What Is The difference between socalism and communisum - Wha

[Unknown]

What Is The difference between socalism and communisum, i know all about communisum like all companys are owned by the state such such but what exactly os socalisum and whats the difference

DO NOT GO ON ABOUT HOW I SHOULD KNOW THIS AND GET OFF THIS FOURM AND SHIT BEACUSE I MIGHT NOT KNOW BUT IM WILLING TO LEARN

[deadpool 52]

One difference between the two:
In communism there is NO government.

[Revolution Hero]

Socialism is the state structure with the set form of the dictatorship of proletariat. It is characterized by the state ownership of the industrial sphere of economy. Economy is regulated by the state, that is called command system of economics. During the socialism the state have to develop it's economical level and reach the total welfare of the society. As a result of the development all the classes in the society have to be destroyed, marking the age of communism.
Communism is the society without classes and no state. The whole character of labour changes. From the mean of existing it evolves to the life necessity, something an individual wishes to do and enjoys it.
Communism is the society of the future and can be achieved only with the help of longlasting development of socialist state.

[man in the red suit]

communsim is just a form of socialism

differences:

1) in socialism you are allowed private ownership of businesses unlike communism where everything is government owned

2)you cannot own land in communism as you may in socialism

3) communism does not allow inheritance rights as does socialism

its little differences like that. And communism stresses anarchy more, although this can never happen. It sounds good in theory but people will not simply adapt yo this harmonious way of life. The government would have to keep control to ensure equality.

the main thing they have in common though is that they both create equality. In socialism, the owners of private businesses are taxed according to their salary whereas in communism there are no private ownerships.

I, personally lean towards socialism however I believe that current democratic socialism in its current form is too capitalist for my tastes.

Go to the theory forum and then go to community union socialism to see the new form of socialism which me and Gacky created.

[Fires of History]

Yeah, whatever you and Gacky created is shit to me, you fucking rapists. You're no Comrades.

[man in the red suit]

I seriously want to fucking smack your dumbass now,
firey fuckhead. You are getting on my nerves. I try to make it pure and simple that it was an insensitive....
fuck it. why should I have to tell your dumbass again.
I obviously can't get a thing into your thick head. I've told you about 1 million times but you either ignore me or don't want to hear what I'm trying to tell you. Do something more useful with your time than annoying me.
I felt truly guiltyand upset for the whole day and couldn't help but feel sorry for your sister and how inconsiderate it was for me to say such a horrible thing. I still feel bad for your sis if you are telling the truth but lately I just think that you have the urge to annoy someone. I mean really, who the hell wastes their time to constantly harass a person?

I AM NOT A FUCKING RAPIST. I NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE. I DO NOT CONDONE IT EITHER AND HATE THOSE WHO COMMIT THE ACT.

although this is true, I posted the joke up anyway because I thought it was funny in a sick way. I realize it was not. I will never post anything that deals with a touchy topic like that again. I am still apologizing to you now because i feel so bad. But really, if you havent gotten it yet, you probly never will. You are quite frankly, ignorant and stupid. I will say nothing more. If you really have nothing better to do than bother me, I guess there's nothing I can do about it.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 10:28 am on May 26, 2002)


(Edited by man in the red suit at 10:32 am on May 26, 2002)


(Edited by man in the red suit at 10:34 am on May 26, 2002)

[BOZG]

Funny in a sick way is something you find from Rotten.com not a poem about committing rape.

[man in the red suit]

ok ok ok. fuck me fuck me. it was horrible and even evil.
what do you want from me? I have apologized in every way i can and i DO mean it. I don't know how the thought that it would be ok to do so, crossed my mind but it did. agh! you people are out for blood!!!

[Vladimir]

Hey where is this poem, i wanna read it!

[man in the red suit]

NO,
it was evil for me to ever had posted it and i will never post it again or anything else like it. I am stupid for having posted it and I'm not about to make more enemies by posting it again. I wish I had never posted it. I feel really guilty and sorry for firey's sister. If I had known about his sister, it probly would of stopped me from posting it. Luckily I erased it before anyone else can get offended. I don't expect to be forgiven by the firey history but I'm not going to make the same mistake twice!

