Communism or Socialism

[Husky42]

When I look at Che's beliefs and what he stood for, socialist comes to mind not full fledged communist. I may be wrong in that thinking but from everything I have read this is what I see.

With a strong advocacy on communism on this board, are people afraid of true socialism? Not just members of the board but society as a whole.

You need socialism to implement communism. When my freinds call me a communist I never take offense to what they say although I have never seen myself as being a communist but a socialist. Where does the line cross? The differences are strong where socialism has grown against communism but I strongly agree with Leninism and Che Guevara's way of thinking. A revolution seems needed but to what extent?

I would never come against somebodys belief system as I am still learning where I stand and looking for a community in which I can exist and be treated like a human being. This forum seems like that place many people here seem intelligent and the thinking behindmost post are bright and promising.

So in each others opinions but by only using fact, what seperates a revolutionist from a socialist?

[Zeruzo]

Ever heard of revolutionary socialism?
So.. nothing seperates them, they can be united...
In my opinion a real socialist IS a revolutionary.

[viva le revolution]

There is no conflict between socialism and communism, as a matter of fact socialism is a step in achieving communism. All communist leaders and comrades in the past lived and died for the establishment of socialist states. The only breed of socialists we oppose are social democrats, if they can even be called such.

[Husky42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 08:47 PM
Ever heard of revolutionary socialism?
So.. nothing seperates them, they can be united...
In my opinion a real socialist IS a revolutionary.
Well yes, and thats my overall understanding. I am overall just curious what others aspects on this are. There seems to be abit of debaite over this issue in another forum and reading through all the comlete shit people beleive about communism and socialism ie how bad they are they pull them apart and then group them together so it makes you wonder just what one stands for.

I stand for different things of which dont fit into american society. Leninism to me seems to be ideal although tbh I only have scratched the surface in my readings and have much more to learn. But ive heard some refer to Leninism as Stalinism but I cannot seem to make that connection.

I do believe in Social Revolution, but it has to be for the people by the people.





There is no conflict between socialism and communism, as a matter of fact socialism is a step in achieving communism

As I mention above :)

I agree with this and beelieve that they work together and are parts of each other however many people tend to disagree with me - How do I combat this view?

[Technique3055]

A revolutionary has intentions to create a Marxist society through a revolution, be it political or violent. Historically, most of it has been violent. A socialist has intentions to use political reforms to create a society based on the equal distribution of society's wealth.

However, there are many different kinds of socialists. Whenever the term "socialist" comes up, I divide it into two different categories (I haven't really heard these terms used too much but I like to use them):

1) A society that plans to, at some point, become a Marxist one. Whether they plan to do it immeadiately or somewhere in the future, I like to call them Marxian Socialist. A Marxian Socialist will have more elements in common with an outright communist than the second category. Historically, places like the USSR seem to be more like this kind (however they really aren't, because how Marxist they actually were is debatable).
2) A society that has many socialist-like aspects, most importantly, the equal distribution of society's wealth, however, has no intentions of (ever) turning to a Marxist society. In the world today, countries like Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, and Germany (to an extent) seem more like this. Basically, they're a more left-leaning, international form of the Democrats.

I consider a revolutionary to be more of the first. A "socialist", depending on how radical, can fall under either category.

But do keep in mind, socialism IS a major step on the road to achieving Marxism.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Husky42+Nov 9 2005, 09:25 PM--> (Husky42 @ Nov 9 2005, 09:25 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 08:47 PM
Ever heard of revolutionary socialism?
So.. nothing seperates them, they can be united...
In my opinion a real socialist IS a revolutionary.
Well yes, and thats my overall understanding. I am overall just curious what others aspects on this are. There seems to be abit of debaite over this issue in another forum and reading through all the comlete shit people beleive about communism and socialism ie how bad they are they pull them apart and then group them together so it makes you wonder just what one stands for.

I stand for different things of which dont fit into american society. Leninism to me seems to be ideal although tbh I only have scratched the surface in my readings and have much more to learn. But ive heard some refer to Leninism as Stalinism but I cannot seem to make that connection.

