Log in

View Full Version : How to explain Socialism and Communism?



El Louton
21st September 2011, 20:44
Comrades!

I was wondering how I could explain Socialism and Communism to friends with out making it complicated!

Any ideas?

Louton01

Kornilios Sunshine
21st September 2011, 21:31
In my opinion, you should not tell your friends about communistm,They might have different ideology with youl.

Octopus
21st September 2011, 21:38
Ugh, if you're in school the kids are probably already brainwashed that communism is wrong, so whatever definition you give them they'll probably just raise their eyebrow and go back to their magazines or whatever.

I've stopped replying to them, someone asked me "Why do you support communism?" and I replied with "It has taken me a very long to comprehend even parts of the philosophy, I have read countless books about it from all different perspectives and still I have lots to learn, and you expect me to tell you what it is, convincingly, in a short sentence?" - Usually it shuts them up.

El Louton
21st September 2011, 21:38
Too late! I'm trying to convince him! Any Ideas?

Rooster
21st September 2011, 21:41
There isn't a difference. Both is where the means of production are held in common. The words are mutually interchangeable and generally only marxist-leninists separate these into two different economic modes or stages, just to justify the Stalinist system.

Tim Cornelis
21st September 2011, 21:49
^
I don't think he was asking what the difference between socialism and communism are, but how to explain socialism and communism to friends.

I would say, argue that socialism extents democracy consistently. Most people already agree democracy is good, so argue for workplace democracy and explain that workplaces are not run democratically.

El Louton
23rd September 2011, 15:09
Thanks Goti123, I'll use that next time!

piet11111
23rd September 2011, 15:33
Using the whole of society's resources and productive capacity in a rational sustainable manner to the benefit of all people and not to make some bastards so filthy rich they would need to hire an army of people to spend all that money for them.

This is the shortest way i can put it that is understandable to everyone.

Tommy4ever
23rd September 2011, 16:41
Say you think people should have a say in how their communities are run and their work places managed, that private ownership only ever leads to exploitation and other problems and that you believe that the means of production should be held in common.

The Idler
24th September 2011, 14:24
A stateless, classless, wageless society of free access.

ckaihatsu
25th September 2011, 05:48
Due to the kind of personality I have I'd rather see the current political climate as an *opportunity* to put the screws to people -- politely, of course -- by pointing out that there's *no possible solution* to this festering and worsening economic crisis within the framework of the capitalist system itself.

The only options available to nationalist types are to either subsidize or monetize -- both have been tried, and nothing's working. We need to be clear that this is akin to bad genetic engineering that's escaped the lab and needs to be collectively, consciously rounded up and shut down altogether.

Ask people why we still have a system in which we're virtually *forced* to support (vote for) some person or another to do a specialized job on behalf of millions of people instead of just having a fully participatory economic democracy in which we all collectively cooperatively determine society on a day-to-day basis.

Seresan
25th September 2011, 22:03
I'd avoid using the word "communism", personally.. use an alternatives like "far left" or something?

Try to mention things like:
No poverty
No classes
No controlling state
Society-based society rather than individual-based society

Try to avoid things like:
Destruction of the family
No money/money being used differently
Doctor/janitor argument

ComradeOmar
25th September 2011, 22:06
I'd avoid using the word "communism", personally.. use an alternatives like "far left" or something?

Try to mention things like:
No poverty
No classes
No controlling state
Society-based society rather than individual-based society

Try to avoid things like:
Destruction of the family
No money/money being used differently
Doctor/janitor argument
Destruction of the family????

ckaihatsu
25th September 2011, 22:28
---





Destruction of the family????





Families, however, in the 'nuclear family' sense, are no more "natural" than any other social configuration, including a clan group or a Brave-New-World-type assembly-line method of birthing and pre-planned social stratification.

Oswy
28th September 2011, 07:57
Comrades!

I was wondering how I could explain Socialism and Communism to friends with out making it complicated!

Any ideas?

Louton01

If you want to keep it simple then I suggest your emphasis is on wanting to live in a society which values and benefits everyone equitably, it's about wanting to live in a society which makes everyone's education, potentials and opportunities as important as anyone else's, about wanting to live in a society where everyone can expect useful and rewarding job opportunities, where everyone has a home, rather than the few having three or four while the many go homeless.

Or you could just quote Mr Spock:



"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Nox
28th September 2011, 08:02
The concept of Socialism and Communism is difficult to fully understand, the best way would be to lend them a copy of The Communist Manifesto and maybe some other books like Capital.

Q
28th September 2011, 08:31
Communism: The society of free producers in which all humans are fully roundedly developed as humans.

Socialism: The transition from the old capitalist, to the new communist society beginning with the class taking power as a class. This is a political fight, a battle for democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359).

Revolution starts with U
28th September 2011, 08:50
Socialism/communism is putting a swift end to the wholescale theivery of the productive efforts of the working class by the ownership class.

