Communism and Socialism: Whats the difference

[CelticWarrior]

Alot of things about them are the same but alot of things are different as well. What differentiates between Communism and Socialism?

[ciaranxavier]

Alot of things about them are the same but alot of things are different as well. What differentiates between Communism and Socialism?

pure socialism is the people working for the people pretty much and communism is one person making the decisions for the people but in hopes of bettering the common goal of the people. in very basic terms its much more complex then that.

[Puddies]

Communism is the theoretical highest stage of human social evolution. Socialism is the developing curve that leads to Communism.

[MarkyMark]

Communism is the theoretical highest stage of human social evolution.

could the same not be said about capitalism?

[Puddies]

could the same not be said about capitalism?Yes.

[ciaranxavier]

Communism is the theoretical highest stage of human social evolution. Socialism is the developing curve that leads to Communism.

this is from a communists mouth not everyone would call it the highest stage as i for one would not like one leader for life, i believe the people have the right to decide.

[ciaranxavier]

and there is no true socialism yet you have your anarchists, communists, social democrats, labor parties, utopians, and it goes on. but to date there has been no socialist government at the head of a country. so communism is just a branch of socialism.

[CelticWarrior]

pure socialism is the people working for the people pretty much and communism is one person making the decisions for the people but in hopes of bettering the common goal of the people. in very basic terms its much more complex then that.

Thankyou but could you go into a bit more detail I would really like to know.
Cheers.

LIBERATION OR DEATH

[KillinSnakes]

It depends on who you asked, but post-Lenin it means this:

Socialism is used synonymously with Marx's term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", (and James Connolly used the term Workers' Republic to mean the same thing). This is the transitionary phase during which workers seize power after a revolution and weild it through mass organisations and institutions for suppressing the old order. This is a society with a state that is not a state: to be healthy it must be democratic and based on mobolising the masses, but the nature of any state is to be repressive (in fact that is in a very basic way the basic marxist definition of a state: an organ of power used by one class to suppress another).


Communism is a theoretical stage of human development following the global establishment of socialism that is classless. A consequence of being a classless society is that it does not require a state to suppress other classes.

[Puddies]

Yeah, its all about theory. Everything evolved from one organism and eventually everything will be one organism again.

You could say that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already in existence on Earth. It just depends on your level of consciousness.

[ciaranxavier]

Thankyou but could you go into a bit more detail I would really like to know.
Cheers.

LIBERATION OR DEATH

i dont have time to do that and your going to have to do a lot of reading to truly understand socialism, so no i cant go into more detail for id just be leaving loose ends so the best thing for you to do would be to read up on those big bad commies you want to beat up and all the other branchs of socialism and form your own opinion on where youd like to go afterwards.

[quirk]

Socialism:

"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."

August Bebel
Die Frau und der Sozialismus

"Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes.

[...]

"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.

[...]

"And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

("These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be generally applicable.")

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The Communist Manifesto
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2

"The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions?

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotah Programme
Part IV: On Democracy

"The dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 2.

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

"Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it..."

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement...

"Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance... one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part 1

"The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."

"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism."

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt. 5: The first phase of Communist Society

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism

Communism:

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Program

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

Marx & Engels
The German Ideology
Private Property and Communism

"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism — from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.

"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.

Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society

Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement [alienation], and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man. It is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social — i.e., human — being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution.

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

This "alienation" [caused by private property] can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless", and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.

Without this:

(1) communism could only exist as a local event;

(2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and

(3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism.

Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers — the utterly precarious position of labour — power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life — presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Marx & Engels
The German Ideology

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

"In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
The Communist Manifesto
Proletarians and Communists

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism

[druidsoedhin]

I have been doing research on Celts, mostly by Jean Markale because Celts are the Gauls and Gaels. There is a certain amount of socialism inherent among the Celtic culture because one of the tenents of druidism was the religion could not function without the Celts, it was not evangelized to outsiders as Romans did. In this celtic cultural circle, anyone wo did not show up for Beltane or who appeared to be leaving the group was satirized, or mocked until they came back. So I think this is the root of celtic values of socialism. However, I am not comfortable with south american and palestine communists claiming like journey. First of all, the spanish empire has its own set of terrorists and Judaismneer launched against teh Celts. Actually Jews share the common enemy of Rome wit the Gauls, Gaels. So I myself, do not see any historic unity between Celt socialism and spanish-cuban communists or any need to bash Zion. Also, Markale disputed celt culture coming from Indo Europe, India, at that is not true, Celts were totemic shaman, local as in native america, not Indo Aisan in origin at all.

[CelticWarrior]

i dont have time to do that and your going to have to do a lot of reading to truly understand socialism, so no i cant go into more detail for id just be leaving loose ends so the best thing for you to do would be to read up on those big bad commies you want to beat up and all the other branchs of socialism and form your own opinion on where youd like to go afterwards.

Thanks

[Hildy]

i dont have time to do that and your going to have to do a lot of reading to truly understand socialism, so no i cant go into more detail for id just be leaving loose ends so the best thing for you to do would be to read up on those big bad commies you want to beat up and all the other branchs of socialism and form your own opinion on where youd like to go afterwards.

Thanks

ciaranxavier's too "busy busting other members chops" and swaggering around this forum as he takes his daily rounds, to take time to have a valuable discussion with you, CelticWarrior....so I would suggest making an appointment, due to his important standing, or ask someone else who is truly interested in being here and values the subject to take the time in helping educate you and other members that ask for their opinion......you know how it is with people of 'impotence'!http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s6/hildydonovan/Emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

as a foot note.....I really am being sincere in saying that if you are truly interested in the answer to your question, cx is really not the one to ask on this subject matter. He doesn't even grasp the concept of his own 'preferred party' RSF that he has on is profile. If I were you, I would ask some of the more knowledgable members that know what they are talking about and would actually take the time to explain it to you and feel good doing it. You don't deserve being 'dissed' like that, because I can tell from yer posts that you are interested. Good luck!

Slan, Hildy

[redflag32]

Great post Hildy,took the words right out of my mouth. Killing Snake, Quirk and Puddies already have given great responses to this question so id advise the poster to read those. The argument one poster gave that the definition of communism is tainted if it comes from a communist is absurd. Ofcourse it is,and likewise if it comes from a anti-communist. I suggest the poster who wants to learn about this subject takes on board all opinions,once they are coherent and not obviously based on false assumptions and hate. Pm me if you want to be pointed in the right direction.

[Hildy]

Great post Hildy,took the words right out of my mouth. Killing Snake, Quirk and Puddies already have given great responses to this question so id advise the poster to read those. The argument one poster gave that the definition of communism is tainted if it comes from a communist is absurd. Ofcourse it is,and likewise if it comes from a anti-communist. I suggest the poster who wants to learn about this subject takes on board all opinions,once they are coherent and not obviously based on false assumptions and hate. Pm me if you want to be pointed in the right direction.

Thank ye Redflag32, coming from you that's class! And its generous of you to extend yer help to CelticWarrior.

CelticWarrior, you can't learn from anyone better on this subject! Good luck to ye!

[ciaranxavier]

ciaranxavier's too "busy busting other members chops" and swaggering around this forum as he takes his daily rounds, to take time to have a valuable discussion with you, CelticWarrior....so I would suggest making an appointment, due to his important standing, or ask someone else who is truly interested in being here and values the subject to take the time in helping educate you and other members that ask for their opinion......you know how it is with people of 'impotence'!http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s6/hildydonovan/Emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

as a foot note.....I really am being sincere in saying that if you are truly interested in the answer to your question, cx is really not the one to ask on this subject matter. He doesn't even grasp the concept of his own 'preferred party' RSF that he has on is profile. If I were you, I would ask some of the more knowledgable members that know what they are talking about and would actually take the time to explain it to you and feel good doing it. You don't deserve being 'dissed' like that, because I can tell from yer posts that you are interested. Good luck!

