Any Real Difference!

[T.A.Frawley]

Is there any real differences between communism, socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism?

Can communism even be separated from socialism in reality?

Is there anyway to via peaceful means as Gandhi or MLK promoted to bring the changes necessary to see some brand of socialism replace capitalism in the U.S. or will would it require a violent militarized overthrow?

I guess I'm a practical person and am not looking to study to death and talk to death the topic. I genuinely want to make a difference in the world and I'm beginning to believe that the only way to do it is either take away the pocket book of capitalists or hit it where it hurts with massive strikes so at the very least they will either have to raise wages to a living wage or go out of business, because they will have no workers.

You see I work in State Government. I'm all for Unions, but event the Unions in the U.S. seem to not have a balls anymore even though they are making lots of money on Union dues. My public employee Union negotiated away our right to strike a long time ago which IMO is only real leverage.

I just don't see the point at least for myself in studying all of this if there is no real chance of making the world a significantly better place for EVERYONE starting where I live!

[Pancakes Rühle]

Is there any real differences between communism, socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism?

Can communism even be separated from socialism in reality?

Is there anyway to via peaceful means as Gandhi or MLK promoted to bring the changes necessary to see some brand of socialism replace capitalism in the U.S. or will would it require a violent militarized overthrow?

I guess I'm a practical person and am not looking to study to death and talk to death the topic. I genuinely want to make a difference in the world and I'm beginning to believe that the only way to do it is either take away the pocket book of capitalists or hit it where it hurts with massive strikes so at the very least they will either have to raise wages to a living wage or go out of business, because they will have no workers.

You see I work in State Government. I'm all for Unions, but event the Unions in the U.S. seem to not have a balls anymore even though they are making lots of money on Union dues. My public employee Union negotiated away our right to strike a long time ago which IMO is only real leverage.

I just don't see the point at least for myself in studying all of this if there is no real chance of making the world a significantly better place for EVERYONE starting where I live!

It depends on who you ask. People have different definitions for each. In my opinion, which is based in Marx and influenced by left communism, I would tell you that socialism and communism are the same thing. I would tell you that social democracy was the name of the Marxist "party" back in the day, but changed to represent the welfare state and reformism. I would argue that democratic socialism is just utopian socialism with a misunderstanding of democracy, for the most part, but is also equatable to social democracy.

Unions are entities for working class defense, that can only exist within the context of capitalism. They are not revolutionary entities.

The problem is that neither you, nor me, will make the world a "better place". We cannot predict exactly what will happen, but we can look to the critique of capital, we can look to Marx and those who understood him, and see that the options will be destruction or socialism. In that, s understanding that the class itself will make the change, not individuals, not small groups, but the entirety of the working class.

[Stirnerian]

Typically this is going to be answered in a way that implies three different 'levels':

1. Social democracy - a classic 'mixed economy': the Second New Deal, the 'Scandinavian model', etc. Welfare capitalism with some slight measure of wealth redistribution.

2. Democratic socialism - in my experience, this is actually the most difficult to define. I would assume it bears a superficial resemblance to council communism, on a lesser scale; perhaps a system in which "the workers are the stockholders", and collectively vote on business decisions, just as capitalist stockholders do today.

3. Socialism - the collective ownership and administration, by those who work with them, of the means of production.

[John Nada]

Is there any real differences between communism, socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism?At one time they were synonyms, though democratic socialism in the literal sense would be redundant.

At the time of the 2nd International(an organization of socialists), socialism=communism=social democracy. They were synonyms. Marx would use socialism and communism interchangeable. His friend and co-founder of Marxism, Engels, did too, and also meant social democracy=communism at the time(19th century). The Communist were called Social Democrats.

However, after Engels died, two of their pupils, Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, were recognized as the successors of Marxism and influential members of the German Social Democrat Party. Bernstein took up Marxism with such zeal that he impressed Engels, who even made him executor in his will. Kautsky was once such a respected theorist that some called him the Pope of Marxism.

But Bernstein conveniently decided that Marx's and Engels's theories were wrong right after Engels died. He thought that since capitalism wasn't failing(him and Germany), this meant there was no more class struggle. The worker's weren't really exploited in his mind. The small businesspeople were still around and growing in number, not getting devoured by the capitalists. He thought that capitalism would eventually grown enough to make everyone a capitalist in a way, through the stock market. He thought that capitalism could "evolve" into socialism "peacefully". The day's of depressions and revolutions were over, just gradual progress forward. Except for the Germany's oppressed colonies. Persecuting Poles and massacring Africans was just the "White Man's Burden". He thought it was necessary for Germany to subjugate other peoples, but they should do it in a nicer, more "socialist" way.:lol: No need for a revolution, just a few reforms here and there to smooth things out.

Yet he ignored that things aren't in isolation and don't move in a straight line, but are interconnected and move in spirals or zig-zags. His theory of evolutionism and rejection of the facts Marx and Engels discovered would be the gold standard of what's called revisionism.

With Kautsky, he was a world renowned Marxist. Lenin joked he was probably more famous outside Germany. However, Germany launch attack on Russia, starting WWI. Most the Social Democrats in the German government voted to fund the war. When this was the chance to take charge and call for no war but class war, Kautsky started coming up with apologies and justifications dressed up in Marxist phrases. He proved to be what others' called him, a passive radical, nothing more.

And when the war ended, with the chance of a revolution in Germany and other countries, these very same Social Democrats that wanted to be "peaceful" massacred the left-wing of their party.

After this communists ceased calling themselves social democrats.
Can communism even be separated from socialism in reality?No, they're either synonymous or socialism is viewed as the transition to(under a worker's government) or lower phase of communism. A lot of tendencies get pissed if used in the second definition, because it's associated with Stalin(who they believe tried to usurped the true meaning for political reasons).
Is there anyway to via peaceful means as Gandhi or MLK promoted to bring the changes necessary to see some brand of socialism replace capitalism in the U.S. or will would it require a violent militarized overthrow?Hypothetically it's possible, but sadly unlikely.

1.For both of them the change was neither peaceful(there was riots, insurrections, and wars going on concurrently in both the Civil Rights and Indian Independence movements)
2.their pacifism is exaggerated(they weren't opposed to violence under all circumstances)
3.it was a step up but not revolutionary(there's still racism/capitalism in the US, and India even has an ongoing people's war)
4.there wasn't just those two people but a mass movement
5.All reforms can and will being undone. It's a constant struggle.
6. The ruling will likely be violent to some degree. They're violent now even when there's not(mostly) a revolutionary movement.
7. Sitting down and being martyrs won't make them feel bad and step down
8.They both got shot.
I guess I'm a practical person and am not looking to study to death and talk to death the topic. I genuinely want to make a difference in the world and I'm beginning to believe that the only way to do it is either take away the pocket book of capitalists or hit it where it hurts with massive strikes so at the very least they will either have to raise wages to a living wage or go out of business, because they will have no workers.They won't go out of business. You'll still have scabs and reactionary idiots. People still need to eat. Perceived leaders will be targeted. The picket-line can get a little tense. A sit-down strike and occupation is considered "violence" against the owner's property. It's can be intimidating.

The world can be a depressing and disheartening place. But that ball is in their court. If they are will to do bad, than roll with it and respond in kind.

I'm not attracted to Marxism because I want to relive the bloody past. I see it as a new way, where no child dies because it's not profitable to fed them. No sick person suffers because it's cheaper to let them die. No one is oppressed or privilege over others by accident of birth. No more empty houses yet people dying in the streets. End all wars over money with families caught in between. None is oppressed because they're the "other". Where we make what people need instead of useless trinkets. Protecting the earth, instead of destroying it in a quest for wealth, kill us all. Where over half of the world is no longer treated less because of gender. I want a child, who could have a mind like Newton or Einstein, yet is valued more for bondage than an education, to do what they want. Where we all work for each other, together, and not as a slave for some man that's great-great-great-grandfather built an empire on a mountain of bodies(which they add to). No longer is each person just a price tag, less than a machine, but a community of the human race. No selling your life to live, but to each to their needs to each to their ability. I see life, and an end to death, in the battle cry "Workers of All Nations, Unite!".

Capitalism cannot do this. It will end, just like feudalism and ancient societies. I want to make sure it's Communism, not Barbarism.[/quote]You see I work in State Government. I'm all for Unions, but event the Unions in the U.S. seem to not have a balls anymore even though they are making lots of money on Union dues. My public employee Union negotiated away our right to strike a long time ago which IMO is only real leverage.[/quote]51% of the world doesn't have balls. And that won't stop them.:)

Attach of the labor aristocracy!:ohmy:They don't have the guts. A union that won't strike is like whiskey without alcohol. No bite, but a lot of piss.

