• birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.”