thought of as Socialistic Systems, Communism is just one form of those Systems.

I believe that is the best way to look at it. Some may disagree...

Regards,
Gaar

Actually...
I believe that Socialism is just a very broad term for Societies which use varying forms of Social structure to build their Government from...
You don't say...

Socialism would probably be defined as a system where the government assumes all basic welfare costs and has limited influence in the economy,
but private ownership of the economy still remains paramount. Communism has total state control, centralized and collectivized in a communal fashion hence the "commun-" stem of the term.

You don't say...

My point was...

It shouldn't be thought of as Socialism versus Communism, since Communism is simply a smaller entity within the broader scope of Socialistic Governments.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that point clear for you.

Regards,
Gaar

Oh. I believe the point is clear for me. I just didn't think you made much point at all with that sentence.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that point clear for you.

I saw the capitalized Social and was able to interpret it as implying the Socialistic structure of government and economy. :confused:

Oh. I believe the point is clear for me. I just didn't think you made much point at all with that sentence.

Yeah, I wouldn't either, when taken "out" of context, as you did...

But I believe it is well understood in context of the next sentence, is it not?

Just wanted to make myself very clear, so no one would question what I was trying to say...

Guess that hope wasn't well founded, I should have known my comments would be taken out of context and questioned... :confused:

Regards,
Gaar

Guess not.

Communism is just a more specific form of Socialism. While many different Systems can be thought of as Socialistic Systems, Communism is just one form of those Systems.Cos this makes about as much sense.

Socialism is a system of government, communism isn't.

*just popped my little head in to say that*

Cos this makes about as much sense.

All he is saying is that to him communism is just one form of a larger set of government structures that are denominated socialism. It does make sense if you can read English and think. (I never thought I would find myself defending Gaar :eek: )

I disagree with him though, to me they are radically different philosophies, not just a more specific variety of a general term.

Apparently I can't read English then (or think). Still makes little sense to me.

Cos this makes about as much sense.

Is there something specific you don't understand when the two sentences are used together? You know, not taken out of context?

Or do you just like to take them out of context to have something to argue with?

If you have a specific problem, please state it, otherwise I believe you are just taking up space here...

Regards,
Gaar

even the Nazis named themselves "National Socialist".

True, but the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NASDAP, abbreviated to NAZI) was merely attempting to hit as many target markets as possible so as to gain diplomatic power and thus shift from democracy as known in the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian dictatorship under the guidance of Adolph Hitler.

Socialism has been adaquetely explained here. "Good" examples of Socialism exist in Scandanavian nations (Sweden, Norway, and Finland are renowned for their socialist governments), and Canada, although Canada turns more into "America Junior" as days pass.

Communism is a funny, self-defeating system because in theory, the government will only exist for a short time, then wither away and allow the workers to go as they please. Except in the three instances of Communism, and the largest instances, Cuba, PRC, and USSR, the government has lasted for longer than twenty years. I'd say that's a bit more than a "short" period of time. Human nature is malleable, sure, but the thing is that it takes a few generations. Of these, only the USSR was able to last beyond a few generations (Given that they had WW2 to deal with, killing something like 7 million ethnic Russians).

You could argue that the failure of the Soviet Union was due to the Stalinist state organ set up by Old Joe and never fully dismantled, even today in Putin's Russia.

There are plenty of things I can't understand even if they are used together.

I DO like to take them out of context, I do admit, but I don't want to argue about it.

And aren't we lucky it's not your space I'm taking.

True, but the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NASDAP, abbreviated to NAZI) was merely attempting to hit as many target markets as possible so as to gain diplomatic power and thus shift from democracy as known in the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian dictatorship under the guidance of Adolph Hitler.

Ironic, to say the least, seeing as the Nazis and Communists were more or less mortal enemies. Two major examples: The death of Horst Wessel served as a neverending stream of anti-Communist propaganda, and the Reichstag fire, again blamed on them, was another ploy.

All he is saying is that to him communism is just one form of a larger set of government structures that are denominated socialism. It does make sense if you can read English and think. (I never thought I would find myself defending Gaar :eek: )

Thank you anyway! :p

I disagree with him though, to me they are radically different philosophies, not just a more specific variety of a general term.

Understood, and hence the reason for the last sentence in my post. :D

I do allow for those who may not agree with me, and I welcome a thoughtful discussion on the matter.

Ad Hominems are not thoughtful discussion of the matter however.

And I thank those, like yourself, who do not use them and instead address the issue thoughtfully.