I do believe in Social Revolution, but it has to be for the people by the people. [/b]
The reason Leninism is refered to so-called 'Stalinism' is beceause Stalin called himself Marxist-Leninist and followed Marxist-Leninist ideology. Defending Leninism is not the same of course as defending Stalin, but most real Marxist-Leninists defend Stalin.

[Roses in the Hospital]

To a certain extent I think Socialism can be seen as a world view as well as an ideology, i.e. a set of beliefs about politics, economics, moratlity etc. Whereas someone who talks about Communism is clearly refering to a particuilar socio-political system...

[Husky42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:09 PM
The reason Leninism is refered to so-called 'Stalinism' is beceause Stalin called himself Marxist-Leninist and followed Marxist-Leninist ideology. Defending Leninism is not the same of course as defending Stalin, but most real Marxist-Leninists defend Stalin.
Why do they defend stalin? I do not like stalin and I think stalin was an evil man. I do see Lenin as an amazing intelligent individual with revolutionary thoughs and ideas that he was able to put into action to help create a better society. Stalin destroyed this.

[matiasm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 09:50 PM
A revolutionary has intentions to create a Marxist society through a revolution, be it political or violent. Historically, most of it has been violent. A socialist has intentions to use political reforms to create a society based on the equal distribution of society's wealth.

However, there are many different kinds of socialists. Whenever the term "socialist" comes up, I divide it into two different categories (I haven't really heard these terms used too much but I like to use them):

1) A society that plans to, at some point, become a Marxist one. Whether they plan to do it immeadiately or somewhere in the future, I like to call them Marxian Socialist. A Marxian Socialist will have more elements in common with an outright communist than the second category. Historically, places like the USSR seem to be more like this kind (however they really aren't, because how Marxist they actually were is debatable).
2) A society that has many socialist-like aspects, most importantly, the equal distribution of society's wealth, however, has no intentions of (ever) turning to a Marxist society. In the world today, countries like Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, and Germany (to an extent) seem more like this. Basically, they're a more left-leaning, international form of the Democrats.

I consider a revolutionary to be more of the first. A "socialist", depending on how radical, can fall under either category.

But do keep in mind, socialism IS a major step on the road to achieving Marxism.
Where would Venezuela fall in your categories?

[Technique3055]

Originally posted by matiasm+Nov 11 2005, 01:19 AM--> (matiasm @ Nov 11 2005, 01:19 AM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 09:50 PM
A revolutionary has intentions to create a Marxist society through a revolution, be it political or violent. Historically, most of it has been violent. A socialist has intentions to use political reforms to create a society based on the equal distribution of society's wealth.

However, there are many different kinds of socialists. Whenever the term "socialist" comes up, I divide it into two different categories (I haven't really heard these terms used too much but I like to use them):

1) A society that plans to, at some point, become a Marxist one. Whether they plan to do it immeadiately or somewhere in the future, I like to call them Marxian Socialist. A Marxian Socialist will have more elements in common with an outright communist than the second category. Historically, places like the USSR seem to be more like this kind (however they really aren't, because how Marxist they actually were is debatable).
2) A society that has many socialist-like aspects, most importantly, the equal distribution of society's wealth, however, has no intentions of (ever) turning to a Marxist society. In the world today, countries like Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, and Germany (to an extent) seem more like this. Basically, they're a more left-leaning, international form of the Democrats.

I consider a revolutionary to be more of the first. A "socialist", depending on how radical, can fall under either category.

But do keep in mind, socialism IS a major step on the road to achieving Marxism.
Where would Venezuela fall in your categories? [/b]
Right now, I honestly don't know TOO much about the current Venezuela situation, so this is going to be a rough estimate.

From what I know, Hugo and Venezuela seem to be more of the first option. They're democratic socialists, and with the worker wages he's raised (something like a 37% raise, I forget the specifics) he clearly is looking out for the best interests of the proletariats, and thusly I consider him a democratic socialist. Mr. Chavez calls his system Bolivarianism, and I find the ideals of Bolivarianism to have at least SOME Marxist influence on them, and SOME Marxist intentions behind them.

I'd say Venezuela is, to an extent, Marxian Socialist, however at the current time, they aren't looking to push the idea of Marxism.