Communism and Socialism?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Socialism is when the workers control the means of production.
Is socialism also achived only when there are no money involved in the society?
Or is that more of a communist principple?

When a state is compleatly socialist, can you then call is "Communism in one state"


Please help me with theese questions! =)
Have a good day.

[Brosip Tito]

Socialism is when the workers control the means of production.Yes.


Is socialism also achived only when there are no money involved in the society?No, there are the higher and lower stages of communism. Socialism is usually used to refer to the lower stage, or the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Or is that more of a communist principple?Well, they are one in the same, technically speaking.


When a state is compleatly socialist, can you then call is "Communism in one state"THere is no such thing as a "communist state". Communism is stateless.



Please help me with theese questions! =)I hope I did!


Have a good day.You too!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

You can try and wait for the socialist state to wither away or you can go all the way and have an anarchist revolution.(communism without going through authoritarianism).

[TheRedAnarchist23]

And how come you have just started and allready have more rep than me?

[Revolution starts with U]

And how come you have just started and allready have more rep than me?

Probably said something bad about a specific tendency:lol:

[Brosip Tito]

You can try and wait for the socialist state to wither away or you can go all the way and have an anarchist revolution.(communism without going through authoritarianism).
This misconception by anarchists is troubling.

An anarchist revolution opens up the ability for the counter-revolution to easily succeed, and for the outside forces of capital to stop it. I never understood how an anarchist can manage to achieve abundance, prevent counter revolution, and achieve socialism in one country. It seems that anarchists have that in common with Stalinists, the idea of socialism in one country.

Finally, the socialist state, is not inherently authoritarian.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

This misconception by anarchists is troubling.

An anarchist revolution opens up the ability for the counter-revolution to easily succeed, and for the outside forces of capital to stop it. I never understood how an anarchist can manage to achieve abundance, prevent counter revolution, and achieve socialism in one country. It seems that anarchists have that in common with Stalinists, the idea of socialism in one country.

Finally, the socialist state, is not inherently authoritarian.

I agree. Every revolution, from Cuba to Vietnam to The Paris Commune to Russia every revolution is almost immediately attacked by counter-revolutionaries and/or imperialists. A state helps society defend itself from these attacks and defend the revolution. I am not saying that the USSR, Vietnam, etc. didn't do anything wrong, and I don't support those societies, but it is understandable why they got so authoritarian. For example, almost immediately the Bolsheviks in the USSR were attacked by counter-revolutionaries and imperialist powers. Then they had to deal with the Nazi invasion, Stalin's purges, Cold War, sabotage, etc.

Also, after a revolutionary movement has succeeded that society is in a state of chaos from the revolution. Look at the histories of Egypt, Cuba, USSR, etc. The state offers a stabilizing and defensive force for the revolution.

That being said, I do not support the overt suppression of dissent, authoritarianism, one-party state, etc. Nothing, in my humble opinion, justifies such actions that these "socialist":laugh: countries took. My version of the state after the revolution is to defend the revolution from outright attack, offer a sense of unity between all communities, and be multi-party and democratic. A small state would be able to do this and a small state would help the revolutionary people transition to a stateless society when the time is right. The small state would mainly be run through the councils and direct democratic institutions.

[Rafiq]

You can try and wait for the socialist state to wither away or you can go all the way and have an anarchist revolution.(communism without going through authoritarianism).

Yeeeaaaaaaaah that sounds GREAT! Because it's all a matter of choice and preference, i.e. Like choosing between candy bars at the sweets store :rolleyes:

[NorwegianCommunist]

And how come you have just started and allready have more rep than me?


I am more active.
I have posted over 100 times and sometimes others like what I write.
You have not posted as much as me and probably they don't like what you write that much. (Im not sure though)
I don't mean to be offensive, but I hope I answared your question =)

[NorwegianCommunist]

THere is no such thing as a "communist state". Communism is stateless.



Thank you sir, but I know that communism is stateless, but if a country is compleatly socialist, then it is a kind of "communism" BUT in one country.
That is what I am wondering.
Not that it IS communism, but LIKE, only in one country.

