The difference

[Teen_Communist]

What, in your own opinion, would you say is the greatest difference between Socialism and Communism? I know this may sound slightly stupid, but I'm having trouble clearly pinning it down when asked by my classmates.

[STI]

Socialism involves state-ownership of the means of production, communism has no state. That's the "main" difference.

There is also room for some, though controlled, economic inequality in socialism; as well as money, exchange, etc.

[Subversive Pessimist]

As I see it, a socialist society, centralized or decentralized, needs to be ruled with an ironfirst. Not neccesarily controling people's lifes, (which should be let alone in peace as long as it is reasonable), but strict control on the economy.

Capitalism is economics in chaos, and leads to a giant gap between the rich and the poor. The poor, the majority, are suffering. The rich, the minority, are living in luxury.


Socialism is the opposite of capitalism in that respect.




In a communist society, you take what you need, and work according to ability.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

There should be a sticky about this, the question comes up enough to warrant it.

[STI]

^Agreed.

[Essential Insignificance]

What, in your own opinion, would you say is the greatest difference between Socialism and Communism? I know this may sound slightly stupid, but I'm having trouble clearly pinning it down when asked by my classmates.

I thoroughly appreciate the formulation of this question: you have asked a particular question that warrants a particular answer, instead of a huge, complicated question that warrants a huge, complicated answer... well done!

The greatest discrepancy between socialism and communism is their economic foundation... both a completely different, therefore admitting different relations, interactions, consciousnesses and affairs.

Marx thought that if we examine historical change, we must reflect on the material conditions that gave way to that change. Marx referred to the economic arrangement of a given society as its "base", and the other establishments, organizations, institutions as the "superstructure" of society -- used of the ruling class as a "tool" to subdue and repress the attacks against their social ruling. And Marx thought that the economic base governed and regulated the internal superstructure of society; so as one economic base shifted and changed, so to, would its inner superstructure.

As men enter into the social production of society, they so to, enter into distinct relations of production -- in today's mode, one is the sole producer of society's wealth, the other the tyrannical overseer, idler and collector of wealth -- free and independent of their predilection, each generations acts and volitions will impact greatly on future generations operations and processes... history does not stand alone and free of human interaction and impact. The social production that carries on within a given society with its corresponding social relations (slavery: master, slave; capitalism: bourgeoisie, proletarian), so to corresponds to a definite stage of the development of the powers of production (technological advancements), the matter, so to speak, of life, the way that wealth is divided and consumed, the means, in which, we subsist. And it is this, material production, the modes and methods of thus, that decides the universal disposition of the social organizations, moral conducts, lawful acts, spiritual remedies, political motives and educational ways of life.

Now, I can only presume that you have some knowledge of the disparity between socialism and communism, and this difference stems, chiefly, from the different economic basis that governs each society. So, I shall repeat, the economic "make-up" of socialism and communism is where the difference resides.

Or: one's a class society, and the other's not!


There should be a sticky about this, the question comes up enough to warrant it.


^Agreed.

Let's not get lazy!

[Teen_Communist]

Thanks, I appreciate the answers you guys have given me.

As for the formating of the question, I didn't have to change it so it could be easily and quickly answered. I would be able to say what the differences between Socialism and Communism are, just not very quickly! :) Again I appreciate your help.

[Leninist thug]

Socialism is a intermediary stage of communism. Communism is the final stage, to which all communist aspire. Read State and Revolution by Lenin

[Subversive Pessimist]

Socialism is a intermediary stage of communism.


Socialists would suggest that socialism is a goal in itself, not a intermediary stage of communism.

[Teen_Communist]

I don't know if any of you have heard of them, but if you have, what do you think of the Scottish Socialist Party? Do you think that overall they help the cause of Communism or do they not go far enough? I'm interested to see what the people on this board think of them.

[STI]

Don't bother with them.

I don't know much about them specifically, but if, as I suspect, they do all kinds of stupid things (run in elections, for example), they aren't worth your time. Look for a better group (or start one of your own).

[BOZG]

The leadership of the SSP has taken a dramatic turn to the right in recent years. Currently their programme doesn't even call for socialism but for a 'social Europe' as well as Tommy Sheridan calling for a mixed economy. In reality, while it may be a progressive force in Scotland, it does not represent a socialist alternative, at least not at leadership level. My suggestion would be to try contact the Internationalist Socialists (http://www.cwiscotland.org/), a revolutionary current working within the SSP.



Look for a better group (or start one of your own).

Ah, the cry of the sect. Form your own group without any basis or links to the workers movement. Leads nowhere but to a political blackhole.

