socialism and communism

[Americancommi]

I'm having an argument with my family about whether or not China is communist. They claim it is because the chinese government says it is, and that since it is going through socialism that it is communism. I said no, because they never called themselves communist rather a communist state and that communism is totaly different from socialism and it occurs after socialism. They claim that socialism is a polital phylosophy but not an economic policy also.

[Janus]

The PRC, USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc. have never claimed to be communist because communism is a stateless, classless society. They have merely claimed to be socialist.

Socialism is an economic philosoph as well because it addresses the economy and argues for either state or collective control (depending on one's definition).

In socialism, there is a state but in communism, there is none.

[Taboo Tongue]

China was never communist and I doubt they called themselves a "Communist State" (because communism doesn't have a state; however their "socialism" was ruled by the Party) because at one time they were claiming to be "socialist," and working towards communism.
"The difference between working towards communism and "communism" itself is like the difference between building a house and living in a house." (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/communism_and_marxism.htm)

To me they were never even socialist, socialism being social ownership of the means of production, and a transition stage between capitalism and communism (not fuedalism and communism).

Some good readings that may steer you in the right direction to know more about deteremining communism and socialism, and about China.

RedStar2000 - What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
RedStar2000 - What is Socialsim? An Attempt at a Brief Definition (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communism and Marxism (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/communism_and_marxism.htm)

High School Commie's Guide, to dumb cappie "arguments" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25500&view=findpost&p=404643)

The RCP's section on Mao's China (http://rwor.org/s/china.htm)

[Americancommi]

I have tried to tell them this and they won't listen to reoson. I have proven to them that Mao claimed china was a "communist state" and showed them that a "communist state" is in no way communist. For some reoson they insist that since they are working towards communism it is a communist country. They also said that because it is mostly communist it really is. I claimed that was stupid because you have to be 100% to actually be it and you could have a beak, feathers, and wings but not neccesarily be a chicken. Another argument they have is that they are in a form of "new communism" which is stupid because they are in no way communist. I'm beggining to feel their is no sense of trying to reoson with me because they just get angry and claim that they know more about communism than I do.

[Hegemonicretribution]

This is a simple linguistics issue, and the demonising of the term "communsm" has been very effective on your family.

What you have to bear in mind is that ideas are more important than labels. I save labels for discussion on sites like this, or for more technical philosophy courses, but seldom if ever use them when talking politically in general. Whether or not China was "communist" or not isn't important, and perhaps in the mean time you shouldn't waste your time with this. Instead present the ideas that actually make up communist theory to them independent of a specific label and see how that goes.

Of course if you really want to defend the term "communism" you would have to prepare a very concise, easy to understand, yet effective argument about how language is contextual, and that your disagreement is one not of ideas but the use of a term.

Personally, if you really want family support on this may not be possible) I would go for the former rather than the latter initially.

[Janus]

I have proven to them that Mao claimed china was a "communist state" and showed them that a "communist state" is in no way communist.
The PRC and the USSR never claimed to be communist, only socialist. But as Hege said, it is a linguistic issue as there is a difference between communism and a "Communist state". When it is capitalized, that means that the state is ruled by a communist party and supposedly moving forwad towards communism while communism is simply a classless and stateless society.