Socialism than Communism - What do you mean by more practica

[CopperGoat]

Hey everyone, I have a question. Some people here say that Communism is too utopian and it will probably not work fully. And I can understand that about utopian. But people say that Socialism will work because it's more 'practical'. Since Socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism, would it stay socialist in a country or would it advance? Surely you cannot create a total communist society from a capitalist. And also, what's the difference between Socialism and Communism?

And, I always wondered, I knew that USSR wasn't Communist. But was it Socialist?

[Nick Yves]

No, it was not.

The only things I have read about the differences between socialism and communism is that Socialism is achieved by more peaceful means (revisionism) and Communism is achieved by revolution...stupid difference, I know..

Other than that and Socialism just being the transition stage between capitalism and communism I dont know...

One more thing: I have heard many uninformed people claim that countries that have social care for the people (health care, basically the government benefitting the people) are socialist. I know this is not true but some people use this idea...even though those countries still have wage slavery.

[Dirty Commie]

Socialism is a very long phase, long enough to be its own system.

Communism is the end game of Socialist revolution, but really hasn't been achieved.

[Klondike]

http://www.marxists.org

[ComradeJunichi]

Socialism is not revisionism.

Socialism is a transition stage where the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is applied. People say socialism will work today, you can say it is the "first stage of communism" or just a transition to it. Since socialism is a transition stage between capitalism and communism, that would be advancing however this time period in between would be very long. The USSR was socialist.

[Pete]

Please if you post a link try and tell us what you want us to read there and do a synopsis instead of throwing a huge archive at us.

Socialism, communism. At times I see them as synonms, at other times I see them as interconnected ideals.

Copper Goat when you say that you cannot see Communism coming from Capitalism you spout the rhetoric of my bourgeosie classmates (I am not name calling) and show, in a way, a lack of knowledge. They assume that Communism would directly follow Capitalism, which obviously cannot happen.

Our socialization occurs at a young age, and it is hard to say whether the qualities we hold now, such as greed and the lust for power, are naturual or conditioned. I will argue that they are conditioned since in nature there is an equilibrium that is established, no specis will try to wipe out another specis. Destruction, it seems, is unique to humanity, as is social conditioning and mass social organization (with the exception of ants); one cannot exist and attempt to destroy itself at the same time, if that was so we would not have lasted this long.

So back to the original point on what is communism and what is socialism. I think Joon describes it the best by saying that socialism is the period of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and Communism would be the stateless-classless society the rises from a global socialist state.

The only reason for the existance of the state is to protect against other states, so as long as there is one state then the nations out side of that state will form nation-states to protect themselves from that one. That may be a bit confusing, I uses state 5 or 6 tiems in one sentence, but I do not know how else to put it. When a global socialist state exists for a few generations atleast there will come a time where it is no longer necassary, and as it withers away humanity will transcend into communism. A cooperative anarchist society.

The CCCP was Socialist and not Communist, based upon my definition above, although the revisionists (now I am sounding like an old man) led to its down fall by betraying the principle of marxism and ultimately Gorbachev stabbed the proletariat in the back...

(Edited by CrazyPete at 10:09 am on May 18, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

'Socialism, communism. At times I see them as synonms, at other times I see them as interconnected ideals.'

You see the mix of the two terms, because although technically socialism is the stage by which communism is reached, people in a socialist society desire communism therefore they can be termed communists. The aim of a socialist society is to achieve communism so it can be called a communist society because socialism is a part of communism in that communists desire socialism and so communism prescribes that there be socialism.

In addition, communist is often used to describe the extreme left as socialism as an exclusive political system is further to the right. Many people do not know that Marx described socialism as the stage to precede communism.

[Invader Zim]

Communsim is simply a branch of socialism, like democratic socialism is a branch of socialism.

I personnaly favour the very idealistic utopian socialist theorys, more successful and more practical than the scientific socialism domain.

Viva Robert Owen's ideals. May ST Simons legend live on. However i will settle for scientific is utopian socialim is destined never to be fully achived.

[sc4r]

Quote: from CopperGoat on 4:27 am on May 18, 2003
Some people here say that Communism is too utopian and it will probably not work fully....And also, what's the difference between Socialism and Communism?

And, I always wondered, I knew that USSR wasn't Communist. But was it Socialist?


If you want a technical difference Marxist Socialism involves paying people for work. Whereas final stage Communism involves payment for need (really even the word payment is slightly inappropriate).

Socialism involves a permanent state to govern such payments; communism does not.

As Mao said the terms can be easily confused because party names tend to reflect ultimate goals not current performance.

Socialism (as distinct form Marxists socialism) is a rather more wooly term which can encapsulate a lot of what Ameriucans might call woolly liberal values coupled with a desire to improve equitability of a system (but without any really specific pattern of solutions - more of a laundry list).

The USSR was better described as Fascist than Socialist. Fascism gives primacy to the state itself (or in practise to a self declared elite within the state) it's usually highly nationalistic, usually aggressive, and always divisive. Socialism makes it very clear that it is society not the state itself that has primacy.

In other words in Fascism Society is run for the benefit of the state; whereas in Socialism the State exists for the benefit of Society, and society is there to benefit the individuals within it.

In a way fascism is not part of the Communist....Capitalist continumm. It represents more a perverted version of either.. So the USSR might be deemed marxist Fascism whereas Nazi germany is perhaps be better described as capitalist Fascism. The USA could perhaps be called a Liberal Facism (liberal in the orginal sense) though not perhaps as extreme as the USSR or Nazi germany (but also perhaps becoming so).

This is the reason why Communism is considered utopian. It depends upon people in general behaving in the common good out of a personal desire to do so and puts them on trust to do this. Socialism provides a control mechanism to ensure that they do.

Marxist Socialism can come in many varieties and extremes from payment at a set rate per hour irrespective of job right up to huge wage differentials between jobs. In Market Socialism (many would not accept this a genuine Marxism mind) even individually negotiated wages with no cap are theoretically possible.

Theres far more to it of course.



(Edited by sc4r at 9:26 pm on May 18, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 1:10 am on May 19, 2003)

[MiNdGaMe]

"The goal of socialism, is communism" - Lenin