[STI]

Who said he should have no links to the workers' movement?

[BOZG]

But when you start a new organisation that is what happens. You become a sect, criticising from the outside rather than from within because you literally have no links to workers or to the unions, rather than try and build within other organisations with actual links and building to smash the bureaucracy.

[STI]

Why not form relationships with unions etc. while maintaining your independance?

[redstar2000]

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=&)


Originally posted by BOZG
Ah, the cry of the sect. Form your own group without any basis or links to the workers movement. Leads nowhere but to a political blackhole.

Links to the "workers' movement" (whatever that might mean at the present time) can always be forged.

To join a "bad group" that might already happen to have those links is almost certainly counter-productive. The "bad group" will use those "links" to do bad things.

Revolutionaries should not be "in awe" of existing groups simply because they already exist.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Subversive Pessimist]

I don't know much about them specifically, but if, as I suspect, they do all kinds of stupid things (run in elections, for example)


Why is that a stupid thing?&#33; <_<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade Strawberry
Why is that a stupid thing?&#33;

Because it sends the wrong message.

When you muck about with capitalist elections, you are telling people by your deeds that you think there&#39;s something "meaningful" going on.

There isn&#39;t.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:22 PM
What, in your own opinion, would you say is the greatest difference between Socialism and Communism? I know this may sound slightly stupid ...
Not your question sounds slightly stupid but some of ans... :D

To begin with ... socialism could be very different. There is a bourgeois socialism which will never lead to communism. Such kind of socialism has as the highest goal "the fair (equitable)" regulation of wages for proletariat. But it&#39;s a blind way of development of society because the true emancipation of the proletariat will never happen.

There would be a proletarian socialism (which has never existed in history) as a transition stage from capitalism to communism. Such kind of socialism would have as the highest goal the creating of communist society. The only possibility to reach this goal is in control the bourgeois socialism by the proletariat by means of the dictatorship of the proletariat for creating commune as an economic sector inside of the bourgeois sector.

The economy of communism is understood as non-market non-profit without money economic system what is different from bourgeois socialism in principle.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Well, we would have received a lot less publicity if we didn&#39;t, and people like Jacobo Arbenz and Salvador Allende wouldn&#39;t be elected, wouldn&#39;t they?


But I understand what you&#39;re saying. But I think we have to remember that a communist party will gather interest, and as a consequense, more people will join us.


Where I live, we have a true, hardcore socialist party, and it has about one percent of the votes. That&#39;s a lot actually. Out of a population of five million, that&#39;s about 40 000. We have a chance to get really noticed. I understand that won&#39;t happen in the United States, but at least here we do.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:23 PM
[
There would be a proletarian socialism (which has never existed in history) as a transition stage from capitalism to communism. Such kind of socialism would have as the highest goal the creating of communist society. The only possibility to reach this goal is in control the bourgeois socialism by the proletariat by means of the dictatorship of the proletariat for creating commune as an economic sector inside of the bourgeois sector.


I would like to make clear what the proletarian socialism means. It is the society of the democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It means that the bourgeois parliament of the bourgeois socialism could be changed on the parliament where the representatives would be elected from one or another classes but not from the groups of people or from parties. Waged labour could served as a criterion for belonging the person to one or another class (I think it is the special talk).

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:23 PM

There would be a proletarian socialism (which has never existed in history) as a transition stage from capitalism to communism.

Wrong, The Paris Commune in 1871 was Proletarian Socialism, it was described by Marx as the true "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", pity that they had to go down fighting when the French National Army marched into Paris and slaughtered them. The most famous martyrs in the name of Socialism, The Communards&#33;

[komon]

everybody forget that the commune of paris.did hapen after and in the 1870 war against
prussian.it was a try but mosly reactional.still it was a good try.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Zingu+Nov 26 2004, 04:38 PM--> (Zingu @ Nov 26 2004, 04:38 PM)
[email protected] 25 2004, 05:23 PM

There would be a proletarian socialism (which has never existed in history) as a transition stage from capitalism to communism.

Wrong, The Paris Commune in 1871 was Proletarian Socialism, it was described by Marx as the true "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", pity that they had to go down fighting when the French National Army marched into Paris and slaughtered them. The most famous martyrs in the name of Socialism, The Communards&#33; [/b]
The Paris Commune never proclaimed necessity of the Commune as the Communist society, paradoxically. The its first labour government united the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie and not intended to create moneyless and stateless society. So the Paris Commune was not the classless socium and therefore was not in a sense a Commune. It is possible to agree after that that the Paris Commune was intuitively Proletarian Socialism only but not scientific form.