Whats The Difference

[Rockfan]

Hi

Im only young and ive only just become intrested in leftism. I know what leftism is and about how it works but i havent yet garsped the difference between socilism and communism.

Could sombody please help me or reccommend a book or web site to go too.

Thanks.

[LSD]

This should probably have been posted in the "new to it all" forum, but here's a basic definition of terms, Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21255)

[Rockfan]

So Lysergic Acid Diethylamide I just want to ask you a question.
What changes when you go from socilism to communism?

[bunk]

There is no state, money, or private property in communism.
Socialism is what some communists think is needed as a transitional period before communism after a revolution or coup.

[Bolshevist]

Just to elaborate on what Crossfire said, there is also no classes. In Marxist theory, the state represent class atagonisms. Thus no state = classes and vice versa.

[sanpal]

Socialism is socialized capitalism. Extreme socialized capitalism is monopolistic state capitalism with the only owner which is the State (the USSR for example). Attendant tendency - the more socialization, the more destruction in working of market economy system.

Another matter what is the proletarian socialism. It is political- economic system based on bunch of different structures includes the capitalist, the state capitalist and the communist sectors of economy with normal competition between them (communist sector interacts with another sectors on the base of money but inside it is organized on moneyless economic system).

What is advantage of this model?
1) Market economic system is working stably.
2) Competition does not let communist sector to become a "lazy ass".
3)The problem "what to do with pro-capy?" is solved very easy - they move to the capitalist and the state capitalist sectors of economy.
4) If communist sector is more attractive for people by lesser workday and higher living standard so the stream of labour will be moving to communist sector. It arouses "withering away" of the capitalist and the state capitalist economic sectors. So communism must win economically and proletarian socialism is the transition state from socialism to communism.


Note: The capitalist, state capitalist and communist sectors are not separated as territorial.

[Invader Zim]

Socialism is a very lose term really. A lot of Marxists think its a transitional period between capitalism and communism, where the old state is stripped away over time, following the revolution.

However another way of thinking is that all ideologies which support economic equality are socialist, that way socialism is not specific at all, and can encompass quite a few already existing ideas. This is good because a lot of people don’t conform to any specific ideology, they mix and match. This ties in quite nicely with the first option, because post revolution the political system wont be static, it will be a changing system with many different degree's of radicalism, but progressively leading towards a stateless society, the ultimate goal. However because the face of post revolutionary society will initially be going through steady change, it would be very hard to say that it matches "X" specific ideology, so a wide ranging term like socialism fits it quite nicely.

Well I like it anyway, I think socialism is a nice wide set of idea's and principals which means that you don’t have to "tie" your self down. I find the term quite liberating really, unlike more specific terms like Marxist-Leninist, or Anarcho-communist, democratic socialist, Christian socialist, etc, which are far more specific. I personally even go as far as to think that communism is in fact a type of socialism, though if I were you, I should just ignore that, most I think would disagree.

An interesting work for you to read, on scientific and utopian socialism: -


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...-utop/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)

Perhaps that’s throwing you in the deep end really... Sorry if I am. But its very good for giving an insight into what early utopian socialism actually was, and how it differs to scientific socialism.

Another excellent article to read, in my view is this: -

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...11/prin-com.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

It is good stuff to know and have an understanding of, I think, even if you decide that Marxism isn't necessrily the right way forward.

In fact, you can probably ignore everything else I think, read this stuff and make your own decision about what you understand socialism and communism to be.

Reading in general: -

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm

It is of course all from Engels and Marx, so it may not give quite the rounded and balanced approach but still necessary reading, in my opinion anyhow.

[Essential Insignificance]

Socialism is socialized capitalism. Extreme socialized capitalism is monopolistic state capitalism with the only owner which is the State (the USSR for example). Attendant tendency - the more socialization, the more destruction in working of market economy system.

Now, that's a very "hidebound" answer.

Your talking far to objectively.

You have, it would seem, descried the economic systems practiced (at one time or an other) by the USSR, China and other socialist dictatorships of the 20th century.

Marx's "version'' is extremely dissimilar to that of the 20th century "socialist paradigm".

[Rockfan]

hey
Thanks for all your help it's been really good
Thanks again

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 9 2004, 09:32 AM

Now, that's a very "hidebound" answer.

Your talking far to objectively.
Nevertheless I doubt you have any arguments to disprove this.


You have, it would seem, descried the economic systems practiced (at one time or an other) by the USSR, China and other socialist dictatorships of the 20th century.
By what socialist democracy you imagine in your mind differ from socialist dictatorships of the 20th century economically?
Is there no money? Is there no waged labour? No trade? No capitalist mode of production (getting a profit)?


