Socialism VS Communism

What is Communism?
Communism is a socio political philosophy created by Karl Marx. It is Classless and all people are regarded to as equal. The way for Communism too come about is for the Working Class to rise and take over the Bourgeois. You might say to yourself “If there is no class in Communism, then what will happen to the Bourgeois?” the answer to this is simple, the Bourgeois become working class. All people work, no one is “in charge”. The idea is the people regulate their work force, but generally the Government would be in charge. The government is the people, the people are the government. Generally, they want the abolishment of the market. Meaning, no money, you get what you need to get by. Everyone works, there are no unemployed.

What is Socialism?
Socialism is a political/socioeconomic ideology where the people are equal. All are paid the same, Garbage men are equal too movie stars. There are many branches of Socialism, including Communism. In Socialism, banks and business are generally Nationalized. This way the government will make sure all workers are treated equally. Socialism allows a market too exist, there just isn’t really any competition. The market is controlled (not manipulated) by the government.

My simple example of how they are different.
At a young age in math class, we learned all rectangles are squares, but all squares are not rectangles. Communism is Socialism, but Socialism is not communism.

END

And you support?
Which one of those 2?

CoolKidX wrote:

And you support?
Which one of those 2?

I support both...but Im not Marxist, though I agree with some forms of Communism (Lenin, Vanguardism are the two primary ones I agree with).

Okay Mr Liche.

So explain why you support the Lenin shit and all.

Liche wrote:

What is Communism?
Communism is a socio political philosophy created by Karl Marx.

Nope. "Communism" is a term first employed by the working class movements in XIX century in Europe. Their political premise was pretty much the same to that of Marx and Engel's Scientific Socialism for which Marx and Engels embraced the term "communism" until the other kind of socialists, the utopic ones, faded away. After that, Engels and some other socialist theorists began simply refering to communism as socialism.

Liche wrote:

All people work, no one is “in charge”. The idea is the people regulate their work force, but generally the Government would be in charge. The government is the people, the people are the government. Generally, they want the abolishment of the market. Meaning, no money, you get what you need to get by. Everyone works, there are no unemployed.

As people are the government, there's no government per se, just to clarify, at least not in the sense of a State.

Liche wrote:

What is Socialism?
Socialism is a political/socioeconomic ideology where the people are equal. All are paid the same, Garbage men are equal too movie stars. There are many branches of Socialism, including Communism. In Socialism, banks and business are generally Nationalized. This way the government will make sure all workers are treated equally. Socialism allows a market too exist, there just isn’t really any competition. The market is controlled (not manipulated) by the government.

Nope. Socialism is a system in which the workers control the economy, plain and simple.

Liche wrote:

My simple example of how they are different.
At a young age in math class, we learned all rectangles are squares, but all squares are not rectangles. Communism is Socialism, but Socialism is not communism.

END

Semantics don't work like Math. "Socialism" has been pretty much employed since the 2nd decade of the XX century to refer to welfare capitalist states, or simply to refer to welfare. That is absolutely wrong.

The term socialism was first employed by the Utopic Socialists which appealing to the "intrinsic goodness" of humans, thus of capitalists, would expect capitalists to consider the conditions of the working class and provide them with welfare to progress as individuals.

This doctrine was known as Utopic Socialism because it was just based on a subjective and absolutely abstract premise and didn't consider scientifically the economic relationships between the workers and the capitalists or the material conditions in which individuals developed.

Opposed to this, Marx and Engels developed the Scientific Socialism a doctrine that postulates that the capitalist society is divided into two essential classes: Bourgeoisie and Prolertariat and that they're substained by a relationship of exploitation by the first of the second postulating that this exploitation would end just with the elimination of the exploiting class which would happen through the taking over of the economy by the exploited class assuming this class direct control of it.

This doctrine, Scientific Socialism was roughly what many worker movements stood for already: communism. The difference between Scientific Socialism and communism is essentially the name and the process through which this same conclusion was reached: one through the scientific method and the other, most probably, from logic and common sense.

