That’s correct, but I’m not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I’m just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn’t really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker’s paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn’t been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I’m not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and “communism” was just catchier to say than “supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly”. Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became “communism”, which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled “un-american”. This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn’t moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of “the state will take away the stuff you own” turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I’m very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is… maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask – it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren’t socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.
Socialism means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules
What you’re describing is “social democracy” — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. “Socialism” explicitly implies worker control of production. “Nordic socialism” could more accurately be called “Nordic social democracy.”
“Communism” refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It’s an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.
There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.
The idea is that these socioeconomic orders are global. Capitalism today is global. Even if a country today tries to do not-capitalism, it still must engage in the capitalist sphere, doing trade with them, using money system, debt, and producing purely for the purpose of selling. These are aspects of capitalism we stuck with until the global order isn’t capitalism.
So communism would not come about unless it is global. In which case the question of “other countries” would not apply. You can assume that for whatever reason, a breakaway bunch decide to revert back to capitalism, but that would not go well. Why? Why would anyone whose needs are fully met and their entire time is only spent doing things for their own interests and community decide “I actually wish I had to give most my time to a capitalist in exchange for money that allows me to buy my needs”? For one, money wouldn’t exist in communism, so that part would not even appeal you. Capitalism only has the upper hand because it is already the global system. Once it is overthrown, it is the reverse.
Obviously a society will put guards to deal with lunatics wanting to destroy society for ideological reasons (trying to restore capitalism). It would be in their interest to do so.
I hope I answered your question. Unless your question was “how do we prevent resistance during the revolution / transition”?
I’m very happy to see you’re curious, and would love to answer your questions. Thank you for being open minded! :)
To get there, Communists think that the working class should take power, political power (that’s what they call dictatorship of the proletariat) and control of the means of production. Nowadays, those are both controlled by the capitalist ruling class (directly and indirectly). If the working class controlled the means of production, that means they can operate it for their own needs instead of for profit.
You’re probably thinking “well that doesn’t explain how it actually happens”. You’re right. The exact mechanism for the working class reaching power is something I’ve admittedly studied a lot less, and given their Communists are yet to succeed with that, I imagine the theories there aren’t complete.
The essential idea, though, is that the working class needs to become class conscious. In other words, aware of… Basically what we’ve been talking about. How capitalism is and how the different classes operate within the realm of capitalism. Then, the working class must organize together as a United force, and seek to overthrow the capitalist class.
In an ideal world, this would be pretty easy. Workers are the core of the economy, so workers could simply stop working or just operate their factories as they want.
In reality, things aren’t as smooth. There will always be unconvinced workers. There will be police that, if you take over your workplace, they’ll violently put you back in your place. This is something we’ve seen before in history. This is where things could get violent and bloody. The working class must be prepared to fight back.
Bob: “Guys… if we could get everyone in the whole world working together to efficiently organize labor and the allocation of resources, there would be no more poverty”
Alice: “Wow Bob, that sounds amazing! How do we make that happen?”
There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.
What if i told you that marxist theory is not some isolated idea from a random guy but the conclusion of a scientific analysis of economic history through the lens of dialectical materialism, and built on top of the works of many other people?
An easy way too look at it is that marxism is for economics what darwinism is for biology.
The best read on this is “Dialectical and Historical materialism” by Stalin.
As marx put it, the only way capitalism would survive is by keeping an infinite growth. Tech is a prime example of that phenomena, where new needs are being created out of thin air: subscriptions, software, etc… Cars, phones have begun to be necessary. That’s how capitalism survives still today: growing more and more by creating new needs for the individual. Except this growth is at the expense of finite ressources, and this is where we’re gonna hit a wall.
Maybe this explains we haven’t seen a capitalist collapse yet. But with today’s ecological concerns, it seems closer than ever
You are maybe confusing communism for socialism. Communism is stateless by definition. Socialism is the phase of development before communism is achieved in which the people indirectly own the means of production through the state.