Marx's "version'' is extremely dissimilar to that of the 20th century "socialist paradigm".
Marx's prognosis was extremely similar to that of the 20th century "socialist experiments". Read "Anti-Dyuring" and compare with.

[Essential Insignificance]

Nevertheless I doubt you have any arguments to disprove this.

You're, basically, just recollecting what transpired during the 20th century, and the subsequent course that the "Leninist paradigm" took.

And what a great folly it was!

But the future does not resemble the past.


By what socialist democracy you imagine in your mind differ from socialist dictatorships of the 20th century economically?
Is there no money? Is there no waged labour? No trade? No capitalist mode of production (getting a profit)?

I cannot say anything with absolute certainty... expect that there will not be a vanguard party making the decisions.


Marx's prognosis was extremely similar to that of the 20th century "socialist experiments". Read "Anti-Dyuring" and compare with.

Engel's wrote Anti-Dühring, not Marx.

I'll let one quote sum it up: "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class" -- Karl Marx

[sanpal]

Engel's wrote Anti-Dühring, not Marx.
Yes, certainly Engels did but in Soviet edition of "Anti-Duhring" afterword there was a note that during the writing of Anti-Duhring by Engels he actively consulted Marx and the economic part of "Anti-Duhring" was written by Marx completely.

I leave alone this thread because of absence of constructive dialog.



P.S.
When Marx&Engels argued against Eugeny Duhring they doubted somebody else would try to realize the mr. Duhring's socialitet but they were wrong - Stalin would do it.

[pandora]

Those definitions already listed succeed mine in their accuracy, however, in human terms my limited understanding develops the difference as Socialism being the end result of Communism in that the society has become transformed through authoritarian measures by the state weeding off the disease of self interest to cultivate a diaspora of community building.

In other words, once the state has set up a system the community takes over that system and creates a self sustaining system of socialism. In regards to the Soviet Union we see the state was never willing to trust individual states such as the Ukraine in it's opinion to control it's own agriculture and product to sustain the masses in the city, under Stalin it's repression degenerated the community making socialism less able and increasing competition between neighbors and comrades to gain power in the bureaucracy that had become the state.

In the other extreme, John Maynard Keynes and his cohort FDR set about introducing limited amounts of social supports, essentially taking some aspects of socialism but ignoring the empowerment of communities to save Capitalism before it was to late and Communism took hold on a broad basis.

Communism, necessarily must take place in the revolution of the proleteriat, some believe that we can move to socialism without this transformation to the disorder and chaos necessary to break the old system, some believe that the chaos will create facism as military agents and landowners use revolution to carry out actions they could not have gotten away with under the pretense of Democracy, whatever the hell they haven't already gotten away with.

I essentially am a Socialist, but looking at geo-political ecology, I believe we will have chaos regardless as the hegemony continues to pollute and use up natural resources in such a selfish fashion. They are not limitless they will run out. The question for me is whether the people will rise up either in coalition or revolution before it is to late for the human specie and civilization to continue. At the current rate their will be great loss of life due to environmental conditions before that happens.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2004, 08:01 PM
This should probably have been posted in the "new to it all" forum, but here's a basic definition of terms, Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21255)
It is in 'new to it all', and has been for months

[LSD]

It is in 'new to it all', and has been for months

No, I meant his post should have been in 'new to it all', it was originally posted in 'Theory' and them moved.

[Porco Rosso]

Socialism is communist theory working in a single nation and communism is communist theory working in the entire world.

[apathy maybe]

From an essay of mine,

Socialism is a broad term used to, basically, describe anything that promotes equality and equal access to goods ... It has also been used to describe what is also called "state capitalism" (which is not really socialistic according to the first definition) and a state based system of equal distribution of goods ("state socialism", as opposed to non-state based forms of socialistic society such as anarchy and communism). While non-state forms of socialistic society are democratic (ruled by the people), like capitalism "state socialism" is not necessarily democratic (though the state's rulers may well claim that it is).

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:05 PM
Communism, necessarily must take place in the revolution of the proleteriat, some believe that we can move to socialism without this transformation to the disorder and chaos necessary to break the old system, some believe that the chaos will create facism as military agents and landowners use revolution to carry out actions they could not have gotten away with under the pretense of Democracy, whatever the hell they haven't already gotten away with.
Umm.. you have Communism and Socialism mixed up :lol:

[Essential Insignificance]

Socialism is communist theory working in a single nation and communism is communist theory working in the entire world.

Well, succinctly -- not at all!