You're viewing a single thread.
Socialism != Communism
Socialism advocates for collective or government ownership of key industries to reduce inequality, while communism seeks a classless, stateless society with communal ownership of all property.
Kinda? Socialism is a transitional status towards communism. Socialism is largely categorized as a system where public property is the principle aspect, ie large firms and key industries, rather than private. Communism is when socialism has developed to the point where all production has become centralized, and collectively owned, thereby eliminating class and the modern conception of a state.
They are disinct in that they have functional differences, but are the same in that they are largely the same concept but at different historical stages.
I think this is way too narrow. Following Marx? For sure, you're right.. but if you look at "Liberalism" - which can span anything from "taxes and government are literal hell" to "we support LGBT rights" - and "Conservatism" - which can span anything from Angela Merkel to Trump to follow-my-millenia-old-book-by-the-letter-or-I-will-murder-you - the word "Socialism" in the modern age can definitely contain nuances as well. For instance the main centre-left party in Denmark is called the "Social Democrats" then right to the left of it you have the "Socialist People's Party" - which is far less revolutionary than it sounds - and then you have a few other parties, including one identifying as "Communist" but which doesn't even really fight for any kind of revolution or the total elimination of class but recognises the requirement for collaboration and compromising when in power.
People have indeed doctored the meanings of terms over the centuries, but what I laid out is a far more useful understanding. Liberalism, as an example, is the umbrella ideology around capitalism. It isn't "LGBTQ rights," the social factor doesn't really play as much into liberalism as the economic factor. Conservativism falls under liberalism.
I don't really think I described anything in a "narrow" sense, it's more broad than some may choose to define these as.
Kinda? Socialism was initially described as a transitionary stage of Communism in the same way as totalitarian violent revolution was described as a transitionary stage of Communism. This view also contained the belief that Capitalism is simply a transitionary stage of Fascism. A mixed market economy then with Socialism and Capitalism then describes an economy that is in a superposition of transitioning to both Communism and Fascism. In reality the transitionary times if you call them that are just as validly real times that people live in and regimes change and come and go and we must strive to fight for justice, equity and self determination while preventing too much power from falling into the hands of too few now and try to find the best system for now rather than acting as though everything is an inevitable slope to one extreme destination and that nothing else matters.
Nah, this is further off-base. Public ownership is not itself "socialism" just as private ownership is not itself "capitalism," what matters is which forms the principle aspect. When communists over the years were analyzing capitalism, they were fully aware of capitalist systems with strong state control, like Bismark's Germany. All systems have had elements of the previous mode of production and the seeds of the next, that doesn't mean they are superpositions as such an analysis erases the actual dynamics of ownership at play and the fundamentally transitional nature of all modes of production.
Today, we can see capitalist systems like the US, Finland, Brazil, etc and socialist systems like Cuba, the PRC, etc and we find elements of private and public property in each, only in the capitalist nations private property has the steering wheel and in the socialist nations its the public sector that's in control. As economies develop, they centralize and grow, and this further compels them into higher stages of development. Capitalism becomes more strained as disparity rises, fostering revolution, and socialism becomes more developed and sees higher rates of government control and improving development.
Revolution is still fundamentally the main means by which one mode of production transitions to the next. Nowhere did I say "nothing other than communism matters," in order to get to communism we must build it through socialism, as other countries are already doing. Socialism is the means by which we can build that more equitable future now, not maintaining a dying capitalist system.
Edit: figured I'd address some points:
-
Revolution is the method of wresting control from one class to another, not a transitionary "stage" like socialism is.
-
Capitalism is not a "transitonal stage" to fascism. Fascism is capitalism in decay, when the bourgeoisie needs to use violent measures to perpetuate itself, broadly. It isn't distinct from capitalism, it functions with private property as the basis.
-
All modes of production change, purity doesn't exist, but at the same time it does not mean there are not dominant factors and driving factors that compel these changes.
I wildly disagree with the premise that the principle difference between european style socialism and the socialism practiced in china or NK or the USSR is whether the state or private ownership has the steering wheel. The difference is how dispersed and shared the power structure is between groups with differing ideas. Concentration of power inevitably leads to corruption and further concentration of power and unfettered private ownership is an incredibly efficient way for power to concentrate. Capitalism is a very powerful tool to create an oligarchy and if private ownership is allowed it will at least WANT to create an oligarchy given enough time. However, a one party system also WANTS to create an oligarchy, even if the one party ostensibly represents the people. The modern socialist movement contains many, many people who have little to no interest or belief in seeing pure communism happen.
Europe doesn't have socialism, they have capitalism. Their economies are driven entirely by the direction of private capital, the latge firms and key industries are firmly in private hands. Ideas have nothing to do with it, economic power has everything to do with it.
Concentration of power does not necessarily lead to corruption, either. Centralization is an economic necessity as economies develop, so its better for these aspects to be publicly owned and planned so as to be more equitable.
The "modern socialist movement," globally, is thoroughly dominated by communists. You have a very western, Social Democratic viewpoint. Ie, you see European welfare capitalism as the "modern socialist movement" when that's a minority, and not even socialist.
Further, the European social democracies depend on heavy exploitation of the global south, a form of expropriation called Imperialism. Without imperialism, these economies collapse, which is why over time as countries in the global south nationalize their industry and throw off foreign ownership, safety nets and welfare systems are cut back in Europe and the US.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the modern common definitions of things then. If socialism means only be definition a transitionary stage to communism then there is no meaning in people saying they are a socialist vs a communist, but clearly many people identify as socialist but not communist.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on the modern common definitions of things then.
That sounds like you being mindlessly stubborn.
but clearly many people identify as socialist but not communist.
Those people are usually welfare capitalists.
All communists are at first socialists, after all. Marx only used the word "communist" in order to take on a more radical term, it was Lenin that used socialism as a descriptor for what Marx called the "lower stage of communism" just to help make things easier to understand. There really aren't any significant numbers of people that want to "freeze development" at socialism, among the two largest umbrellas for socialists are Marxists and Anarchists, and neither sees socialism as the final stage.
Picked up this phrase from a random comment a few years ago:
philosophically I'm an anarchist, so pragmatically I'm a communist and currently I'm a socialist
Yep, that explains a lot of people's thought process on the Left. Since there's a lot of overlap in terms, there's a lot of hats you can wear without being inconsistent, depending on the context.
-