You’re mistaken, the state is a collection of proletariat meaning you are a part of the state. You may not be the whole state but it is your land as it is everyone elses
The difference is that liberal democracy is underpinned on the idea that being able to elect a bourgeoise representative is all you need to be fully involved, whereas a socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything. Socialist states exist with this as an ideal and only walk back from this goal with good cause, as opposed to starting with nothing, adding the opportunity to choose bourgeoise representation out of a small pool every once in a while, and calling it good.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, can you elaborate? I’m not advocating making laws about what people are allowed to think, but I’m not sure that’s what you mean
socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state requires power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything.
That’s making laws about what people think. That is not socialism but tyranny.
Sorry, I think this is just a grammatical confusion, let me fix it:
socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything.
The US > literal any socialist state, and it’s not even close. The US is so far above any socialist state past and present that it’s comical when brain damaged Marxists try to compare the two and think it’s a gotcha for them. No, despite all its flaws, the US is objectively a great country, and that’s largely because it’s a liberal democracy. What’s funny is that it’s not even the best liberal democracy, there are others that are better. But even a mediocre liberal democracy is better than anything Marxist. Hell, even a bad liberal democracies are better than anything Marxist. I’d rather live in modern day Botswana or Peru any day of the week over modern day Cuba or any time during the Soviet Union.
When you own the means of production it’s literally yours. I don’t understand the issue.
The issue is probably “HahA ComMUnIsM BaD!1!”
The issue of course is that when we reach peak communism we’ll drop possessive language entirely like in The Dispossessed.
I’ll work and teach on the farm we share.
Big difference between communism and socialism.
That’s correct, but I’m not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I’m just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn’t really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker’s paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn’t been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I’m not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and “communism” was just catchier to say than “supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly”. Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became “communism”, which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled “un-american”. This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn’t moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of “the state will take away the stuff you own” turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I’m very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is… maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask – it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren’t socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.
What you’re describing is “social democracy” — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. “Socialism” explicitly implies worker control of production. “Nordic socialism” could more accurately be called “Nordic social democracy.”
“Communism” refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It’s an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.
But you can’t own anything in socialism and communism. YOU are owned instead.
It doesn’t sound like you understand these terms.
Under communism, the state owns the resources. People are not the state.
That’s false. There’s no state in communism. See Karl Marx or any Communist writer on this.
Karl Marc is like Marx, but without that dictatorship of the proletariat cope.
deleted by creator
There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.
deleted by creator
The idea is that these socioeconomic orders are global. Capitalism today is global. Even if a country today tries to do not-capitalism, it still must engage in the capitalist sphere, doing trade with them, using money system, debt, and producing purely for the purpose of selling. These are aspects of capitalism we stuck with until the global order isn’t capitalism.
So communism would not come about unless it is global. In which case the question of “other countries” would not apply. You can assume that for whatever reason, a breakaway bunch decide to revert back to capitalism, but that would not go well. Why? Why would anyone whose needs are fully met and their entire time is only spent doing things for their own interests and community decide “I actually wish I had to give most my time to a capitalist in exchange for money that allows me to buy my needs”? For one, money wouldn’t exist in communism, so that part would not even appeal you. Capitalism only has the upper hand because it is already the global system. Once it is overthrown, it is the reverse.
Obviously a society will put guards to deal with lunatics wanting to destroy society for ideological reasons (trying to restore capitalism). It would be in their interest to do so.
I hope I answered your question. Unless your question was “how do we prevent resistance during the revolution / transition”?
deleted by creator
I’m very happy to see you’re curious, and would love to answer your questions. Thank you for being open minded! :)
To get there, Communists think that the working class should take power, political power (that’s what they call dictatorship of the proletariat) and control of the means of production. Nowadays, those are both controlled by the capitalist ruling class (directly and indirectly). If the working class controlled the means of production, that means they can operate it for their own needs instead of for profit.
You’re probably thinking “well that doesn’t explain how it actually happens”. You’re right. The exact mechanism for the working class reaching power is something I’ve admittedly studied a lot less, and given their Communists are yet to succeed with that, I imagine the theories there aren’t complete.