If you really want an idea of how bad it was, go to literature then go to some "lyrics/poetry i wrote," or something to that effect. then go to the last page. You will see all the foul things that foh called me, which i guess i deserved to be called at the time. Foh has really taken this too far though. he harasses me everywhere he can. you think someone would have better things todo with his life.

let's put it this way. the poem was very very very bad.
I realize the mistake I made. Let's drop it already!!

[Unknown]

How did we get from talking about the diffrence of communisum and socalisum to talking about poems about rape!!!!

In communisum dose every one get paid the same and are the laws the same or less strickt

[man in the red suit]

in communism the laws are much MORE strict
and yes, everyone gets payed the same.

[BOZG]

There are variations on how much people get payed. Some would say that people should be payed on how skilled they are and on how much they work but I disagree and I think everyone should be payed the same. Paying people different wages on how skilled they are, creates splits in the working class and is the beginning of a new upper class.

[man in the red suit]

yeah, in our socialism, lardlad suggested salary caps but I don't agree that that would be equal. I believe in equal liability of all to labour.

[lenin]

paying everyone is the same is a stupid fucking idea as it would never work! why should a doctor go through 7 years of training and hard work when he can just get a job at a factory?
the way it should work is, the more you advance in your field (whatever field, be it medical or steel worker), you should get more benefits. like cars, house or whatever. this way, people are rewarded for there hard work. as soon as they die though, property becomes property of the state. so there are NO privalages to anyone. everyone is born equally.

[Nateddi]

Well said, Lenin

MITRS, a couple mistakes:

1 - laws are not more strict.

2 - nobody gets paid the same

The laws can be more or less strict, the economic system has nothign to do with laws whatsoever. People vote for what they want, if they want legal abortion, they can vote for it.

People don't get paid the same either. "Everybody is equal" is a dumb capitalist claim when they describe communism. A classless society is not an equal society (in the sense of the word). Since there isn't a bourgeois under communism, as a result the difference in wages won't be too great (not even comparable to what it is under capitalism ofcourse), however different contributions to society pay different wages. Not greatly different to have a class society, especially since everyone is entitled to free services such as free healthcare, cheap housing, free education, etc; regardless of their career.

I know many people (such as yourself I assume), are having trouble to debate with friends about economics, so therefore you denounce communism just so they listen to you. Well not here, what you said about communism is quite frankly textbook capitalist bullshit.

All I see socialism is, I see it as a transitionary phase during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, where the major means of production (factories, powerplants, major other industries) are owned by the state under democratic centralism; at the same time, private enterprise is highly regulated (for unfair practices), and limited to smaller commerce. This withers away as the bourgeois and the bourgeois resistance gets smaller (as they lose control of major means of production, they fall apart and are no longer an influence on society), the democratic centralism evolves into complete people's economic democracy. This had a problem in the USSR because the glorious 1917 revolution came in a place not ready for communism (semi-feudal, backward Russia); therefore with the need to build up industry, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat lasted well past world war II (in my opinion). Another problem was that the bourgeois did not go away (the bourgeois was in the US, always ready to provide rightist economic push to russia if they shifted away to a greatly freer society).

That is communism (the leninist / marxist-leninist aspect of it) from start to finish.

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:43 am on May 28, 2002)

[Unknown]

That sounds like a valid explanation exept for one thing that is i dont under stand half those words, you see im not just and ideot trying to be communist cause its cool, i REALLY want to learn about it all but my local libary is just a panthium of capitalist propaganda seriously you find books like bush is cool and bush and the teletubbies its sick, i have strong spirit but cant access knowlage therefor have no power

BASICLY explain what you just said like you were talking to a deaf baby......