It may lead to "from each, to each," the classless stateless society, new social relations, etc. But where it has its foundation is in ending the exploitation of labor by ownership; the expropriation (taking) of a worker's value based merely on an arbitrary concept of "private ownership."

ckaihatsu
29th September 2011, 01:39
Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

a model by Chris Kaihatsu, [email protected], 1-09
thanks to comrades at RevLeft.com





[capitalism][economics] -- wages system, private property extracts profit from labor value

[capitalism][politics] -- bourgeois rule, political struggle against it




[syndicalism][economics] -- wages system based on full labor value, surplus value goes into global syndicalist currency

[syndicalism][politics] -- local workers' collectives, economic and political labor network built on global syndicalist currency with transparent, published accounting, possible confrontations with defenders of capital




[socialism][economics] -- labor credits reward uncoerced labor according to difficulty of work, surplus value builds up communist infrastructure

[socialism][politics] -- political economy based on workers' collectives controls all assets, resources, goods, and services, baseline health and welfare for all, regardless of work status




[communism][economics] -- full automation and widespread abundance, ease of administration and material accounting

[communism][politics] -- fully integrated political economy enables global-level planning over uncoerced labor and surplus value


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bufa71ms/

Die Rote Fahne
29th September 2011, 02:06
Marx used the two words interchangeably. They were one in the same. However, in modern times, "socialism" has come to refer to, in most cases, the "dictatorship of the proletariat". A phase in society in which the bourgeois government is replaced with a revolutionary proletariat government, and the means of production become owned by the worker through nationalization (note that the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. did not have this).

So, socialism = worker control of the means of production, government and a mode of production which produces based on need. In this phase, there is the goal of producing an abundance of goods and mass technological advancement, among other things.

Communism, nowadays, refers to the final stage of Marxist theory, or socialism, when the state "withers away". It is a stateless, classless and moneyless society.

Not very in-depth, but I hope you get the gist.

Magón
29th September 2011, 02:26
and maybe some other books like Capital.

No. Especially if they've got the wrong idea about Communism in the first place. Capital is a horrible place to start telling people where/what to read.

Die Rote Fahne
29th September 2011, 02:46
No. Especially if they've got the wrong idea about Communism in the first place. Capital is a horrible place to start telling people where/what to read.
This. ^^

Capital is for advanced Marxists, who have read the Manifesto, have solidified their tendency and are ready to go in depth with everything.

Beginners should read the Communist Manifesto and other pieces by Marx and Engels that are short, and not complicated. As well, some basic literature by Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, etc. would be a place to proceed from there.

MarxSchmarx
29th September 2011, 03:22
I am for socialism because I am for humanity.
:sleep:

soulboy
29th September 2011, 20:55
There isn't a difference. Both is where the means of production are held in common. The words are mutually interchangeable and generally only marxist-leninists separate these into two different economic modes or stages, just to justify the Stalinist system.

didnt marx himself separate these? isnt communism is the end result of socialism the transition from the workers taking control into a classless society?

go easy on me ar kid am not as educated as you haha

soulboy
29th September 2011, 21:03
The concept of Socialism and Communism is difficult to fully understand, the best way would be to lend them a copy of The Communist Manifesto and maybe some other books like Capital.

my mates can barely read unless its got a pair of tits or football next to it let alone anything by marx haha

#FF0000
29th September 2011, 21:04
didnt marx himself separate these? isnt communism is the end result of socialism the transition from the workers taking control into a classless society?

Nope. Marx p. much used Communism and Socialism interchangeably. Or he talked about how "socialism" was an inadequate word to use, or something. One of the two. Or both.

Lenin is the one who came up with the "Socialism to Communism" thing

Dogs On Acid
29th September 2011, 21:22
We fight for the poor and unprivileged, and struggle for a better life to all Humanity.

We want to eradicate money, because it's just horrible how even the most basic needs like food and water have to be paid for, while there are people who are homeless or starving, and cant afford a roof on their head or even a meal.

Keep it simple.

Schools are actually the best place to spread our ideals.

Rooster
29th September 2011, 21:43
didnt marx himself separate these? isnt communism is the end result of socialism the transition from the workers taking control into a classless society?

go easy on me ar kid am not as educated as you haha

No. Marx used the terms lower phase of communism and higher phase. But these do not refer to the words socialism or communism, which he used interchangeably. Basically, you have capitalism with it's mode of production (where the means of production, the factories and tools and so on) are held in private so you have all the things that are associated with that such as wage labour, forced (or I think Marx used the word natural) division of labour (in comparison with a voluntary division), commodity production, production with the aim for exchange value instead of use value, classes and so on. Socialism/communism want to go beyond that so the means of production have to be held in common, through the dissolution of all classes. With the lower phase being the beginnings of it with some of the marks of capitalism on it and the higher phase being something different, where the productive forces have been so arranged as to get to being able to have "fromeach according to his ability, to each according to his need".

El Louton
6th December 2011, 20:23
Thanks Comrades! But as someone said earlier: 'My friends' don't read unless it's got a pair of tits or football in it! The Communist Manifesto is a bit hard for someone who describes their political views on facebook as this: 'Don't care' or 'All the same bullshit'

I basically need a few sentences which can help my 'friends' understand. These aren't my best friends but I need answers next time someone asks.

Thanks

Q
6th December 2011, 23:10
Thanks Comrades! But as someone said earlier: 'My friends' don't read unless it's got a pair of tits or football in it! The Communist Manifesto is a bit hard for someone who describes their political views on facebook as this: 'Don't care' or 'All the same bullshit'

I basically need a few sentences which can help my 'friends' understand. These aren't my best friends but I need answers next time someone asks.

Thanks


Communism: The society of free producers in which all humans are fully roundedly developed as humans.

Socialism: The transition from the old capitalist, to the new communist society beginning with the class taking power as a class. This is a political fight, a battle for democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359).

That helps?

El Louton
7th January 2012, 22:37
Thanks Comrades! I've just persuaded a friend to read about socialism and he's really enjoying it, he's a socialist!