How do you define capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.?

[Jacob Cliff]

The title may be too simplistic for the actual question, by one PM by a user pointed out the contextual implications of all these "-isms" – in other words, that capitalism (and socialism, etc.) are entire contexts, and not merely ideological preferences existing in a vacuum.

If this standpoint is accurate, how does one define each one of these contexts? I have hitherto defined capitalism as "private ownership of the means of production, production geared towards meeting profit rather than human need, and generalized commodity production. Socialism, I have defined as any movement advocating social ownership of the means of production. Communism, I usually designate as a stateless and classless society. Are these definitions 'correct'? I understand these are more ideological than contextual, but that is precisely what I'm trying to overcome.

Thanks

[tuwix]

Your definitions are correct form Marxist perspective with an exception that Marx recognized communism and socialism as the same. But those definition will differ slightly with tendency. Anarchists will say that socialism with state is impossible, etc.

[ComradeAllende]

The title may be too simplistic for the actual question, by one PM by a user pointed out the contextual implications of all these "-isms" – in other words, that capitalism (and socialism, etc.) are entire contexts, and not merely ideological preferences existing in a vacuum.

If this standpoint is accurate, how does one define each one of these contexts? I have hitherto defined capitalism as "private ownership of the means of production, production geared towards meeting profit rather than human need, and generalized commodity production. Socialism, I have defined as any movement advocating social ownership of the means of production. Communism, I usually designate as a stateless and classless society. Are these definitions 'correct'? I understand these are more ideological than contextual, but that is precisely what I'm trying to overcome.

Thanks

As far as I can tell, each ideological tendency will have its own subjective definition of -isms.

Marxists (and most other anti-capitalists) argue that capitalism is how you put it: generalized commodity production, private ownership of the means of production, etc. Capitalist apologists, on the other hand, tend to argue that capitalism is the "free and voluntary exchange of goods and services in a market," as if the imposition of the state in regulating markets and/or setting prices is intrinsically anti-capitalist (rather than dependent on the social context).

Most Marxists will say that socialism is the lower-stage of communism, where the means of production are controlled by the working class and the other reactionary classes are subordinated and their holdings confiscated. Non-Marxists socialists and non-socialists differ significantly over the terms socialism and communism; some view the former as a traditionally mixed economy, with a combination of state-run enterprises, private businesses, and a welfare state. Non-socialists tend to view the latter as complete nationalization of the economy and Soviet-style centralized planning.

[Synergy]

I tend to view socialism as an umbrella term for worker controlled productions; whereas communism and anarchism are each a method of achieving it.

[Blake's Baby]

Everyone is right that different people and groups define things differently.

I think ComradeAllende is wrong that most Marxist define socialism as 'the lower stage of communism' though. I conducted a poll to find out precisely this point. I posted the poll in answer to someone else claiming that their definition was if not 'correct', then at least the most widely-accepted definition, and out of more than 100 respondents, less than 1/4 gave that definition of socialism. I can only conclude that either more than 75% of the people on RevLeft aren't Marxists, or that ComradeAllende is using a very unpopular definition, while claiming it's the generally-accepted one.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialismi-t183513/index.html?t=183513

[ComradeAllende]

Everyone is right that different people and groups define things differently.

I think ComradeAllende is wrong that most Marxist define socialism as 'the lower stage of communism' though. I conducted a poll to find out precisely this point. I posted the poll in answer to someone else claiming that their definition was if not 'correct', then at least the most widely-accepted definition, and out of more than 100 respondents, less than 1/4 gave that definition of socialism. I can only conclude that either more than 75% of the people on RevLeft aren't Marxists, or that ComradeAllende is using a very unpopular definition, while claiming it's the generally-accepted one.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialismi-t183513/index.html?t=183513

My mistake. I recalled reading somewhere that socialism was the generally-used term for the "lower-stage" of communism in Marxists tendencies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Socialism" and "communism" can mean either a kind of society or movement; in the former sense, most of us use the two terms as interchangeable (I prefer "socialism" when I want to underline that it is society that controls production in the classless society). In the latter sense, "communism" can designate Leninists and anarcho-communists as against syndicalists etc., but since syndicalism is mostly dead...


As far as I can tell, each ideological tendency will have its own subjective definition of -isms.