The essential idea, though, is that the working class needs to become class conscious. In other words, aware of… Basically what we’ve been talking about. How capitalism is and how the different classes operate within the realm of capitalism. Then, the working class must organize together as a United force, and seek to overthrow the capitalist class.
In an ideal world, this would be pretty easy. Workers are the core of the economy, so workers could simply stop working or just operate their factories as they want.
In reality, things aren’t as smooth. There will always be unconvinced workers. There will be police that, if you take over your workplace, they’ll violently put you back in your place. This is something we’ve seen before in history. This is where things could get violent and bloody. The working class must be prepared to fight back.
Please let me know if this answers your question.
Bob: “Guys… if we could get everyone in the whole world working together to efficiently organize labor and the allocation of resources, there would be no more poverty”
Alice: “Wow Bob, that sounds amazing! How do we make that happen?”
Bob: “Uhh… how many bullets do we have?”
There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.
And yet it’s been 200 years since the ‘Imminent’ downfall of capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming
Same energy
What if i told you that marxist theory is not some isolated idea from a random guy but the conclusion of a scientific analysis of economic history through the lens of dialectical materialism, and built on top of the works of many other people?
An easy way too look at it is that marxism is for economics what darwinism is for biology.
The best read on this is “Dialectical and Historical materialism” by Stalin.
As marx put it, the only way capitalism would survive is by keeping an infinite growth. Tech is a prime example of that phenomena, where new needs are being created out of thin air: subscriptions, software, etc… Cars, phones have begun to be necessary. That’s how capitalism survives still today: growing more and more by creating new needs for the individual. Except this growth is at the expense of finite ressources, and this is where we’re gonna hit a wall.
Maybe this explains we haven’t seen a capitalist collapse yet. But with today’s ecological concerns, it seems closer than ever
This is a pleasant fiction.
You’ve gotta try reading beyond 6th grade level fiction before judging books on socio-economics.
Removed by mod
You are maybe confusing communism for socialism. Communism is stateless by definition. Socialism is the phase of development before communism is achieved in which the people indirectly own the means of production through the state.
You’re mistaken, the state is a collection of proletariat meaning you are a part of the state. You may not be the whole state but it is your land as it is everyone elses
Atleast as far as I understand it
Thank you for the correction sharkfucker420
Always happy to help 👍
Removed by mod
I’ve heard same said about liberal democracy too. “State is made up of us voting citizens” etc etc. Feels as hollow
The difference is that liberal democracy is underpinned on the idea that being able to elect a bourgeoise representative is all you need to be fully involved, whereas a socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything. Socialist states exist with this as an ideal and only walk back from this goal with good cause, as opposed to starting with nothing, adding the opportunity to choose bourgeoise representation out of a small pool every once in a while, and calling it good.
e: added text in italics for clarity
Making laws about what people think is called tyranny, not socialism.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, can you elaborate? I’m not advocating making laws about what people are allowed to think, but I’m not sure that’s what you mean
That’s making laws about what people think. That is not socialism but tyranny.
Sorry, I think this is just a grammatical confusion, let me fix it:
I’ll go edit the original comment for clarity
The difference is that liberal democracy actually respects individuality
As long as you are a happy conformist wage slave sure.
But where can we install another electoral college to guarantee govt control over masses wants
The US > literal any socialist state, and it’s not even close. The US is so far above any socialist state past and present that it’s comical when brain damaged Marxists try to compare the two and think it’s a gotcha for them. No, despite all its flaws, the US is objectively a great country, and that’s largely because it’s a liberal democracy. What’s funny is that it’s not even the best liberal democracy, there are others that are better. But even a mediocre liberal democracy is better than anything Marxist. Hell, even a bad liberal democracies are better than anything Marxist. I’d rather live in modern day Botswana or Peru any day of the week over modern day Cuba or any time during the Soviet Union.
This is really well worded, thanks for sharing!
deleted by creator
If everyone owns something no one does
How much do you and the average person actually own under capitalism
Just because it sounds cool, it doesnt make it real yk. 😅
Did you just watch a Brad Bird movie
deleted by creator
Myour mistakeCommunism is stateless