Communism, in the broadest definition, is the goal of achieving a stateless and classless society where everybody is equal with no hierarchy of any kind. In this umbrella, you have all sorts of different groups, you might have heard of “Marxists” or “Marxist-Leninists”, but this goal is also shared by non-Marxist socialists and some forms of anarchism too! Indeed, the first Communist International included the anarchists as they shared similar goals, but future “Internationals” did not as their methodology of achieving this utopia differed significantly.
Socialism is another broad term thrown around to describe a lot of things, but in a nutshell, a socialist advocates for reforms that move closer to a communist utopia (though that might not be the goalpost). It is sometimes also used to refer to “social democrats”, who uphold capitalism while pushing for social reforms that results in a more equal and less divided society. This is not to be conflated with “democratic socialists”, who are anti-capitalist and pro-democracy.
Not all communists are socialists, and not all socialists are communists.
As small tidbit, not all communists are Marxists, that term specifically refers to those who believe in the ideas of Karl Marx. They are not necessarily authoritarian, but many of Marx’s ideas can be interpreted as such. Marxist-Leninism / Bolshevism is an extension of Marxism that focuses more on a violent revolution and a strong authoritarian state. There are also other forms that revolve around various different people, like Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc., but most of those are pretty cult-like.
Personally, I support democracy and believe that a transparent government that lets the people decide on issues creates a fairer, more equal society. I guess you could also say I’m a socialist, as I like the idea of a more egalitarian society and I support the social reforms that try to achieve that
Small note, I’m not an economist, but I do know that socialism aims to give more economic control to the working class over the owning class (businessmen and that sort). Things like unions, minimum wages, paid maternity leave, etc. stemmed from socialists and generally improved the lives of workers!
I’m not educated enough to give you a fulfilling answer, but from what I understand:
These are two similar economic ideologies. They’re not interchangeable per se, but they share a lot of characteristics that make them seem identical from some perspectives.
Now, unless someone else comments who’s more familiar with this than I am, I do recommend looking this up for more information!
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
The simple answer is that you should have searched for an answer to this. It’s not a question for Lemmy, it’s been answered a billion times at this point.
And that doesn’t mean it can’t be answered again. Do your part in spreading love, not hate.
I disagree, people should use the correct tools to achieve the outcome they are looking for. If you want a basic answer to a common question, you should search for material that has already answered that. Asking it in Lemmy or another social media site is wasting the time of people who could use that time to answer questions that aren’t already answered or have nuance to them that current discussion would help.
The question itself isn’t stupid, it’s a very good question, but asking other people instead of looking it up is stupid.
I don’t think you know what ‘stupid’ means, you should look it up.
If asking questions to other people on Lemmy is stupid, answering the question is even more stupid.
You don’t know the outcome they were looking for, it’s stupid to pretend otherwise.
There is definitely a difference, and they are not interchangeable. I’ll let other people chime in with a rigorous definition for communism, but at a minimum, it must have abolished the state and social classes entirely. So one could say that communism is at the very end of the road, and the various flavors of socialism are the routes to get there.
Various flavors of socialism? Yes, I’ve written an earlier comment about that, and another one here. In brief, there are many ways to move beyond capitalism.
communism is an utopia ideal far more than an actionable form of government. I have never met a human being who didn’t function without a conception of social class. it only really works in small communities that have closed belief systems and practice social-isolation.
socialism is very actionable, it’s more of a policy than a form of government. you can have a socialist monarchy or dictatorship. most ‘communist’ countries were/are socialist dictatorships.
Humanity actually successfully implemented a decentralized egalitarian communist society without dictatorships in 1936 Spain, which bore out that it’s possible for us to achieve freedom for all while also ensuring everyone is able to live a fulfilling life by providing free housing, food, transportation and healthcare.
Some very specific outside circumstances caused it to be halted prematurely (namely, an unusual amount of industrialized fascist states and the USSR ganging up against it all at once, with very limited industrial capacity of their own to effectively fight back), but they documented how their society functioned while it existed quite well, and over 3 million people participated in it.
For most, it’s as difficult to imagine to an end to capitalism as it was for peasants to imagine an end to the divine right of kings, yet it did happen.
Idiots think they are the same thing.
They are about the same as monarchy and democracy. As in they are different systems of government with different arrangements and goals
and there is tons of varbility in each and across them. you can have elements of htem that overlap.
when people claim they are directly opposed to capitalism/democracy, they are also just stupidly wrong.
the problem is that ‘communism’ in the real world, has never existed, and socialism is quite limited in most countires.
what most countries that are communist/socialist actually were/are, is autocratic or oligarch states, with planned economies.
most capitalist democracies have tons of socialism, it’s just a matter of degree and kind. USA doesn’t have a sovereign wealth fund, but it sure as shit is socialist AF when it comes to defense spending.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:
deleted by creator
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
One is a socioeconomic philosophy, while the other is a political structure. One might involve the other, but that’s not necessarily always the case.