Regards,
Gaar

communism is the economic personification of the idea that all people are equal (equal people get equal share of national property)

democracy is the political personification of the idea that all people are equal (equal people get equal votes)


socialism is a watered down combination of the two.

Ad Hominems yada yada yada
I'm sorry if you have confused my posts with ad hominem attacks. That surely wasn't the intention. I haven't even addressed you directly in any of them.

I just thought your first post was a bit obscure to say the least.

I believe you went and answered the question about the difference between socialism and communism with an opening sentence which didn't make much sense to me. It still doesn't (and that is my language skills playing tricks as pointed out).

Then, (it seems to me) in the first sentence of the second short paragraph
you clarified a point you didn't make in the first one paragraph... and that's why the 2 remaining sentences didn't make much sense to me either.

How lucky we are this was all due to my poor language skills.

Again, I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

regards, BD

I didn't read all the posts, so sorry if anyone has already said this.

Communism is, from my interpretation, an extreme version of socialism. There can be other extremes of socialistic gov'ts, but communism branches off somewhere in there.

Long story short, after communism is achieved, i.e. the populace gains even ground (rich go down, poor go up), and the government, or "state", owns everything. From Marx's standards, communism eventually evolves into a perfect anarchy-utopia. No government is required, because to not own anything is perfectly normal. No one is above the other.

But, obviously, greed won out.

I disagree with him though, to me they are radically different philosophies, not just a more specific variety of a general term.

Maybe these might help here...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Communism

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Communism
a) A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b) The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

The problem here is that people with different political outlooks use the same words to mean different things.

Historically speaking Marxists have referred to themselves at different times as social democrats, socialists or communists meaning by those words exactly the same thing. Lenin's party for instance was actually called the Social Democrats (RSDLP).

Marx did not argue that a certain number of historical stages were predetermined to be passed through by society. Instead he argued that Western societies had in fact moved through certain defined modes of production - broadly speaking primitive communism, slave based, feudal and capitalist. He noted that some parts of Asia had followed a different path. Each of these societies (with the exception of primitive ones where there wasn't enough surplus produced to support a true ruling class) was divided at root into a ruling class and an exploited class, although other social classes also existed.

Most of his work was a critique of the political economy of the kind of society he found himself living in, capitalism in other words. He was at pains to argue that capitalism was not eternal, it had not always existed and would not always exist in the future. It was not somehow the "natural" order of things.

In particular he argued that capitalism had created its own gravediggers in the form of the working class, the first exploited class with the capacity to wrest power away from their exploiters and thereby end class division once and for all. This is "the revolution" which Marxists want to see occur.

Marx did not write much about the society which he hoped would exist in the future, concentrating instead on analysing the world around him. However the broad outlines were that class division and exploitation would be abolished, the production and distribution of goods and services would be organised democratically and so on. Private property would be replaced by collective ownership, but it is important to note that Marx was referring here to the "means of production", the businesses, factories, land and so on and not to toothbrushes, books, shoes and other chattels. In this sense he argued that private propery had in fact already been abolished for the vast majority of humanity.

The seizure of power by the working class would of course be resisted by the capitalists and their allies, which would mean that the working class would have to smash the capitalist state - an instrument for the suppression of the great majority by a small minority - and replace it with their own power. The instrument of workers power would be what Lenin called a "workers state". As the revolution is consolidated, and the problems of class divided society are dealt with, there would be less need for a state as an instrument of class rule. Those functions would fade away, leaving a state in the sense only of purely administrative bodies.

This is the stage referred to by Marxists as socialism or communism.

Where it gets complex is when you deal with the evolution of these theories within the labour movement. At various stages some socialists, an early example being Bernstein in Germany, decided that it wasn't necessary to have a revolution to achieve this goal. Instead capitalism could be reformed out of existence. It's important to note that at least initially the same end goal was envisaged.

Over time however this reformist wing itself developed strands which did not share the same end goal. Instead these people wanted the workers movement to reform capitalism to make it fairer or nicer but did not want to get rid of capitalism entirely. These people also used the terms "social democracy" and "socialism", although now they were talking about a reformed capitalism rather than socialism in the Marxist sense.

What's more, the Stalinist regimes which came out of the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR laid claim to the terms "communism" and "socialism" to describe their own societies, even though they certainly didn't believe in the withering away of the oppressive functions of the state. As I understand it, the distinction between "communism" and "socialism" sometimes drawn in dictionaries has its roots in the decision of the Stalinist societies to declare their then current social set ups to be "actually existing socialism" with communism still to occur at a later stage.

Social democracy, socialism and communism are contested terms, and what is meant by any of them depends on the time, place and political viewpoint you are dealing with.