I only used big letters to "highlight" the words, not because I am mad =)

[Lanky Wanker]

And how come you have just started and allready have more rep than me?

:lol: Probably has something to do with posts like this:


You can try and wait for the socialist state to wither away or you can go all the way and have an anarchist revolution.(communism without going through authoritarianism).

----------------


Thank you sir, but I know that communism is stateless, but if a country is compleatly socialist, then it is a kind of "communism" BUT in one country.
That is what I am wondering.
Not that it IS communism, but LIKE, only in one country.

I only used big letters to "highlight" the words, not because I am mad =)

You've probably noticed that most leftists get very cranky over the use of the word "communism" (or socialism) when speaking of it happening in one country. As people will tell you, socialism and communism are the same thing and Marx/Engels never made a distinction between the two words (apparently it was Lenin, I'm too stupid to know that myself), so going by that, one country cannot be completely socialist. Going by other definitions of socialism, like as a transition, it depends what you mean. The big question here is what separates this temporary "socialism" established in one country from actual communism, and the answer is: probably quite a lot. The closest to real communism you could get IN one country would would be in very small communes, and not the "hey, let's grow and sell soy beans so we can share the profits equally" type of communes, but tribes that live away from "civilised" society. I feel obliged to go off into a rant about Stalin and socialism in one country, but I'm not sure how much of what I don't read myself to actually believe.

[Rooster]

There is no difference between socialism and communism. Both are the same concept, just different words. Socialism comes about after the completion of the revolution. It is stateless. A state only exists to enforce class rule and as such, a state can't exist and not be capitalist in this modern epoch. Only when the proletariat is dissolved as a class along with the bourgeoisie, through making the means of production common, then will there no longer be any classes and any need of a state. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not socialist for that reason (ie, a proletariat still exists). It also doesn't need to be authoritarian in the regular sense of the word or a brutal dictatorship or whatever. Lenin's concept of it, from before the October Revolution, was of a complete extension of democracy. Anyway, Marx and Engels kinda pinned this idea onto the Paris Commune, especially Engels, while at the same time saying that this was not and could not be socialism. It was only a means for the proletariat, for the majority of society, to begin dismantling the economic machinery that chained them to their class.

[Aurora]

Socialism is when the workers control the means of production.
No, socialism also called communism is a truly social system in which the means of production(factories, land, offices etc) belong to the whole of society, this is when there are no longer any classes at all, no capitalists no workers no peasants and through this common ownership production is planned in order to provide for the needs of all.



Is socialism also achived only when there are no money involved in the society?
Ya that's an important part, money is used in capitalism to facilitate commodity exchange, in socialism we will be producing for peoples needs instead so it wont be necessary, although in the beginning of socialism , usually called the lower phase, we will probably have to distribute goods based on work like in capitalism so if you give 6hours work in socialism you will receive a voucher entitling you to take 6hours (minus deductions) worth of goods from the social stock. Eventually as we can produce more and more we wont need this anymore and you can give as much as you can and take as much as you need, this is usually called the higher phase of socialism.



When a state is compleatly socialist, can you then call is "Communism in one state"
No, marxists believe that the state is an instrument of class rule, so in capitalism the state acts in the interests of the capitalists while in socialism when there are no classes anymore there wont be a need for a state, for example the capitalists states need a military to fight each other for markets and profit and they need a police force to deal with the struggle between workers and capitalists and to deal with crime caused by poverty.
Socialism will have no market and no profit so it wont need a military and socialism wont have any class struggle so it wont need a police force. So a socialist state can't exist by definition.

In order for us to get from capitalism to socialism it is necessary for the workers to take state power in the countries where they develop the ability this is usually called the workers state or dictatorship of the proletariat, this will inevitably happen first in one or a couple countries and will either spread all across the world and lay the basis for the development of socialism or, as has only been the case so far, it will fail to spread, become isolated and the revolution will fail resulting in the re-establishment of the capitalist state.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Rooster;
There are many socialists in my school (one of my best friends actually) and he says he support socialism. And says that socialism is a weak form of communism, but changed to fit better in society now a days.