Slan, Hildy

ciaranxavier's too "busy busting other members chops" and swaggering around this forum as he takes his daily rounds, to take time to have a valuable discussion with you, CelticWarrior....so I would suggest making an appointment, due to his important standing, or ask someone else who is truly interested in being here and values the subject to take the time in helping educate you and other members that ask for their opinion......you know how it is with people of 'impotence'!

i like how you go around the board attacking other people and then complain and make yourself to look like the victim when it comes back your way your a joke. what i meant, if youd bothered to actually read is socialism is very broad as there are many theorys and branchs of it. in order to truly understand it hes going to have to do thorough reading, like picking up a book or going to a reliable website . so the next time you sit there and ask someone to stop attacking you stop being such a hypocrit, and ive never seen you make a valuable post that hasnt been a point made by someone else already. get some of your own ideas.



as a foot note.....I really am being sincere in saying that if you are truly interested in the answer to your question, cx is really not the one to ask on this subject matter.

and how would you know my knowledge of socialist theory?????????

He doesn't even grasp the concept of his own 'preferred party' RSF that he has on is profile.

can you explain please????? just because i dont believe in it word for word like the little lapdog you are i dont grasp the concept.

If I were you, I would ask some of the more knowledgable members that know what they are talking about and would actually take the time to explain it to you and feel good doing it.

like i said how would you know the extent of my knowledge on socialist thoery?????? i dont even know you. your just bitter about my comment to you being a smart*** last night.

You don't deserve being 'dissed' like that, because I can tell from yer posts that you are interested. Good luck!

you can tell by his commie bashing comments previous to me telling him to go read up on it that he likes socialism. do you know what your talking about???? and how did i diss him?????

. He doesn't even grasp the concept of his own 'preferred party' RSF that he has on is profile.

you should keep certain debates in their threads and not drag them all across the forum. i didnt see you put your two sense in there so how do you have the right to ever try and use it against me?????. and if you kept up it was a misinterpretation of my words that started that not my lack of knowledge of party policy.

[Hildy]

Great post Hildy,took the words right out of my mouth. Killing Snake, Quirk and Puddies already have given great responses to this question so id advise the poster to read those. The argument one poster gave that the definition of communism is tainted if it comes from a communist is absurd. Ofcourse it is,and likewise if it comes from a anti-communist. I suggest the poster who wants to learn about this subject takes on board all opinions,once they are coherent and not obviously based on false assumptions and hate. Pm me if you want to be pointed in the right direction.


ciaranxavier, someone else seems to agree! And coming from him, I'd say he knows much more than you do about the subject! I only call it like I see it! So you can go back to yer rounds now!:eusa_dance:

[ciaranxavier]

ciaranxavier, someone else seems to agree! And coming from him, I'd say he knows much more than you do about the subject! I only call it like I see it! So you can go back to yer rounds now!:eusa_dance:

i dont drink, and you didnt answer any of my questions id appreciate it if your going to attack my integrity you at least answer questions pertaining to the attack you made. and im glad you made a new friend but the person you think has authority to tell me my knowledge of socialist ideologys i dont think ive ever chatted to or debated with so i dont think they have the any more right then you do to tell me what i know. i put extra question marks where the questions are in case you missed them, i mean your not one to run away from a debate you start. especially i hope when its attacking my character.

[quirk]

pure socialism is the people working for the people pretty much and communism is one person making the decisions for the people but in hopes of bettering the common goal of the people. in very basic terms its much more complex then that.

That's just wrong. Have you any evidence to support this?

[ciaranxavier]

That's just wrong. Have you any evidence to support this?

because it would be a social democracy like sweden if it were democratic and i said its much more complex.

[quirk]

because it would be a social democracy like sweden if it were democratic and i said its much more complex.

Communism is a classless society. There will be no leaders. What you are referring to and which existed in the USSR and China is the dictatorship of the proletariat and even there one person was not making all the decisions although it is a common misconception.

