This is topic Socialism vs. Communism in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/339.html

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
what is the specific difference between the two? I haven't gotten a straight answer before, so I post this in hopes someone has some insight...

socialism \So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplate a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

communism \Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

[This message has been edited by Jeff Raven (edited November 08, 1999).]
 


Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I'm going to have to take issue with both of these.

Communism isn't, strictly speaking, a "scheme". Rather, according to Marx, it is the inevitable endpoint of the course of history. Sound melodramatic? It is, really. Marx defines communism as being similar to that definition, but without the implication that it is purposefully created or controlled by someone or something.

And in the simplist sense, socialism is merely any society that exists. The United States is socialist in that we have a social structure.

Now of course within any society you have the struggle between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group. By definition, a society requires some degree of personal sacrifice. Exactly where that line is drawn has been an issue of much debate over the ages. In this sense, the word socialism is used to suggest that spectrum of society which places a majority of its emphasis on the state.

------------------
"If you are going to be my girlfriend please don't dump me after I like you."
--
Michael
 


Posted by JEM on :
 
On a similar point, something which has bugged me for some time and which I've never got a satisfactory answer to is what is the difference between communism and fascism? Both seem to involve the subordination of the individual to the demands of the state.

Anyone help?
 


Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :
 
"Communism" has been used as a lable for many governments which were actually faschist in nature. As a matter of fact, I believe the governmental form of faschism has bee around for longer than the actual term, which was coined in 1920s Italy.

As Sol System mentioned above, communism's original definition meant something quite different from what we see today under the lable of communism. The Soviet Union was essentially a faschist government, even at a time when the faschist government of Nazi Germany was proposing that the Soviet Union be destroyed. The Nazis were a socialist movement, at least according to their party name -- the National Socialist party.

--Baloo

------------------
Hobbes: Do you think there's a God?
Calvin: Well, somebody's out to get me."
--Bill Watterson
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/


 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I believe that facism is supposed to be the government having direct control over business.

And I think that's it, Sol! That's the difference between conservative and liberal. It's the amount of power the people have compaired to the amount of power the government has. A liberal would be in favor of giving the government more power relative to what they already have, and conservative would be in favor of less. And anyone who wants to do away with the whole system and replace it (or not, in the case of anarchists : ) would be a revolutionary. Of course, these are modern definitions. Does that work?

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
So that would make a dictator (someone in whom all governmental power rests) a liberal. Hm.. I think not. At least, not entirely.

For one thing, it would make God (the Supreme Ruler and Government of the Universe, in whom all power is said to reside and from whom all authority is said to spring) the Ultimate Liberal. And all churchgoers who advocate turning their lives over to Him would be liberals, too. It would make ME a Conservative, if not a Revolutionary like Lucifer. NAAAAAH!

Really now. Any definition that tries to pin these descriptions down to an either/or will ultimately fail.


------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 09, 1999).]
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Those are relative terms, 1/2. God already has all power, so you can't give Him more. Of course, since Satan wants to take power away from God, that would make him a conservative, wouldn't it? : ) God's infalable, and therefore giving Him all power would be a good idea, since He, by the definition of omniscience, knows what's better for you than you do. The national government IS NOT infalible. In fact, I'd say that it's more likely to make mistakes than the general populace. It's a question of whether you want to make decisions for yourself, or let the government do it for you. I think that I know what's better for ME than the government does, so I think that I should be the one making the decisions for my life. I prefer to think for myself.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 


Posted by Chimaera on :
 
Communism is simply a form of socialism. To better illustrate:

quote:
. In some socialist doctrines all industries are to be nationalized, while in others only the largest or most important, such as banks or natural resources, should be owned by the state. Some socialist doctrines involve strictly centralized state control, while others allow for more decentralization, with a large measure of planning allocated to local government bodies; some call for an authoritarian command economy, while others envision a merely guided market economy. Often the word socialism is applied pejoratively to any policy by which the state would accrue more regulatory power. As a result, the different forms that socialism actually has taken vary dramatically. Socialism can be statist or libertarian, Marxist or "liberal," revolutionary or gradualist, cosmopolitan or internationalist.

quote:
Twentieth-century socialist practices were just as diverse, ranging from avowedly communist nations with the strictly centralized socialism of the Soviet Union (up until the era of perestroika, or "restructuring," which began in 1987) to the more decentralized Yugoslavian model, in which factory workers participated not only in the governing of the factory but also in profit sharing. Some, such as Hungary, even restored a measure of private control to agricultural workers. Noncommunist socialism found its chief expression in the welfare state exemplified by Sweden, Denmark, and Great Britain, where socialist parties won power by parliamentary means and constructed systems of taxation-based social services intended to guarantee certain minimal standards of living to all. The adoption of some national welfare ideas by strenuously nonsocialist systems such as the United States testified to both the strength of many socialist ideals and the protean adaptability of many socialist practices that made socialism itself so difficult to define.