What can I say to prove him wrong?
I said to him today in school:
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production, just like in communism, but free healthcare and education and less discrimination (women, minorities and black people etc) are just ways to improve society and to make it more universal and to help eliminate the class differences.

He said that socialism isn't communism, they want less class differences and less discrimination to black people and other forms of minority.
And that they don't want the workers to control everything


Is he right or is he plain/plane wrong? :p

[NorwegianCommunist]

By the way; The socialism you describe, is that regular socialism or any specific tendency of socialism?

[Blake's Baby]

The way we (except Leninists, Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists, but all the rest of us) use 'socialism' is the same as 'communism'. The way social democrats use 'socialism' is the way we use 'social democracy'.

In 1913, all the 'socialist' and 'social democratic' parties, pretty much were Marxist and ascribed to the overthrow of capitalism. They had agreed a resolution in the Socialist (2nd) International (written by Lenin and Luxemburg) agreeing to call strikes in the event of the war that was coming, and agreed that capitalism should not be supported in the event of war.

Most of them joined their 'own' bourgeoisies in World War One, arguing that whatever country they were from it needed defending against whatever bad guys their country was fighting. Germans declared that they needed to fight Tsarist tyranny, the French declared they needed to fight Prussian militarism, etc. They argued that instead of revolution, gradual reforms inside capitalism was a better way forward for the workers (after the nasty business of winning the war was over with).

So the former socialists and social-democrats changed what they believed and stood for. But they didn't change the names of their parties. So after WWI, there were a load of parties that were called 'socialist' but no longer stood for socialism, and there were a load of parties that stood for socialism or communism, that mostly began to call themselves 'communist'.

These days anyone can claim to be a socialist without believing in socialism, and most (not all) people who do believe in socialism - the socialism of the 2nd International - call themselves 'communists'.

[Le Socialiste]

Socialism is when the workers control the means of production.
Is socialism also achived only when there are no money involved in the society?
Or is that more of a communist principple?

When a state is compleatly socialist, can you then call is "Communism in one state"


Please help me with theese questions! =)
Have a good day.

There is little justification for the differentiation of socialism and communism, and many people consider them to be interchangeable. Communism is reached when society has transcended the divisions perpetuated under capitalism, whether through active struggle or the complete overthrow of the political and financial system. There is more to it than this, however; workers must organize their respective workplaces, industries, and professions, to be democratically managed by the collective as opposed to one-person management. Workers must seize control of the existing state, dismantle it, and proceed to establish the DotP. The existence of a monetary system is a relatively recent development in trade relations, only entering the scene during the growth and expansion of the market economy. Its sole purpose is one of exchange, underpinning an economic system that relies on profit and the accumulation of capital. If you abolish existing trade and market relations, produce goods and provide services according to need and not profit, the need for money gradually fades away.

Workers' control of production and distribution, according to need (not profit), the existence of democratic councils, assemblies, and congresses (organized from the bottom-up), a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the dismantlement of the monetary system (and class divisions along with it), are some, but not all, of the prerequisites for achieving communism. This must take on an international character as well - socialism in one country is not sustainable, nor is it really possible.

[noble brown]

i consider the term socialism to describe a transitory stage to communism. communism is stateless by definition and without a centralized government. but as someone earlier said the state minimally provides protection against other states, atleast when a state is developing communism. when states are individually developing communism then the central government is needed to provide a minimal of consolidated force to resist counter revolutionary trends from other state interests or internal nationalists. this period, what i consider to be socialism, often develops an authoritative strand due mainly to the fact that the revolutionary period often requires such a dramatic social and economic paradigm shift of which the masses are resistant to, due to forced ignorance by the status quo. however herein lies an inherent dilemma... communism is in my opinion pure democracy fully realized but the authoritarianism that has been the necessary result of individual states socializing is decidedly undemocratic though the argument often cited is the need for a momentary lapse of democracy for the future good of future communism. the correct paths of revolution absolutely depend on circumstance so the authoritarian path is by no means a foregone conclusion but since it is the overwhelmin course that most socialist revolutions have taken, at least those that have produced significant change or results, then this is a consideration.