Socialism - Everyone contributes money to social programs that benefit everyone. Taxes are higher, but the money is used for the benefit of all. The government exists to oversee the programs that support the people. This HAS worked in many countries around the world. It is not about everyone being economically equal in society, it’s about accessibility of care and benefit for everyone regardless of their starting point.
Communism - Everyone is to be on equal footing and wealth is to be evenly distributed among everyone. Everything is, in theory, shared and belongs to everyone. The government exists to oversee the transition of society, then is meant to step aside rather than remain above the rest of the people. This has NOT worked as no one has ever successfully established this and then stepped aside. It leaves the door wide open for abuse of power.That’s just social democracy, not socialism.
In your communism definition, the government is not supposed to step aside, it’s supposed to stop having a function as classes are eliminated, because the state’s purpose is the oppression of one class by the other.
More simply, socialism is about indirect redistribution of wealth through taxes paying for social programs that benefit everyone. Communism seeks literal redistribution of wealth to maintain equal economic status for all.
Glad I learned something today. I didn’t know the difference until now. Thanks.
Just FYI, the 2 parent comments are completely wrong and you shouldn’t remember these definitions.
Socialism = means of production are owned by society, but classes still exist (the working class rules over the former bourgeoisie)
When that process is finished and classes and contradictions that lead to them have been completely abolished, that’s communism.
Which is the same society that Anarchists want to achieve, the only difference is that Anarchists don’t have a coherent plan on how to get there.
Socialism might also seek the direct redistribution of wealth via wealth taxes.
The difference is primarily in collecting wealth via taxes after the fact, rather than having a central body try and actively redistribute everything before payment.
It’s important to consider the fact that an economy does not have to be entirely Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist.
Most countries already have Socialist and Capitalist components at this point.
What I’d personally like to see is Land be a communist system. Necessities be Socialist. Luxuries be Capitalist.
Every citizen of a country should own and share in the land of the country equally. It should not be possible to privately own land. If land is leased or rented from this pool for individual or corporate use, that money should be given to everyone equally. Likely that would be handled by a government in reality, but it should be fairly hands off other than facilitating the transfer of value.
Necessities like Basic Housing, Basic Food, Public Transportation, Medical Care, Parks, Rec Centers, Schools, Police, Courts, etc. should be all handled with socialism. Where the government collects taxes from the land value and capitalist markets, and operates these systems itself for the benefit of everyone who needs them.
If you want more than necessities, capitalism should stick around to handle those desires. Want a bigger fancier house, some fancy oranges from another country, a suit made of silk, go ahead and buy it on a capitalist market either with the money you receive from your portion of land ownership value, or through participating in the capitalist market yourself.
This is completely wrong. Social welfare and shared infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism is an economic model where the means of production are owned by the workers, nothing more, nothing less.
You clearly don’t understand how many countries operate. Or you’re somehow misunderstanding what “means of production” or “workers” means.
My local electricity provider, and all of it’s power production equipment, transmission lines, meters, etc. are owned by the government. So is every hospital in the country. Almost every road is public.
Means of production is any sort of capital used to build value, so things like infrastructure, buildings, factories, machinery, tools, etc.
Workers does not mean the people that work in a particular building or factory, it means the class of people as a whole.
It’s pretty obvious that if the government owns something, under a democracy that thing is is owned by the citizens of the region. Even Marx mentions that socialism would use the state for collective ownership.
Yes, they may be state-owned, but you still live in a bourgeois state with capitalist ownership structure, so the state doesn’t act in the workers interest, but to uphold the capitalist order.
By the way, would you mind telling me what country that is? Most EU countries with strong state-owned infrastructure that I’m aware of have been forced to liberalize, so for example in my country lots of former state enterprises are now private profit-bound businesses that are just 100% owned by the state.
Canada
You’re stretching the realities here with your assertions. The vast majority of what the government does is in the interest of workers. It could be better, absolutely, but it’s a far cry from some dystopian corpo-state. The government could move towards more positive worker benefits, but a lot of those workers won’t actually vote for them if they did because people aren’t entirely rational. So we’re essentially getting what we deserve right now.
Profit-bound but still owned by the state would still be socialist. There’s no requirement that the means of production not generate profit to qualify as being owned by the workers.
So you’re a Social Democrat, got it. Those are pretty out of fashion over here and gave up pretending wanting to achieve Socialism long ago. Sorry, but I don’t really think that what you’re talking about is Socialism, it’s liberal reformism.
I want Communism for Land, Socialism for Necessities, and Capitalism for Luxuries.
I don’t think that puts me into any of the existing labels to be quite honest.
Entirely wrong.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:
The government in socialism does not “step aside.” Instead, the working class state collectivizes all production and distribution, at which point classes no longer exist and all that remains of the state is administrative duties, which are socially necessary. Many states have developed socialism, but communism is global and post-socialist.