[ciaranxavier]

Communism is a classless society. There will be no leaders. What you are referring to and which existed in the USSR and China is the dictatorship of the proletariat and even there one person was not making all the decisions although it is a common misconception.

okay your theory of communism and the worlds accepted term of communism is far off.

[quirk]

okay your theory of communism and the worlds accepted term of communism is far off.

No my theory is the accepted term. Yours is what is propagated by the capitalist media. In fact even wikipedia supports what I say:

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Encarta says:

In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572241/Communism.html

Again I would like to see where it is defined as one leader making all the decisions so if you could provide a link.

[ciaranxavier]

No my theory is the accepted term. Yours is what is propagated by the capitalist media. In fact even wikipedia supports what I say:

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Encarta says:

In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572241/Communism.html

Again I would like to see where it is defined as one leader making all the decisions so if you could provide a link.

okay but how is the production going to be distributed evenly if theres no one to decide? theres always got to be at least one person to decide where and make sure everything is distributed evenly.

[quirk]

Collective decision making.

[ciaranxavier]

Collective decision making.

collective decision making by the millions of people in a country?? its going to take a while for things to get done with a system like that.

[quirk]

Every little decision will not be made collectively but people ill designate a person or group to take these decisions. I think there will be alot of debate and struggle but in a whole different way than it is done in todays society. I know you are very busy and dont have time to read big long articles at present so here is a link to a good speech on the subject which you might be able to listen to while doing other things.

Communism: A Whole New World And The Emancipation of All Humanity – Not "The Last Shall Be First, And the First Shall Be Last" (http://bobavakian.net/talk3.html)

[ciaranxavier]

Every little decision will not be made collectively but people ill designate a person or group to take these decisions. I think there will be alot of debate and struggle but in a whole different way than it is done in todays society. I know you are very busy and dont have time to read big long articles at present so here is a link to a good speech on the subject which you might be able to listen to while doing other things.

Communism: A Whole New World And The Emancipation of All Humanity – Not "The Last Shall Be First, And the First Shall Be Last" (http://bobavakian.net/talk3.html)

your a good man, first one to think of a solution to my problem then insult me for it lol. but if you have a selected group doesnt create classes? and i wont be listening to the audio today because its new years AND I GOT A BABYSITTER. but if im not too hungover tomorrow ill give here a shot. and if you ever got good books to reccomend i read a lot in my spare time.

[Hessian Peel]

pure socialism is the people working for the people pretty much and communism is one person making the decisions for the people but in hopes of bettering the common goal of the people.


You speak of Communism as if it's some sort of corruption of Socialism when if anything it's the other way around (our Anarcho-Communist comrades would certainly argue this to be the case). You clearly haven't a clue what you're on about so there's scarcely any point in continuing this debate. How about reading some Marx before commenting on his ideas? Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself a tad bit. Why, as you claim, do we always need people in charge or some form of authority?

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.

[Caoimhain]

Alot of things about them are the same but alot of things are different as well. What differentiates between Communism and Socialism?



Socialism is the stepping stone to communism. Socialism is workers' control, when the economy/ country's wealth and resources are controlled by normal people administered by democracy. Work places would be controlled by the workers themselves and profit would be spread evenly among them (depending on the effort put in by each person). No Governmnet, no dictatorship, just democracy with the participation of the majority.

Voting should be made easy within socialism. The census should be taken and everyone on the census should be automatically registered to vote. You should be able to vote on your mobile phone, your computer, through the post, in voting booths all using some sort of voting PIN. Voting should be a daily occurrance and if you don't vote, you forfit your voice. All, previously Government decisions, should be voted on. If this was the case, the outcome of the elections would be a lot different. The country would be a lot different and a lot better to live in.

Communism is socialism all over the world. It is only a world phenomenon, it can't survive in one country. That is my understanding at least. China is a capitalist country. Development at the expense of the working people.

[no one]

socialism cant really be pinned down to one definition. there are alot of different schools of thought within socialism, but the uniting factor is they are all opposed to capitalism.