Marxists (and most other anti-capitalists) argue that capitalism is how you put it: generalized commodity production, private ownership of the means of production, etc. Capitalist apologists, on the other hand, tend to argue that capitalism is the "free and voluntary exchange of goods and services in a market," as if the imposition of the state in regulating markets and/or setting prices is intrinsically anti-capitalist (rather than dependent on the social context).

Most Marxists will say that socialism is the lower-stage of communism, where the means of production are controlled by the working class and the other reactionary classes are subordinated and their holdings confiscated. Non-Marxists socialists and non-socialists differ significantly over the terms socialism and communism; some view the former as a traditionally mixed economy, with a combination of state-run enterprises, private businesses, and a welfare state. Non-socialists tend to view the latter as complete nationalization of the economy and Soviet-style centralized planning.

I don't think this is really true. If it were the case that each of us has "their own" definition of words, we would be like "anarcho-capitalists" - obviously you can "win" any argument by carefully defining the terms you use, so that "idiot" is defined to be anyone who opposes you, and "capitalism" (or "communism") is defined as the bestest thing ever and composed exclusively of angel dust and unicorn farts, but you haven't said anything interesting. A socialist talks the same language as people around him. When we say that capitalism is generalised commodity production through generalised wage labor on means of production that are privately owned, we are saying something about capitalism as the term is generally used, and about those societies (nearly) everyone considers capitalist, we're not speaking some kind of private language. Likewise, the ichthyologist who says that a shark is an elasmobranch is saying something about the thing that most people (who speak English) refer to with the sounds "shark", they're not redefining the term "shark".

"Non-Marxist socialists" surely means "anarchists"; I don't think they view socialism as social-democracy. Some social-democratic parties call themselves socialist for historic reasons, sure, just like some liberal parties call themselves the Radical-Socialist or Radical and Socialist Party, but they don't claim to be socialists.

[ComradeAllende]

I don't think this is really true. If it were the case that each of us has "their own" definition of words, we would be like "anarcho-capitalists" - obviously you can "win" any argument by carefully defining the terms you use, so that "idiot" is defined to be anyone who opposes you, and "capitalism" (or "communism") is defined as the bestest thing ever and composed exclusively of angel dust and unicorn farts, but you haven't said anything interesting. A socialist talks the same language as people around him. When we say that capitalism is generalised commodity production through generalised wage labor on means of production that are privately owned, we are saying something about capitalism as the term is generally used, and about those societies (nearly) everyone considers capitalist, we're not speaking some kind of private language. Likewise, the ichthyologist who says that a shark is an elasmobranch is saying something about the thing that most people (who speak English) refer to with the sounds "shark", they're not redefining the term "shark".

Unfortunately, few people accept the "classic" definition of a socialist/communist society, which is a classless and stateless association of free producers. Most people today think of "socialism" as state-ownership and "communism" as Soviet-style central planning; the fact that they're wrong doesn't change the reality that socialists and the lay masses are talking about two completely different things. Most people still associate "capitalism" with "free markets" despite the different implications of each term, although this is less pronounced with the Millennials. This gives us an opening to re-define socialism and provide a new symbol for the socialist movement; less "Soviet power" and more "Paris Commune", if you catch my drift.


"Non-Marxist socialists" surely means "anarchists"; I don't think they view socialism as social-democracy. Some social-democratic parties call themselves socialist for historic reasons, sure, just like some liberal parties call themselves the Radical-Socialist or Radical and Socialist Party, but they don't claim to be socialists.

Probably. There used to be a number of socialist groups before Marx came around, but most of those were either utopian or would be considered "social democratic". Haven't met that many revolutionary socialists in person; the few self-described ones that I've seen are either anarchists or social democrats.

[Loganauer]

"revolutionary socialists" is mutually exclusive with "social democrats" unless social democrat means something different to you than "capitalism with a wellfare state"


Responding to the OP: Capitalism in my mind refers to "private ownership of the means of production" typically in conjunction with market economics

Socialism refers to "collectivized ownership of the means of production" and can also refer to the highly disciplined transitionary state between capitalism and communism that exists to fight capitalist forces globally

Communism refers to Utopia, leaderless, classless, does not use a monetary system, and is synonymous with anarchism. Communism is what happens after socialism, it is the goal of all leftists, unless you consider social democrats leftists.