Further, distribution in communism is based on need, not equal to everyone.
This is completely incorrect, cite any socialist or communist philosophers agreeing with you.
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you’re thinking if this is new to you.)
Socialism is a wider umbrella term.
Apart from the specific definitions and history of practice there are people who help people and people who help themselves. All systems have been derived from this.
Here’s the reality.
All political labels fall apart in the real world.
Think North Korea is a ‘democratic republic?’ Or that Hitler was a Marxist?
Look at the 1956 Republican Party platform.
Heck, billionaire GOP Mayor Mike Bloomberg pushed to lower the number of cars coming into New York, almost as if he were a Green.
My advice is to look at the actual candidates and leave the theory in the classroom
First off, the 1956 Republican party is not the same as the modern GOP. You conveniently chose the time immediately before the schism that essentially reversed the two parties.
If anyone wants to argue about this, I suggest you read about Strom Thurmond. Perhaps the most vile, openly racist politician of the 20th century US. Thurmond was a lifelong Democrat, until the party started supporting civil rights.
That’s when he and his fellow Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats) moved to the Republican party. You’re highlighting their platform from immediately before the influx of racist shit heads.
Second, nobody classifies North Korea as that, except for North Korea. That doesn’t mean that we cannot label it accurately.
Third, Hitler never claimed to be a Marxist, nor have I ever seen anyone make that claim. I’ve seen the “hurr durr Nazis are socialist because it’s in the name,” but there’s a distinction between socialism and Marxism.
Fourth, the logic of the Bloomberg thing isn’t sound. “Almost as if he were a green” as if wanting less cars is completely unique to the Green party. Not how logic works.
Or that Hitler was a Marxist?
Hitler described himself as a socialist, but certainly not Marxist.
Literally, ‘Socialism’ was in the name.
Also, the actual members of the Party hated to be called "Nazis’ because Nazi is a nickname for Ignatz. It was a bit like calling an american ‘Homer’ or ‘Jethro,’
Yeah, but he only emphasized the “Socialist” part of the name in front of socialists. In front of nationalists, he called it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just socializing with each other.
The truth is, Hitler supported the ideology of whoever he was addressing. He didn’t care about implementing any specific system, as long as he had absolute power over it.
Which gets us back to the original point; that there’s no reason to discuss political labels anywhere but a classroom.
He only described himself as a socialist to other socialists. In front of other nationalists, he called himself a nationalist.
His party was called the “Nationalist Socialist” party. When he addressed nationalists, he would capitalize the N and call it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just a bunch of nationalists socializing. But, when he spoke to socialists, he would capitalize the S and call it the “national Socialist” party.
Hitler didn’t care about nationalism or socialism. He only cared about saying whatever he thought he needed to say to obtain as much power as possible.
Both words can have more than one meaning.
Socialism may be among other things:
- an economic system where the “means of production” are owned by the workers (Marxist theory as I understand it)
- the economic and political system that was implemented in the Soviet Union and its allies (they described it as socialism)
- social democracy, ie government regulations of the free market in order to make it more socially just
Communism, in Marxist theory, is a future stateless moneyless classless society which Marxists claim will inevitably happen after socialism. (Nonsense, but that’s the theory.) But a lot of times the word is used, it just means the second point from above, ie the way the Soviet Union and its allies were ruled. That’s mainly because a lot of ruling parties in those countries called and still call themselves the Communist Party of (country), though others didn’t, eg the East German ruling party was called the Socialist Unity Party of Germany.
They do have technical definitions that educated people debate over.
For everyone else, theyean the same thing. That thing being all that’s great or terrible in an economy, depending on the point of view.
Socialism, social democracy, and communism all focus on a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income. To what extent and what their approaches are, differ, though.
Social democracy proposes a classless society, usually within the premise of an ‘electoral democracy’, often with trade unions and strikes as a bulwark against further deterioration into capitalism.
Socialism, if distinguished from social democracy, also wishes a classless society, but goes further: it wishes to advance social ownership of the economy.
Rather than just politics, the economy is also democratised. Instead of a CEO deciding for all, it’s the labourers that choose, that have a say.Communism proposes that a just society must be not just classless, but also moneyless and stateless.
Instead of money as transferrable and susceptible to wealth accumulation, other means for exchange are used; labour vouchers, community exchange systems, and so on. Instead of a centralised, repressive state, society would be decentralised and free, living in communes; if there is a military or a police, both should stand on equal footing with the people.Talking about “socalism” in a language beset by capitalist oligarchs applying the label to things as mundane as “feeding children” really does require we draw a distinction between the numerous resultant definitions.
Some people use “socialism” to mean the anti-capitalist ideal you describe, while others mean either “thing I dont want my taxes to provide” or “the things those guys keep blocking.”