The entire article is here: Encyclopedia Britannica

Fascism and communism are, for the most part, complete opposites politically and economically, although Stalin's USSR did share a number of characteristics with Fascist governments. On the old political spectrum, communism is extreme left, whereas Fascism is extreme right.


------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn



 


Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
 
From everything I have ever been told or have found out Communism is pretty much the stage below Socialism. The main difference is that Communism has an actual leader while Socialism is the government of Utopia.

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.



 


Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
It's the other way around, I think.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"We've got some new songs here that are not even on the MP3 thing. They're not available in any format, except of course the bootlegs that seem to proliferate all through our audience, as we watch people lip-synch along to songs that HAVEN'T BEEN RELEASED! DAMN YOU!" - John Linnell
 


Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
 
Yes, I thought socialism was the slightly toned-down communism.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
The idea behind democracy is the belief that a thousand men are wiser than one man.

The idea behind dictatorship is the belief that one man is wiser than a thousand men.

Either system will prosper in the grip of wise men, or suffer in the grip of a foolish man.

But at least in democracy you have the hope that the wise men and the foolish men will, at worst, cancel each other out. With a foolish tyrant, there is no hope at all.

This is also the problem between Government and Individuality.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
If we're thinking of the same government/individual problem, just read Jeff's sig.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
 


Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
First of Two, your words sound familiar.

"A dictatorship is based on the erroneous assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. A democracy is based on the equally erroneous assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. Neither works."
Robert Heinlein...

...But I'm not sure what book.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student


 


Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
A useful metaphor to describe the political spectrum as it applies to fascism and communism is to envision an almost-circle. At the top, centrism, to coin a silly word. To the left, a more liberal view, to the right, conservative. But to the extreme left and right, the circle curves around upon itself, making the two extremes far more alike than not.

------------------
"If you are going to be my girlfriend please don't dump me after I like you."
--
Michael
 


Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Anyone remember the last time that Labour were a Socialist party?

------------------
"Give me a f*cking..."
-Jubilee McGann


 


Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
 
*looks at Sol*


Whoa...that makes so much sense...where'd you get that?!

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student


 


Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I'd love to say that I, in all my glory, produced it in whole cloth.

I stole it from my "European History: Napoleon to Modern Era" class.

------------------
"If you are going to be my girlfriend please don't dump me after I like you."
--
Michael
 


Posted by AlphaSquirrel on :
 
I prefer the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of Socialism:

"A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

I like this because it leaves out the concept of government entirely, and thereby includes the Libertarian Socialist (also called Anarchist) tradition.

Socialism at its most basic level is about people being in control of their labor and their lives. Now, pro-capitalists in the US have cleverly taken this concept and re-labeled it as "capitalism."

Socialism isn't about government taking anything away from anyone. This is most clearly expressed by Libertarian Socialism, in my opinion. If you took away government support for coercive relationships, capitalism could not be maintained because wage labor could not be maintained.

In other words, business owners are always the *first" people to go running to "guvmint" for help. The liberal welfare state exists to maintain capitalism, after all! History shows what happens when you have capitalism with no welfare state: you get large numbers of working people who are stuck in employment relationships, and businesses become more and more arrogant. People start joining radical unions and labor movements. Businesses find themselves in a situation where they can't hire enough private security thugs to defend themselves from their own workers, and so they start crying for government help.

I won't try to define "Communism" at this point, becasue the term has so much intellectual baggage.

------------------
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters."

--Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations (1776)
 


Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
I am reminded of an old "Bloom County" comic, the Farmer's Test, as follows:

Say the following two phrases in one breath, without cracking up:

"keep those flat-footed goombahs in Washington outta my hair"

and

"hurry up with my federal bail-out check."

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 19, 1999).]
 


Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :
 
Good thing I stopped back when I did (incidentally, I'm here to find Charles, so if he is out there, please contact me ASAP!)