Marx and Engels embraced the term "Communism" to refer to "Scientific Socialism" mainly to disociate themselves from the Utopic movement.

In the second half of the XIX century Utopic Socialism faded away (refuted by Scientific Socialism) and the only kind of socialism that remained was Scientific Socialism, or communism. Then is when socialism and communism began being used interchangeably.

Then, more prominently than other similar thinkers, Lenin had the awesome idea that there should be a "transition stage" between capitalism and communism and decided to call it "socialism" reducing socialism in practice to a State Capitalism ran by a (self-proclaimed) "socialist" Vanguard.

This misconception of "socialism" was seen in practice in USSR which was an entirely capitalistic nation where the State controlled the means of production and literally exploited the workers without forgetting to provide a massive ammount of welfare (so disproportionate in relation to income considering expenditures like industry, research and military development, that USSR went bankrupt) to diminish this notion of exploitation. This system was copied directly or at least mimicked in dozens of nations and went as far as to get India, an overtly capitalistic nation, to constitutionally delcare itself "Socialist Republic" or to the US conservatives to call any trace of welfare, tax and overall state intervention within US economy "Socialism".

Yet, this is a misconception of socialism for socialism stands for workers controlling the economy in a democratic and egalitarian fashion.

Some will argue socialism refers to all "workers' economic systems" in general: Communism, Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Mutualism mainly. All of these systems tend to be considered branches of socialism. However, here we also a see a semantic conflict.

What is the difference between communism and Anarchism? Essentially, I would contend, that Communism focuses on the economic aspect while Anarchism focuses on the political aspect. In other words, as I see it given both systems definitions and characteristics anarchism and communism are two parts of the same thing.

What about anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-mutualism? As I see them, they're already proposed organizational models based on the previously mentioned communist (workers control the economy) and anarchist (no one controls anyone) principles, pretty much like, for example, Council Communism or De Leonism which are already organizational schemes within this communistic economic and anarchic political framework.

All well-founded contributions, welcome.

Ive never gotten around too asking, but where do you get your definition of Socialism?

Liche wrote:

Ive never gotten around too asking, but where do you get your definition of Socialism?

I'm assuming Marx.

Liche wrote:

Ive never gotten around too asking, but where do you get your definition of Socialism?

I'm tracing the term "socialism" up to its origins, its evolution and the evolution of its usage until these days.

I separate its evolution from "usage evolution" because the term was last employed properly to refer to a system of which validity has been not only not refuted in theory but actually proven workable in practice.

To say it very simply, imagine "Socialism" was first used by utopic socialists to refer to their welfare within enterprise system the theory of which was refuted by Scientific Socialism and the practice of which proved not to solve the condition of exploitation nor considerably improve material conditions for which it lost the right to be denominated "socialism" to the other socialism, Scientific Socialism, or communism.

Since this system hasn't been refuted theoretically and has been proven workable in practice, as I already said, there's no reason to acknowledge any other usage of the term as valid or correct.

The usage has been horribly based on misconceptions not less terrible than with communism or anarchism since the early XX century.

And there's yet another way to analyse the term: ethymologically.

However... ethymologically, what does "socialism" tell you? It definitely makes an allusion to society, to the social nature of humans but really what else than that vague hint to what it refers?

It's more than just coming up with a definition, it's tracing back the roots of the term.

I'm honestly expecting the most severe critic to my post to come from comrades like WeiWuWei who usually contended or contends that Anarchism, Socialism and Communism are different things.

Quote :

What is the difference between communism and Anarchism? Essentially, I would contend, that Communism focuses on the economic aspect while Anarchism focuses on the political aspect. In other words, as I see it given both systems definitions and characteristics anarchism and communism are two parts of the same thing.

Well, technically, anarchism necessarily involves the abolition of capitalism, so I wouldn't say that there's not much focus on it. I'd classify it as a form of communism.

Stos wrote:

Quote :

What is the difference between communism and Anarchism? Essentially, I would contend, that Communism focuses on the economic aspect while Anarchism focuses on the political aspect. In other words, as I see it given both systems definitions and characteristics anarchism and communism are two parts of the same thing.

