Socialism vs. Communism

[Subversive Pessimist]

Is there a big difference?

[RedAnarchist]

Socialism in Communism is the stage between Capitalism and the Communist Utopia.

Socialism by itself is Communism, except that it doesnt lead to Communism.

I dunno how right i am though.

[The Feral Underclass]

Socialism has three definitions.

1) It is the stage between capitalism and communism
2) It is a revolutionary political state in and of itself
3) It is a reformist form of politics

The difference between socialism and communism is that socialism relies on a state to organize society where as communism is a society without a state. Socialism in all three definitions also consists of a government and instutions there of, which communism also does not have.

Communism is a society without a state, government, hierarchy and thus class. Socialism is a society with a state, government and thus hierarchy and class.

[The Role Of Ideology]

Communism is not Utopian, Marx said himself that even as communism progresses society and circumstance will ALWAYS present problems.

[Nas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:32 PM
Is there a big difference?
yes , there is a difference , although prejudist people think there is no difference between socialists and communists


Socialism is what is before Communism, so in order to reach Communism you gotta pass through Socialism

and when i mean pass , i mean society has to experience Socialism for a long period of time, just like society experienced Capitalism


and no Communism is not Utopian

[Essential Insignificance]

Socialism is what is before Communism, so in order to reach Communism you gotta pass through Socialism

Perhaps…but for how long.



and when i mean pass , i mean society has to experience Socialism for a long period of time, just like society experienced Capitalism


A you suggestive of the proposition, that society, a society post-proletarian revolution, coming out of the social structure and economic basis, of a highly industrialised capitalist nation, must in order for communism to in conclusion materialize; there needs to be, with assuredness, an extended "Dictatorship of the Proletarian", to last for…100 years plus.

Nonsense.

I believe that Marx, conjectured with not too much conviction and infrequently in advance, that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"…should last for a generation, say 60 years; this is a gross mistake on behalf of Marx…but as Marx himself too constantly pointed out; that we, as individuals and as a general populace, are "products" of our proportioned time and our given material conditions in the given timeframe of our given mode of production and the division that labour, that has happened naturally in progression…this was a mistake because of the times that Marx wrote his revolutionary objectives, I believe. The 19th century and the 21st century are very different…generally, that is, to proclaim.

However…not being that, of the standard of Marx and Engel’s I feel illaqueated to ratify, what would be the best quantity of occasion for the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"…if one at all…but unquestionably, diminutive then a that of a generation.

It’s going to be up to the proletariat to be the arbitrator.

[Timon of Athens]

The Utopia of Communism?! First of all, that is a contradiction in terms. Marx was against Utopian Socialists, those who thought that the state of society they were planning would be the final one. His aim was to have us, as a people think critically, analyze absolutely everything. Did you ever notice that Marx never left a 'blueprint' for communism? There are two reasons for that. The first is that times and circumstances are constantly changing (believe it or not, he was one of the only young Hegelians to pick up on this) and to accomodate that, the 'blueprint' would have to change, dramatically. And so even his own work, he recognised, would have to be analysed. Marx never saw communism as a 'utopia'. In fact, I think he'd be very disappointed if we never saw any problems in it. :D
Second of all, though the two are often seperated, communism is essentially one of the many forms of socialism. The difference between communism and different particular forms of socialism.

[ComradeRed]

Redstar2000 knows
What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
What is Socialism? An attempt at a brief definition (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
And Marxism for dummies (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[sanpal]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2004, 01:33 PM
Socialism has three definitions.

1) It is the stage between capitalism and communism
2) It is a revolutionary political state in and of itself
3) It is a reformist form of politics

The difference between socialism and communism is that socialism relies on a state to organize society where as communism is a society without a state. Socialism in all three definitions also consists of a government and instutions there of, which communism also does not have.

Communism is a society without a state, government, hierarchy and thus class. Socialism is a society with a state, government and thus hierarchy and class.
Exactly true ... but with one more addition. Not every socialism is able to "relies on a state to organize society where as communism is a society without a state." You see that usual bourgeois socialism (the Social Democracy) in many modern countries does not let to arise any communes as a different economic system (nonmarket one). You see that the Utopian socialism (a type elaborated by Evgeny Duhring who was criticized by F. Engels) such as the former USSR and another "socialist" countries were not able to do it.

It is supposed that only a democratic proletarian socialism can create communes based on selfgovernment with nonmarket economic system (NES) (which needs special discussion) inside the State. Cooperation of such communes will make up a communist sector inside the socialist State. The majority of the proletarian deputies in the socialist parliament will guarantee protection of developing communist sector. Further only PRACTICE can point is communism well or bad. If communist relations between people are more attractive and if NES is more effective than market one so the communist sector will be grown and it will replace the capitalist sector naturally, so the role of the State will be decreased and the State will "wither away". Otherwise communist sector will disappear step by step or the ratio between capitalist and communist sectors will come to balance.

[Essential Insignificance]

The Utopia of Communism?! First of all, that is a contradiction in terms. Marx was against Utopian Socialists, those who thought that the state of society they were planning would be the final one. His aim was to have us, as a people think critically, analyze absolutely everything. Did you ever notice that Marx never left a 'blueprint' for communism? There are two reasons for that. The first is that times and circumstances are constantly changing (believe it or not, he was one of the only young Hegelians to pick up on this) and to accomodate that, the 'blueprint' would have to change, dramatically. And so even his own work, he recognised, would have to be analysed. Marx never saw communism as a 'utopia'. In fact, I think he'd be very disappointed if we never saw any problems in it.
Second of all, though the two are often seperated, communism is essentially one of the many forms of socialism. The difference between communism and different particular forms of socialism.

Nonetheless, there are many points that can be extracted from a lot of Marx’s and Engel’s work, that directly and indirectly specify, to a degree, how they thought communism would turn out, subsequent to proletarian revolution.