Breaking me rule of not posting, I will enlighten you all, as I am a self avowed Trotskyist and I have dedicated my life to two endeavours, one being the furtherance of the revolutionary nature of the proletariat.

Allow me to post an article about the nature of socialism v communism, or portions from this article (www.wsws.org)

"Socialism is, by its very nature, international. Its establishment will require the overthrow of the capitalist state in at least the major imperialist
centres by the working class and the establishment of genuine workers' states. A socialist society will be one that, as Marx explained, stands higher in its economic development than anything so far achieved under capitalism. Production and distribution will be carried out according to a rational plan, not the anarchic drive for profit."

Note, this requires the maturation of capitalism! Now, the next step


"Communism will be achieved only when all the material conditions for inequality have been overcome through the development of science and technique, and when the state itself begins to "wither away". As Trotsky explains in his brilliant work The Revolution Betrayed: "Capitalism prepared the conditions and forces for a social revolution: technique, science and the proletariat. The communist structure cannot, however,
immediately replace the bourgeois society. The material and cultural inheritance from the past is wholly inadequate for that...Marx names the first stage of the new society 'the lowest stage of communism' in distinction from the highest, where together with the last phantoms of want, material inequality will disappear. In this sense socialism and communism are frequently contrasted as the lower and higher stages of
the new society."

That should explain it for you. And who knows Marxism more than Trotsky?! (not that idiot Mao)

Anyway, to throw at you a few interesting notes, which I believe more people should know so as to refute the false beliefs given to them by the corrupt US and USSR regimes...

"From this brief outline, it should be clear that no socialist, much less communist, society has yet existed"

There ya go. For more info on that, read Trotsky's The Third International After Lenin.

As to Liam's comment, the Labour Party, although now a conservative protection for the bourgeois, was never socialist. It was social democrat. Generally, we look at the Internationals this way

First International - Marx/Engels, collapsed in the 19th century. Experimental, theoretical.
Second International - Social Democratic. Collapsed when the Social Democrats in Germany voted credits for the Kaiser's imperialist war, much like the French and British would do, thus violating the very basis of socialism, internationalism, in favor of petty nationalism.
Third International - Communist. Created by Lenin, usurped and eventually a Stalnist/Maoist amalgam of satanic evil.
Fourth International - Socialist. Created by Trotsky in 1938, the last remaining revolutionary international.

Labour was a founding member of the Second International and maintained it down to this day. Thus, it was social democratic, not socialist.

As to the liberal/conservative thing, a brief comment. Conservatives believe that government can legislate morality (see the corruptness of the vile fornication taking place between the Republican party and the Christian Right) whereas Liberals don't. That is the exact opposite of the definition for liberal/conservative you generally hear. A good rule of thumb is that you're to the left if you favour control over economics and nothing else and you're to the right if you want economic freedom but government control elsewhere.

That should help you all out a bit. I aim to please. Maybe I'll have another post in a few months :-)

------------------


 


Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :
 
Thank you, DT. That was quite clear and easy to understand.

I understand that "Das Kapital" (or was it "The Communist Manifesto"?) was rather difficult to comprehend. Marx had a poor grasp of economics, but he did have valid insights regarding the effects that the "benign neglect" of business and industry by government would have.

--Baloo

P.S.: The link you referred to: www.wsws.org

I'll go have a look.

------------------
"It is required of every man," the Ghost returned, "that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the world -- oh, woe is me! -- and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!"
-- Jacob Marley's Ghost (A Christmas Carol -- Charles Dickens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm



 


Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
 
Probably Das Kapital.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
 


Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Actually, I'd consider Marx a brilliant economist and historian. It was the predictions he had a problem with.

Having said that, DT's presence has me too gobsmacked to say anything more.

------------------
"It's just like the story of the grasshopper and the octopus. All year long, the grasshopper kept burying acorns for winter while the octopus mooched off his girlfriend and watched TV. But then the winter came and the grasshopper died and the octopus ate all his acorns, and then he got a racecar. Is any of this getting through to you?."
--
Futurama

 


Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :
 
*Laughs*
I just remembered - I got a message on ICQ just after DT posted.

It said something along the lines of 'I'll have to break my vow of silence and fix this up! Being a true communist, a brother to the worker....' (Well, you can imagine the rest!).

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net


 




© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3