Socialism is Communism.

[Tippit]

In another thread, a poster suggested that there is a material difference between Communism and Socialism, and claiming that while Communism is a failed ideology (or at least implying that the Marxist/Leninist iterations were), Socialism is not. This could not be further from the truth. First, lets start with some definitions:

communism noun

com·​mu·​nism | \ ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm , -yü- \
Definition of communism
1a: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b: a theory advocating elimination of private property
2capitalized
a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d: communist systems collectively

and

socialism noun

so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished

Clearly, the most important aspect of both politico-economic systems is the abolition of private property, and the state ownership of the means of production. In this sense, there is no meaningful difference between the two systems, instead, Socialism is just a "transitional theory" as per definition #3.

All socialists are in essence advocating for communism (the total abolition of private property), even though the state (and the elites who run the state) don't yet have complete control of all property.

Socialism is defined elsewhere as the "state ownership of the means of production", but where the classless system that Marx advocated has "not yet been realized".

Since advocating for the transition to a failed ideology is just as abhorrent as advocating for a failed ideology, the terms Socialism and Communism, as well as Socialists and Communists, can rightfully be used interchangeably.

 

[theprestige]

Sounds good to me, but good luck getting it to stick.

 

[Olmstead]

People just want universal healthcare. Call it what you want.

 

[catsmate]

Socialism is Communism.

Nope.

Not in the Real World^TM anyway. Maybe in the fantasy world so typically inhabited by ignorant USAians, lacking knowledge of the complications of reality. However those better educated understand the difference, and indeed comprehend that (for example) Social Democracy, Socialism and Democratic Socialism are not the same. A subtlety beyond the vast majority of USAians.

 

[Norman Alexander]

In both communism and socialism, the people own the factors of economic production. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

 

[Tippit]

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

Ok. But while the idea that under Socialism "all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government" may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, the reality is that the state, which presumably (hopefully) is run by democratically elected representatives, actually controls the means of production and calls all the shots.

If the concept of a "democratically-elected government" either is illusory, or becomes illusory for any number of possible reasons, then you have a system whereby a very few people control all of the property.

Isn't this the principle objection to communism (socialism), that human nature dictates that centralized power inevitably gets abused? Why not advocate for a Republic, in which property is owned privately, and obtained equitably and fairly?

Obviously the acquisition of private property has historically been problematic (for a variety of reasons, some disputed), but the general idea is that it's less problematic than having the state own (or control) everything.

 

[Tippit]

People just want universal healthcare. Call it what you want.

Do they? I just want quality, affordable healthcare. I think people want "universal" health care because they can't afford healthcare, and they assume that the only/best way to solve the problem of healthcare inflation is to socialize it. Why is healthcare so expensive, and priced so far out of reach? Why are people bankrupted by certain healthcare procedures? Can you think of any other ways we can fix it as opposed to handing over ownership to the state?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok. But while the idea that under Socialism "all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government" may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, the reality is that the state, which presumably (hopefully) is run by democratically elected representatives, actually controls the means of production and calls all the shots.....

What nonsense. No wonder you don't understand the difference.


Some services are better funded by the community: police, fire, basic government, infrastructure like roads and public buildings, the military, Medicare, Social Security, some utilities .... Some of us think that should include better social safety nets and universal health care.

Research shows that using objective measures like infant maternal mortality rates, countries with national health care come out on top. Since this is not about that, I have no more to say on that issue.


There is plenty of room for capitalism in such a system.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No, it really isn't.

I'm a Socialist, I'm very much not a Communist.

 

[Belz...]

In another thread, a poster suggested that there is a material difference between Communism and Socialism, and claiming that while Communism is a failed ideology (or at least implying that the Marxist/Leninist iterations were), Socialism is not.

Well, socialism isn't really an ideology...

...but the main difference is social ownership vs social services.

You're welcome.

 

[theprestige]

No, it really isn't.

I'm a Socialist, I'm very much not a Communist.

What's the difference between your idea of a socialist and my idea of a capitalist who believes that some capital and some profits need to be diverted to the collective good, in order to protect the commons maintain a functional framework for peaceful commerce?

To me, socialist but not communist just means capitalist but not anarcho-libertarian.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I suspect the breadth of what I would want nationalised would be a sticking point for you.

For once, wikipedia seems to have come to my aid. I would describe myself as being a "Market Socialist" as they charmingly put it, and would provide the following quote as a reasonable, if not exhaustive explanation of my political ideals:

market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.

Essentially I would like to see companies all be run like John Lewis or the Co Op is over here. All employees are given shares in the company and take a proportion of the profits from said shares rather than all the money going to a handful of high ups and day traders.

ETA: and yes, the company I work for offers something similar, although disappointingly limited in its effect. I am a shareholder of the company I work for.

 

[Delvo]

Tippit, what label(s) would you put on each of these:

USSR
China
North Korea
Cuba
Canada
New Zealand
Australia
UK
Sweden
France
Germany

 

[Tippit]

Tippit, what label(s) would you put on each of these:

USSR
China
North Korea
Cuba
Canada
New Zealand
Australia
UK
Sweden
France
Germany

As I am a conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hear my answer to that question. I will give a brief one, though. I don't believe that capitalism exists in any meaningful form (anymore), nor do I think that communism (socialism) can exist or has existed in anything but ideal form.

In actuality those countries (the USSR is of course known as "Russia" now) are some combination of totalitarian regimes with command and control economies benefiting the super rich autocrats that run them, and countries which are slowly but surely approaching that outcome as their government spending to GDP increases, and their "democratic accountability" becomes more and more of an illusion.

The UK and Australia in particular are resembling police states, increasingly.

Sweden is a fairly benevolent welfare state, but its disastrous immigration policies are hastening its decline.

 

[Belz...]

As I am a conspiracy theorist, you probably don't want to hear my answer to that question. I will give a brief one, though. I don't believe that capitalism exists in any meaningful form (anymore), nor do I think that communism (socialism) can exist or has existed in anything but ideal form.

So you're completely ignoring the responses to your OP. Why did you create this thread, then? Why even come here?

I've given you the most succint way to distinguish them and I got crickets.

(the USSR is of course known as "Russia" now)

No, Russia was PART of the USSR and the union broke apart. Is there anything you ever get right?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sweden is a fairly benevolent welfare state, but its disastrous immigration policies are hastening its decline.

What is your evidence for this claim?

 

[Delvo]

nor do I think that communism (socialism) can exist or has existed in anything but ideal form.

You started the thread about words for things that don't really exist?

 

[Belz...]

What is your evidence for this claim?

It's not all-white.

 

[theprestige]

You started the thread about words for things that don't really exist?

The way I see it, theoretical communism is an impossible utopia. Practical communism is a horror show of people who turn into monsters trying to attain the ideal.

It's not about words for things that don't really exist. It's about words for things that should never be attempted, but which people believe in enough to try anyway and damn the consequences. Kind of like Catholicism.

 

[Belz...]

The way I see it, theoretical communism is an impossible utopia.

Indeed, or at least not with homo sapiens. But it exists on paper and can be analysed and critiqued. Socialism, however, does exist in practice all over the world. That's already a pretty strong demonstration that they are not the same thing.