[lenin]

(Edited by lenin at 5:35 pm on May 28, 2002)

[lenin]

it is impossible to define socialism as it is used to describe so many things. ie the ruling pary in england is the labour party. they class themselves as democratic socialists howevet, hitlers ruling party was called national socialists! there is such a massive differene in these governments it would be difficult to know where to begin! but they both describe themselves as socialist!
politically and socially, socialism is a movement that beleives in the rights of the many not the few. that is why hitler called himslef a socialist. he believed in the rights of the majority (the aryans).
economically, socialism is a system where the major means of production are in the hands of the state. eg, transport, communications, heavy industry, oil, coal. all of these industries are run by the state. the theory being, if the state holds the money, it can spread the wealth throughout the people rather than all of it going to some tycoon. eg, if microsoft earns $10billion a year, it mainly goes to bill gates, but if microsoft was nationalised and owned by the government, that $10billion would mostly go to the people instead. understand?
communism socially and politically is basically internationalism. which means no boundires for countries, all races live together harmoniously etc. it usually sticks up for such social issues as pro-choice, gay rights, anti-racism, anti-zionism etc.
communism economically is where ALL land is owned by the people, the state. however, the state slowly withers away because the workers learn to carry out the tasks of the economy for thereselves. and despite what you might of heard, everyone DOES NOT get paid the same. the marxist theory is 'each according to his ability, each according to his needs'. you get rewarded for hard-work with material benefits rather than mone like in capitalism but when you die, it goes back to the state so there is no heriditary privalages. eventually, a communist economy has no government. the economy is taken over by the workers in a super-democracy. this takes time though, a LONG time!
i hope this has explained it. ask if you don't understand anything.

[Nateddi]

Well said once again Lenin, you get a red star! http://revolucion42.homestead.com/Files/star.gif.


Unknown, here are some basic terms you should know, than re-read my responce.

Bourgeois - they are the basic capitalists / owners of the means of production, the employers who hire the employees, the upper class

Proletariat - they are the working class, those who have no means of production of their own, and therefore must sell their labor to survive.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat - this is the transitory phase from capitalism to communism; the proletariat dictates over the bourgeois until it is crushed and is no longer an influence on society. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the major means of production (energy, factories, etc) is owned by the state under democratic centralism. This withers away as the bourgeois does, when it moves into communism.

Means of production - the labor, the factories, everything which is needed to produce a product.

Hope that helps

[man in the red suit]

I agree that I have made a mistake on the strict rule concept; you were right, they could be more or less strict. I really don't know why you think I'm a capitalist though. That doesn't seem clear to me. I try to explain socialism in an honest way while still trying to support.
I don't follow you at all. How is what I said capitalist?
In communism everyone is equal. How is this any different from the truth. Yes, I agree with the transitionary period that you spoke of but in communism, everyone has equal salaries, that is the way it has been since it was applied to any country.Communism is equality. No need to get into the "your a stupid capitalist" attacks, just tell me why you think I'm wrong. I really don't understand what you mean. ???????????????

And lenin, Why do you think that equal salaries is a stupid idea. I get that "doctors and farmers" argument all the time. Have you not heard of utopian communism? Equal salaries won't work in a large countries like in the ussr but in small communes it works flawlessly. The peoples' only motive to get ordinarily high paying jobs, is to help the people. And when one erson stops working, the entire system breaks down. This is incentive enough to keep a proletariot working. This is one of those things that you would have to see to believe. Go to a commune in southern Norway and you'l see what I'm talking about.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 1:08 am on May 29, 2002)

[artfuldodger]

anarchy is less complicated, maybe it will never work, but I will have fun trying.

