help with some concise definitions, from different perspectives?

[Rascolnikova]

Within the mainstream, it seems a variety of places are considered communist. Occasionally what here tends to be called "welfare capitalism," as in Europe, is referred to as socialism.

To my eyes, China seems increasingly capitalist, the US and the places in the third world it consistently screws over are clearly capitalist, and most of the rest of the world I'm not sure about. I'm not sure most places in Africa can even be said to have an economic system.

There seems to be some disagreement in the left as to whether to own those countries who have experienced failure from exterior pressure--especially since those same countries tend to have severe reduction of civil liberties and individual rights, which doesn't make for a convincing claim that they're being governed by "the people."

Could someone please indulge me, and explain or at least link me to something that can help concisely sort this out?

-What is commonly considered to define socialism by the left and right respectively
-What countries are commonly considered, by the left and right respectively, to practise these things
-The same questions for communism and capitalis

I'm not completely uneducated, but it seems useful to be more precise about what current understandings of these are. . .

[mykittyhasaboner]

Could someone please indulge me, and explain or at least link me to something that can help concisely sort this out?
I'll give it a shot.

-What is commonly considered to define socialism by the left and right respectivelyThe Revolutionary Left holds that socialism can only be brought into place by an armed workers revolution. They also call for the working class (some of the Left focuses mainly on the industrial proletariat, while others include the peasantry, petit-bourgeois, and lumpen-proletariat to be revolutionary as well) to seize control of the means of production, and the abolition of private property most importantly.

What is considered to be "socialism" by right-wingers could be anywhere from Europe's welfare capitalist phenomenon as you described, to the Democratic party in the US. This is because they espouse policies like universal health care, free education, and other social programs. These welfare capitalists are not socialist because the bourgeois are still the ruling class.

-What countries are commonly considered, by the left and right respectively, to practise these things

The first attempt at a socialist society was the Paris Commune (March to May 1871)
Marxist-Leninists usually accept the Soviet Union (1917-1953), China (1949-1975) to be socialist, as well as the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Some also consider Cuba to be socialist.

Trotskyists, Anarchists, Left/Libertarian Communists denounce these states as "State Capitalist" arguing that a highly centralized state and socialism are mutually exclusive.

Anarchist(Communists, Collectivists, Syndicalists) usually cite the Spanish Revolution during the Spanish Civil War, or the Free Territory of Ukraine to be an anarchist societies.

Most of the right-wingers consider Europe to be socialist, but revolutionary socialists accept that reforms can only be progressive in the short term, and it is necessary for the current state to be forcibly overthrown.



I'm not completely uneducated, but it seems useful to be more precise about what current understandings of these are. . .I hope I helped, just stick around and you'll learn a lot. :thumbup1:

[Rascolnikova]

Um. . .

It actually seems a little recursive to say revolutionary leftists don't believe something can be socialism if it wasn't achieved by violent revolution. It also doesn't make any sense to me, other than in that recursive sort of way. . . why would the way it's been put in place define an economic or political system?

Explain? Someone?

The most intuitive criteria for differentiating would seem to be means of production--but then, what's the difference between socialism and communism?

[Niccolò Rossi]

It actually seems a little recursive to say revolutionary leftists don't believe something can be. It also doesn't make any sense to me, other than in that recursive sort of way. . . why would the way it's been put in place define an economic or political system?

I believe MKHAB was trying to suggest that socialism/communism can only be achieved by armed insurrection, not that "if it wasn't achieved by violent revolution it can't be socialism". Of course opinions will vary greatly on this matter (how workers' revolution can/will be achieved)


The most intuitive criteria for differentiating would seem to be means of production--but then, what's the difference between socialism and communism?

Marx and Engels themselves actually used the terms interchangeably. Leninists on the other hand use them in a very particular way. By Socialism they mean the "lower phase of communism" characterised by the socialisation (what many mistakenly believe to be nationalisation) of the means of production, the continued existence of classes (or rather the remnants of classes) and thus that of the state (the dictatorship of the proletariat).

Communism on the other hand represents the complete socialisation of the means of production, the abolition of all class and thus of the state.

Also, to elaborate on MKHAB's answer your question of "What countries are commonly considered, by the left and right respectively, to practice these things", Orthodox Trotskyists (the majority of the movement), hold that from the "Stalinist bureaucratic counter-revolution" the USSR became a "degenerated workers state" because of its foundation originally in a workers revolution where private property was abolished (ie. nationalisation) which then degenerated and created a self-perpetuating and parasitic bureaucracy.

They also hold that the "communist states" of Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea etc. and even in some cases Burma, Syria and others are on the other hand "deformed workers' states" defined as they are because of the existence of nationalised property forms, a parasitic bureaucracy but distinguished from "degenerated workers' states" by their creation not as a result of workers' revolutions but by military expansion or peasant/intellectual lead revolution.

[Yehuda Stern]

From a Marxist perspective:


-What is commonly considered to define socialism by the left and right respectively
-What countries are commonly considered, by the left and right respectively, to practise these things
-The same questions for communism and capitalis

- Socialism is the lowest stage of communism, i.e. it is a society where there are no classes but remnants of the capitalist past, such as states, remain. This is not to be confused, as many leftists do, with a workers' state, which is a state meant to defend the revolution after it wins in part of the world until it can be victorious globally. The Soviet states, then, up to the Stalinist counterrevolution in the 1930s, were workers' states, not socialist states.

- By the definition above, clearly there weren't any socialist states in history yet. The Soviet Union, as said, was a workers' state for a period of time.

- Communism is a classless, stateless society. That's why it's so ridiculous when people speak of "communist states."
Capitalism is a class society characterized by the commodification of labor. This means that labor power in itself becomes a commodity, which the workers - deprived of any land or control over means of production - are forced to trade in exchange for a wage. This wage reflects not the value produced by the workers, as a part of that value - surplus value - becomes profit for the ruling class, but a certain part of that value, whose proportion depends on the level of the class struggle by the workers (mostly).