Please don't tell me it's that which is bad! Most of what I've said is likely alcohol+antihistamine induced delirium. It's mostly bullshit.:unsure:

If so, please do what many heroes/heroines have done for the people, lacking in theory they may be, giving up what they have for the general welfare.:confused:
I just don't see the point at least for myself in studying all of this if there is no real chance of making the world a significantly better place for EVERYONE starting where I live!You don't have study anything. However it's good to learn what's been tried and worked or failed, instead of re-inventing the wheel. And even if it's useless to you personally, who's to say it won't help someone else?

[RedWorker]

Is there any real differences between communism, socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism?

Communism is a movement of Marxists and anarchists who aim to establish a new social order based on the common ownership of the means of production through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and capitalist society.

Socialism is a broad movement about social equality, of which anarchism and communism are subsets.

Social democracy was revolutionary at first, then evolutionary (make changes until we're at to socialism), then reformist (make changes to capitalism to make it better), then neoliberal (austerity and so on).

Democratic socialism is a newer tendency that, seeing the degeneration of social democracy, aims to emulate reformist social democracy. It is also the tendency of a few Stalinist parties turned socialdemocratic, just like 'Eurocommunism'.


Can communism even be separated from socialism in reality?

If by 'socialism' you mean what exists now in the Nordic countries...

First of all, this model is working only for a smaller portion of the world (in capitalism a few which are still not the most privileged fewest can be happy at the expense of the largest majority);

Secondly, the problems are obvious. Homelessness, poverty, and others remain pervasive problems in these countries. There is still repressive police, etc. They are more similar than different to our own countries. They are also quickly degenerating, becoming worse, giving up things.


Is there anyway to via peaceful means as Gandhi or MLK promoted to bring the changes necessary to see some brand of socialism replace capitalism in the U.S. or will would it require a violent militarized overthrow?

When Marxists (not the violence fetishists that you see on RevLeft) say 'revolution', they mean 'social revolution', which means a process of social change. Marx used 'revolution' to mean both this and a violent overthrow interchangeably. Of course, it is rare for a social revolution to succeed without any violence.


I guess I'm a practical person and am not looking to study to death and talk to death the topic. I genuinely want to make a difference in the world and I'm beginning to believe that the only way to do it is either take away the pocket book of capitalists or hit it where it hurts with massive strikes so at the very least they will either have to raise wages to a living wage or go out of business, because they will have no workers.

Sure, theory is useless if there's no real actions. But real actions without theory are useless. There have been tons of strikes in the last 200 years, and we're still here. You can easily see that they act as a patch only, not as a solution - unless they're revolutionary strikes, which history has proven can alter things a lot more.


You see I work in State Government. I'm all for Unions, but event the Unions in the U.S. seem to not have a balls anymore even though they are making lots of money on Union dues. My public employee Union negotiated away our right to strike a long time ago which IMO is only real leverage.

Mainstream unions are sold-out bullshit everywhere. But in the U.S. you have the Industrial Workers of the World (http://www.iww.org/), which seems like a good union.


I just don't see the point at least for myself in studying all of this if there is no real chance of making the world a significantly better place for EVERYONE starting where I live!

Well, that's the same thing people said about liberalism in the old order, and so on. This certainly won't be easy nor fast, and anyone who joins needs to know this clearly. This is one of the reasons why leftism seems so attached to a culture (social interaction, songs, poems, etc.).

[T.A.Frawley]

Juan Moreno & RedWorker,

Thank you SOOO much for the wonderfully through replies. This really answered a lot of questions and really clarified some things for me. As a result I believe as I continue to read I will be less confused and overwhelmed.

I wish there were people who have "translated" some of the old writings of Marx and possibly others into more easily understood language like for example some have done with Bibles that are considered paraphrases. As you both have done for me here. Though I'll keep reading.

___________________________________

I've been searching the net and one of the things I've failed to find is any Marxist or other Socialist documentaries. Do any of you know documentaries like that.

[T.A.Frawley]

I just discovered the Contribute to Marxistpedia! after happening to look at RedWorker's signature area. This I'm also finding to be extremely excellent and easily understand and an excellent primer if you will.