[marxistdisciple]

I like the idea of people getting more benefits for going higher in their field - whatever that happens to be. I think if people got paid different "wages" for different jobs in communism, you may see a lot of capitalist problems that we have now. For instance, shortgaes in nurses, because they don't get paid as well as they should. I think because everyone has different aspirations, and wants out of life, communism will help relaise people's true potential. If someone wants to be a musician for instance, there would be no such thing as "record contracts" or "mass marketing" because people would simply choose the kind of music they liked. therefore, better music would be be more popular. This is one of the many beneifts of communism as I see it. As people would get equal rights to their needs, regardless of job, you would always have somewhere to live, and food to eat. that is an amazing concept, and something completely unachievable under capitalism! I know it's off topic, but does anyone have any ideas about the future (or non future) of advertising under communism? (hehehe) It would be great in an amazing utopia, not being bombared by commericials for bloody shampoo and washing powder. lol But would it dissappear completely, or would people still try to get people to use their products, or get their music etc? Actually that's really off topic, but answer if you like.

[Charango]

I just read over this thread... I have a much clearer view of communism now! Thank you, everyone who posted information here! I'm like Unknown; I don't know a lot but I'd like to learn... Thanks again! Man, I can't stand the cappie liars who try to distort everything...

[Nateddi]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 12:59 am on May 29, 2002
I agree that I have made a mistake on the strict rule concept; you were right, they could be more or less strict. I really don't know why you think I'm a capitalist though. That doesn't seem clear to me. I try to explain socialism in an honest way while still trying to support.
I don't follow you at all. How is what I said capitalist?
In communism everyone is equal. How is this any different from the truth. Yes, I agree with the transitionary period that you spoke of but in communism, everyone has equal salaries, that is the way it has been since it was applied to any country.Communism is equality. No need to get into the "your a stupid capitalist" attacks, just tell me why you think I'm wrong. I really don't understand what you mean. ???????????????

And lenin, Why do you think that equal salaries is a stupid idea. I get that "doctors and farmers" argument all the time. Have you not heard of utopian communism? Equal salaries won't work in a large countries like in the ussr but in small communes it works flawlessly. The peoples' only motive to get ordinarily high paying jobs, is to help the people. And when one erson stops working, the entire system breaks down. This is incentive enough to keep a proletariot working. This is one of those things that you would have to see to believe. Go to a commune in southern Norway and you'l see what I'm talking about.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 1:08 am on May 29, 2002)


I didn't call you a capitalist, I said that you were describing communism as any smart anticommunist person would describe it.

[Hattori Hanzo]

This topic has been long overdo

[Fabi]

overdue maybe?


not all forms of socialism or communism have to include a state.
not all socialists are anarchists, but all anarchists are socialists. and in anarchy (libertarian socialism, communist anarchism) you dont have a state that could act oppressive.

i apologize for any mistakes i might have made there...

also i suggest you better not get into any arguments about communism/capitalism/anarchism merely based on ideas presented in this thread.

the communist manifesto by marx and engels
as well as lenin's 'state and revolution' might be interesting.
also the faq on anarchism at anarchismfaq.org is quite good... (and a more recent edition than the one you can find on che-lives... here it's 9.0, there they have the 9.6..... not that it makes much of a difference...)

[Lefty]

thank you all very much, as i understand more now

[apollyon1515]

In a parallel sense of the term, communism is to socialism what nirvana is to the path of enlightenment. it is the endpoint in a struggle to establish a utopian society. as with any other goal, you must transistion the people through means of cooperative teaching and moral-economic-institutional reconstruction in order to have them realize the true concept of communism- socialism is just the stepping stone to ease a classless and homogeneous society into poeple's minds on the path to communism. Also. some of you may want to check your quotes. Fascism, coming from the Italian word Fasciso- was a term invented by Moussilini in the late 1920's to describe his self styled gov't, this was after Lenin had already died, and as for you Lefty, what are you going to do- ASK the government and other oppressive institutions to destroy themselves? "freedom of speech" is a term which was created by the government to suit their needs, of course they're going to advocate peaceful change and rebellion, it's easier to control. Of course, it is also more convenient for talkers and innefective tree-huggers to hide behind. But then again, may we compare the number of successful revolutions cause by non-violent movements as opposed to armed insurrections? :-)

[maoist3]

I agree with the third posting, which was
by RevolutionHero. I think after that, this
thread got a little confused.

Communism is NOT total income equality:
according to Marx, it is "to each according to his/her
need." People in hospitals after accidents need more.

If we look at the classless societies that are pre-
industrial, they also do not have income equality,
just more relative to capitalism today.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html

[Dynatos]

I think in true communism there are no wages. each worker workes to supply the community or the 'state' with goods and in return they are given everything they need to live for free(shelter, food, water, entertainment, ect.). each item belongs to the community and therfor everyone owns it. This would solve alot of problems: theft (why would someone steal something if they can just go to the market and get it for free) poverty, starvation (exeryone would have acces to free food), greed (it would be imposible to have more goods than amyone else) murder (most murders are caused by greed). It's allot like how the indians (native americans) lived. It would truly be a utopia.

[Linksradikaler]

Huh? This thread has gone WAY off track.

IDEALLY, socialism is not all that different from capitalism, except for the class that makes the big decisions. This means that the basic structure of capitalism remains, but its control is placed in the hands of representatives of the workers who keep it running. In other words, all the profit that was being skimmed off and given to shareholders now goes back to the workers in their paychecks and benefits packages. Socialism is still MONEY-BASED, in one way or another. This is the major difference between it and communism (though there are many other differences).

To put it simply: you can't go to the store and get what you haven't earned (past the subsistence point), just like under capitalism.

Under communism, however, the "middle man" of money is eliminated. Theoretically, work-life and social-life become so integrated that you just produce what you can produce, I just produce what I can produce, and we both consume what we need. No more, no less. Economic growth becomes a very slow, very steady upward curve and all the problems of capitalism stabilize. A good goal, but I consider it wishful thinking.

[Weidt]

Well, I find none of the "explainations" on the differences between Communism and Socialism to be of much help, so let me squash your petty arguments over the State, class, etc.

Socialism is a socio-economic system where the workers control the means of production and strives for egalitarianism (complete equality). As such there may or may not be a State, a ruling and ruled class, libertarian/democratic, or authoritarian, etc.

Communism is a socio-political theory based on dialetic and historical materialism, founded by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, that outlines a revolutionary process - an inevitable evolution of economic, political, and social reality. It states that a Socialist State will replace the Capitalist State of today, and eventually the State itself will be abolished (be it from withering away, revolution, etc.), and thus reach the goal of Socialist Anarchy (or Social Anarchy as I call it). Communists struggle amongs themselves as to the means of acheiving such a process, but nonetheless, share this common outline.

I have a pretty chart on an essay I have been meaning to complete that may help explain this more. Communism: A Socio-Political Theory (http://www.geocities.com/melt17i/essays/communism.html).

On the topic of differences, the differences between Anarchism and Communism is the role of the State. Anarchists believe in abolishing Capitalism and going directly to Socialist Anarchy. On the other hand, Communists believe in abolishing Capitalism, establishing a Socialist State that would reorganize society and for towards establishing an international socialist society/culture, than abolishing the State (some say it will "wither away", others, like myself, say it will take another revolution), thereby reaching Socialist Anarchy.

Historically, the two sides have been fighting each other. In most cases it is the Communists who have started the conflicts through repression, persecution, and betrayal - First International, 1917 Russian Revolution, Kronstadt, Makhno (sp?), Spanish Civil War, etc. Obviously most are connected to the Bolsheviks (centralist vanguardists) and Stalinists - pretty much every "communist" nation.

I wrote a short essay on what a Post-Capitalist society may be like. At A Glance: A Post-Capitalist World (http://www.geocities.com/melt17i/essays/apostcapitalistworld.html).

[antieverything]

This is ridiculous...just go over to http://www.red-encyclopedia.org and look up the definitions there. They are complete and encompass alot of different views. Lots of people see socialism and communism completely differently.

[Marxman]

I will qoute from Engels' work called Principles of communism, which he wrote before Communism manifesto. It might provide some basics

"- 24 -
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.



[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:

(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests -- a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.

(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.



[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherent of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures -- while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.



[ Democractic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them -- provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.

It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences."