Simple question: What are the major differences between Socialism and Communism?
so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
The theory or practice of those who support such a social system.
The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.
and:com·mu·nism (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
::
Thanks and a tip of the hat looking that up and posting it, Boomer!
I think, if we talk about practice rather than theory, history teaches that socialism works better than communism, IMHO because it allows more scope for individual taste. How many actual “communist” governments are left? China? Is that the only one? And I think they’re slowly moving more towards “socialism”, in that they’re allowing people to keep more of the money they earn, rather than forcing them to donate it all to “the state”.
What are the actual socialist governments? All I can think of are Denmark and Sweden, but there must be others. And does France count as “socialist” or are they something unique? Ditto for Great Britain–would you count that as “socialism”? I know that in school we learned that Great Britain has a “constitutional monarchy”, but is it also a “socialist” constitutional monarchy?
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
The case for the UK is complicated by the fact that the party in power now has distanced itself from the ‘dirty word’ of socialism, the leadership won’t say that they are socialists, despite the fact that i’m sure most of the grass roots supporters would describe themselves as this.
Shouldn’t you add North Korea and Cuba to your list?
As a young man in the army stationed in Germany back in the early 80s, I was very impressed with their socialist democracy. Made a socialist out of me. Without any data to back me except personal experience, it seems to me these europeon socialist democracies tend to have a very high standard of living. It would never fly here though. To many Americans equate socialism with communism.
Under CalifBoomers definitions, neither Denmark nor Sweden (nor, for that matter, Norway) are socialist. The “means of production” are not collectively owned. And of course, all three countries are monarchies (I obstinately refuse to use the term “socialist constitutional monarchy”, sorry.)
OTOH, there are some socialist traits: Socialized medicine, pensions, unemployment benefits, daycare, education etc. etc.
Most people supply this with private insurance in one area or other: Better old-age pensions, improved accident insurance, improved unemployment benefits etc. - but the basic premise is that you can fuck up your life thoroughly, take no precautions whatsoever and still be provided with - at the very least - food, medical care and a place to live. The basic premise: The 80% who are best off pays to the 20% who are lazy, stupid or unlucky - is sound enough IMO.
In practice, idiot politicians can’t resist the temptation to buy votes with public means: If you have children, you’ll receive a cheque 4 times a year (it used to be a tax deduction, but a cheque buys more votes - these guys are smart enough). Hire enough people for public positions - and you’re sure that these people won’t vote for conservatives (who are, to confuse matters, called “liberals” hereabouts) who promise to cut public spending. Besides, it makes the unemployment figures look better.
This of course drives taxes through the roof and that puts a damper on initiative - though not so much as one might expect; movers & shakers are driven by their desire to prove themselves as much as the hope of making millions.
Is this socialism ? Well, you tell me. The government leaders call themselves “Social democrats”, and although they still celebrate May 1st and parade red banners, they have privatized telecommunications, rail & ferry transport etc. - and they’re definitely not about to nationalize industry.
Having recently moved to Germany, I think I can safely say that the German system - with private health insurance etc. - is very much the same. Taxes are lower, but with the insurance premiums the cost of the entire package adds up to about the same. I can’t comment on the relative quality of the two systems from a “consumer” point of view.
As for the OP: Both words (socialism & communism) have been used in so many ways by so many people, that CalifB’s definitions may no longer be descriptive of their actual use.
Norman
Is Australia an example of a socialist nation?
To quote Marx "The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "
Marx also defined Socialism as a step on the way to true Communism.
Then you come to reality. There are governments currently, and in the past, that have been called Communist. Were they communist? I would define them as State Capitalist, they acted as a single uniot of Capital in direct competition with other various units of capital.
What about Socialism? There are the Social Democrats of various countries, are they really Socialist? Not really, they still function under capitalist society. They are rapidly moving to the center and right of the political spectrum. You also have the Social Democrats who still believe you can move to Communism through peacfull means. To them calling them Communist is an insult, you are likening them to the regimes of Cuba, and North Korea.
To a Communist, a true one, calling them a Socialist is an insult, it’s likening them to the sell outs of WW1, WW2, and currently.
I define Communism as the working class having political and economic power. Socialism, as wimpy social democracy.
Hope that clears up some questions.
Under my definition, there are no Communist government, though in the past people have taken steps in that direction.
There are also no Socialist governments, only individaul Socialists.
Cuba may be socialist now, but does anybody want to try to predict what happens when Castro dies?
I will go out on a limb here and predict a sudden explosive return to Capitalism with a capital C. All those American tourist dollars carry a lot of weight.
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
I would say that there are degrees of socialism that can exist in a given country. There is such a thing as too much socialism and such a thing as not enough socialism. Perhaps the U.S. has too much, perhaps it has just the right amount. Furthermore, the levels of socialism must be understood as they apply to the various aspects of the economy, such as education, retirement pensions, unemployment, roads, medical care, etc. We could be “moving toward socialism” (as Boomer and others have charged) in some areas and moving away from socialism in others.
For example, the school choice movement, while not enjoying a whole lot of success in changing policy, has gained considerable political support in recent years, and this adds up to moving away from socialism in the area of education. Likewise the increased support for proposals to privatize social security, although if “fixing” it means taking a bigger bite of GNP to pay for baby boomer retirements, then no.
Taxes are obviously a central aspect of socialism, but I’d say paying for roads thru gas taxes and vehicle registration fees is less socialistic than thru income taxes.