From my understanding, marxists believe that a socialist state is absolutely necessary to fight capitalism before communism may be implemented and anarchists believe that full communism must be fully implemented immediately post-revolution, or some form of libertarian socialism which serves a purpose similar to the soviet union but without any authoritarian elements.

I might be wrong about a few things, it's just my understanding.

[Blake's Baby]

... Most people today think of "socialism" as state-ownership and "communism" as Soviet-style central planning...

And where is your evidence for this? You claimed it before, I posted something to show you might not actually be right about it, you accepted you weren't right, now you've claimed it again.

[Jacob Cliff]

And where is your evidence for this? You claimed it before, I posted something to show you might not actually be right about it, you accepted you weren't right, now you've claimed it again.
Without a doubt most people believe that lmao. Where do you live? In the United States socialism has become a synonym for "government doing stuff," and communism as the extreme version of this.

[ComradeAllende]

And where is your evidence for this? You claimed it before, I posted something to show you might not actually be right about it, you accepted you weren't right, now you've claimed it again.

It's pretty self-evident that the average American's definition of "socialism" is light-years away from how people on RevLeft define it. Your average dictionary will say something about "social ownership of the means of production", and most publications in the US will trot that out, followed by a quick addendum that clarifies it to mean state-ownership or intervention in the economy (as opposed to market-based approaches).

Take the coverage of Bernie Sanders, for instance. If you watched the first (or second) GOP presidential debates, Chris Christie jokingly referenced Sanders' allegiance to "socialism", implying that basically anybody to the left of Bill Clinton is a "socialist" for supporting "big government." Hell, during the debates about the stimulus packages, Newsweek magazine had the title "We're all Socialists Now", with the caption of how "big government" had returned as a serious foundation for public policy. And the fact that mainstream outlets are accepting his claim at face value tells you a lot about the red-baiting misconstructions that have been baked into the American consciousness.

If you're even bolder, read some unabashedly apologetic publications like Reason or the National Review. Their publications, while insightful, tend to conflate the very nature of government planning with "socialism" and engage in the fallacious "market-vs.-government" debate that does nothing but muddy the waters. And don't even get me started on their commentators. I know that online comments should be taken with a (huge) grain of salt, but they're useful to gain insight into the mindset of a given ideology's followers, whether it be capitalism, (American) conservatism and liberalism, or even revolutionary socialism.

And not to nitpick, but you're wrong in saying that I'm repeating an argument that I myself admitted to be false. You proved me wrong on the issue of socialism being associated with "lower-stage communism" among Marxists, not on the issue of socialism being associated with state ownership or regulation in mainstream American discourse.

[Blake's Baby]

It's pretty self-evident that the average American's definition of "socialism" is light-years away from how people on RevLeft define it...

It's pretty self-evident that Americans only make up 5% of the world population. How come they now make up more than 50% of the world's opinion?

[ComradeAllende]

It's pretty self-evident that Americans only make up 5% of the world population. How come they now make up more than 50% of the world's opinion?

Simple: they get 50%, their allies get 25%, and the rest goes to everybody else :laugh:

But in all seriousness, the US has monopolized power and remains the dominant superpower in the modern world. It's industrial and economy prowess, while diminished in recent years, is still considerable; it's also the only "recovering" economy in town, given China's slowdown and Europe's austerity-ridden stagnation. Any resurgence in revolutionary-left activity must have a strong American element to have any chance of success, and how can revolutionary socialists succeed in the US when any talk of "socialism" brings to mind the welfare state and Glenn Beck's conspiracy theories???

[Blake's Baby]

That's what I thought. When you say 'the majority' you mean 'the majority of my very narrow sample culled from one place and one social group'.

[revnoon]

Capitalism is private ownership that means all stores or businessess is own by owner of say the store or business than have workers and managers. All profit goes to the owner and he or she is boss.

A corporation is own by shareholders where the profit goes to CEO and VP and workers get little to no profit.

Socialism does away with this and put store, business and corporation in the hands of the people. The working class people run and own and control it!!

Under proper Socialism the Marx and Lenin Socialism is brigade to Communism where there is no country, state, money, class, hierarchy no such thing rich and poor people!!

No money, market or wealth!!! Think star trek!!! Where Capitalism is Ferengi in star trek the evil Ferengi plotting for more profit and wealth. And Communism is star fleet the star trek. All money, market or wealth is gone and no such thing like rich or poor people.