Well, technically, anarchism necessarily involves the abolition of capitalism, so I wouldn't say that there's not much focus on it. I'd classify it as a form of communism.

Yes, according to the beliefs of such Communists as Stos and Zealot, Communism Anarchy (they only credit Anarcho Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism could be Anarcho-Communism) and Socialism are all the same since it involves the abolishment of the current Capitalist system.

Stos wrote:

Well, technically, anarchism necessarily involves the abolition of capitalism, so I wouldn't say that there's not much focus on it. I'd classify it as a form of communism.

Well, actually it's really matter of focus. For me communism and anarchism are the same thing, just anarchism, and this is in regards merely to the term, refers to the intrinsic lack of hierarchy and coercion within society while communism may refer to merely common ownership and control of means of subsistance and lack of social classes (which in fact is actually if not directly a mention of it, at least an allusion to anarchy).

Now, if you classify it as a form of communism, which other forms of communism do you acknowledge and what would be their differences between each other?

Liche wrote:

Yes, according to the beliefs of such Communists as Stos and Zealot, Communism Anarchy (they only credit Anarcho Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism could be Anarcho-Communism) and Socialism are all the same since it involves the abolishment of the current Capitalist system.

In other words, according to the knowledge of serious socialists. Again, I don't grant validity to the uses of the term "socialism" that do not take into account the whole historical development of that term. Therfore a "State Welfarist" is not a socialist for me, Stalin was not a Socialist, USSR was not socialist and Obama is not socialist (and not even as close as the previous examples which themselves are still aeons away from Socialism).

Obama is not even a State Welfare guy!

The only one is Hilary Clinton, but I dont necicarly think State Welfare is Socialism (not that you stated I did Im just putting that out there). However Id MAYBE consider Canada a MINOR Socialist Welfare Economic system, MAYBE€. Obama is just a capitalist wearing red clothes.

(by the way I accidently listened to Imus this morning on the radio :S)

Liche wrote:

Obama is just a capitalist wearing red clothes.

That would just mean he was Republican, in the U.S..

MightyObserver wrote:

Liche wrote:

Obama is just a capitalist wearing red clothes.

That would just mean he was Republican, in the U.S..

haha they were Golf Clothes and Casual Suits (not usually red unless they are frat boys)

Liche wrote:

Obama is not even a State Welfare guy!

Who said he was?

Liche wrote:

The only one is Hilary Clinton, but I dont necicarly think State Welfare is Socialism (not that you stated I did Im just putting that out there).

It's not really matter of what you think or don't think socialism is.

Liche wrote:

However Id MAYBE consider Canada a MINOR Socialist Welfare Economic system, MAYBE€.

There's nothing socialist about Canadian economy. Socialism is not something you have have in little or big ammounts, capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. No "minor socialism".

Liche wrote:

Obama is just a capitalist wearing red clothes.

No, Obama is chocolate coated bush with 80% more change and 10% more hope.

lol 80% Hope 10% Change 10% FAIL

(Ingredients too make a democratic president)

(Optional--Brown Dye)

Quote :

No, Obama is chocolate coated bush with 80% more change and 10% more hope.

And 50% less idiot.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

No, Obama is chocolate coated bush with 80% more change and 10% more hope.

And 50% less idiot.

And 100% more dull.

MightyObserver wrote:

Liche wrote:

Obama is just a capitalist wearing red clothes.

That would just mean he was Republican, in the U.S..

You first have to be in the army for that.
Cuz only then and only then you are able to be president, so the Holy one's said.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No, Obama is chocolate coated bush with 80% more change and 10% more hope.

Liche wrote:

lol 80% Hope 10% Change 10% FAIL

LOL! I had a good laugh at that.

Stos wrote:

And 100% more dull.

I still can believe how some people still believe him to be inmensely charismatic.

all idealogies are equal. imo.

Tyrlop wrote:

all idealogies are equal. imo.

In what sense and why?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

all idealogies are equal. imo.

In what sense and why?

In whats that game? Civilizations? they give attributes to each idealogy.