Marx's socialism is centrist with the power coming from the state. the thought behind it is that there would be intellectuals, (professional revolutionaries or elites as some would call them), that would be the leaders and run the show and make decisions on the workers behalf.

libertarian socialism, would be federalist, federations made up of self governing autonomous communes or unions with no central power or authority. socialism from the bottom up using recallable delegates, these delegates would have no decision making power and decisions they relayed would be what was voted by the workers as opposed to having a voted leader who would make decisions for them. ideally everything would be voted on.

both marx's socialism and libertarian traditions would be considered revolutionary socialism.

reformist socialists see no need for revolution and believe socialism can be brought about through parliament or whatever governing body exists be it congress or what you wish to call it.

Marxists, Syndicalists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, Fabians, Collectivists, Social Democrats...(etc. the list goes on) are all considered socialists. there is no singular definition of the word, it means a different thing to all those groups.

[ciaranxavier]

You speak of Communism as if it's some sort of corruption of Socialism when if anything it's the other way around (our Anarcho-Communist comrades would certainly argue this to be the case). You clearly haven't a clue what you're on about so there's scarcely any point in continuing this debate. How about reading some Marx before commenting on his ideas? Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself a tad bit. Why, as you claim, do we always need people in charge or some form of authority?

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.

ou speak of Communism as if it's some sort of corruption of Socialism

it is.

when if anything it's the other way around (our Anarcho-Communist comrades would certainly argue this to be the case).

if they have the same mindset as you im sure they would.

You clearly haven't a clue what you're on about so there's scarcely any point in continuing this debate.

what because i dont agree communism is the hightest stage of humanity i dont know what im talking about???

How about reading some Marx before commenting on his ideas?

i have and like i said marx nor engels ever used communism or socialism consistantly.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself a tad bit. Why, as you claim, do we always need people in charge or some form of authority?

well youll always need a trustworthy person to make sure everything distributed evenly, one among many reasons? what do you plan to do to make sure everythings done evenly if no ones in place to oversee?

[Caoimhain]

socialism cant really be pinned down to one definition. there are alot of different schools of thought within socialism, but the uniting factor is they are all opposed to capitalism.

Marx's socialism is centrist with the power coming from the state. the thought behind it is that there would be intellectuals, (professional revolutionaries or elites as some would call them), that would be the leaders and run the show and make decisions on the workers behalf.

libertarian socialism, would be federalist, federations made up of self governing autonomous communes or unions with no central power or authority. socialism from the bottom up using recallable delegates, these delegates would have no decision making power and decisions they relayed would be what was voted by the workers as opposed to having a voted leader who would make decisions for them. ideally everything would be voted on.

both marx's socialism and libertarian traditions would be considered revolutionary socialism.

reformist socialists see no need for revolution and believe socialism can be brought about through parliament or whatever governing body exists be it congress or what you wish to call it.

Marxists, Syndicalists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, Fabians, Collectivists, Social Democrats...(etc. the list goes on) are all considered socialists. there is no singular definition of the word, it means a different thing to all those groups.

Let's keep it simple, shall we? Some (or most) working class people don't care about strands of socialism and if we sell it to them this way they will never buy it! Let's Larkin-ise this... The only plausable socialism, in my mind, is the dismantlement of Governmental structures and the implementation of a transparent democracy in it's place in order to liberate the working class from oppression.

Governmental rule is based on a ruling class to control the economy and resources (even though they'd never admit that), to keep it from the majority and have the working class to sell their labour for little in order for society to work for the wealthiest. How can working class liberation be achieved with a governing, ruling group of robbing gangsters in power? Those who believe in a parliementary road to socialism simply don't (or don't want to) understand how or why the Government works as it does.

[no one]

Let's keep it simple, shall we?

apoligies caoimhain, i thought i did. :icon_lol:

[Caoimhain]

apoligies caoimhain, i thought i did. :icon_lol:

Ha ha, you're too Intelligent for your own good! You need a dope like meself to dumb it down :icon_lol:

Nice avatar by the way.

[no one]

go raibh maith agat caoimhain. and dont think i forgot about the plough brother. :icon_lol: