Communism and Socialism

[dannyt1251]

It's getting dangerously close to my A-Level History exam and i'm still unsure about the difference between socalism and communism. Can anyone help me out?

[humph42]

I believe Socialism in Marxist terms is the stage of transformation between capitalism and communism, althought they can essentially mean the same thing. Depends where your coming from. I'm sure Danish will be able to shed more light though.

[Damrod]

Two links that might help with background info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Always remember, Wiki is your friend

[coheneran]

I think the difference is that communism is when the state has absolute authoritarian control over the economy, and socialism is when the economy is controlled and kept equal by the masses, but I'm probably wrong.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The term 'socialism' existed before Marx came along. It's an umbrella term for various forms of non-capitalistic notions of social and economic exchange, the most famous of which is Marx's theory on the gradual reduction of the state as a result of the abolition of capitalism.

Marx redefined socialism as the form of exchange where a state still exists but instead of being controlled by capitalist interests the so-called workers oversee the mechanisms of state.

Communism is the end product of the abolition of capitalism, where the end of government-controlled trade and private ownership have rendered the existence of government obselete and we're left with a utopia of some sort where everything runs fine because capital is the source of all villainy.

[coheneran]

Well, money is the root cause of almost every crime nowadays, from the petty shoplifter to the corporate crook.

[Dave de Sylvia]

So? Wealth and resources would still exist in communism and there'd still be people capable of subjugating others for them.

[coheneran]

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

So? Wealth and resources would still exist in communism and there'd still be people capable of subjugating others for them.

But when everyone has enough, what more does one person need? Capitalism creates unnecessary greed (under the pretense of "competition") which causes poverty and private wealth, whose contrasting effects demand more greed.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You're confusing the creation of greed with the intensification of greed, and missing the fact that competing interests frequently have beneficial effects to all concerned.

[coheneran]

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

You're confusing the creation of greed with the intensification of greed, and missing the fact that competing interests frequently have beneficial effects to all concerned.

Competition between companies is fine for the companies, who utilise different methods to make a profit higher than their competitors, like robotics, and then what you get is workers being laid off. Overall, capitalism benefits those who already have power, and does nothing for the worker.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I want money.
My employer wants money.
I provide services to my employer, so my employer can make money.
My employer provides me with the means to provide my service and passes money on to me.

Regardless of unequal distribution, that's basically a mutually beneficial relationship.

[Iskandar]

Socialism is, as SOP said, an umbrella term for alternatives to capitalism. Socialism is a broad term, but can generally be applied to economic systems based on the principles of fiscal equality, justice and communalizm.

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

and we're left with a utopia of some sort where everything runs fine because capital is the source of all villainy.

The emphasis is more on the abolition of class systems. The 'utopian' aspects arise from the lack of class struggle and vindication of the worker.

Marx did theorize that a truly communism society would not need capital; however, he envisioned that as occuring only in the final stage of true communism.

Originally Posted by coheneran

communism is when the state has absolute authoritarian control over the economy

That was what happened in the USSR, but it was never Marx's intention.

You have defined the term "command economy" very well though, which is a concept that occurs in some (authoritarian) forms of socialism.

[coheneran]

Dropper cleared it all up!

[-1up!-]

The difference between socialism and communism is Tway hates the latter more.

Many critics of communism claim it has never worked in reality. Much of them ignore that Marxist communism has never been applied anywhere, and use Stalinist as the model for how "communism can never work".

[Dave de Sylvia]

More frequently they use the "Marxist communism has never been applied anywhere" bit as the model for how "communism can never work".

[coheneran]

It's a black swan situation.

[-1up!-]

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

More frequently they use the "Marxist communism has never been applied anywhere" bit as the model for how "communism can never work".

Which is worse. How could one logically claim that something can "never work" if it hasn't even been tried?

[pikester]

It really depends what you mean by "work". Under Stalin, the Industrial production in the Soviet Union greatly increased (except for during WWII). See the quote from Wikipedia for a basic idea. The standard of living for those who managed to not be purged by Stalin also improved. Through Collectivization, agricultural production largely increased (although they never really did manage to grow enough.) They had the military power to repel Nazi Germany (although at great cost).

Really, the only area that Stalinist Communism didn't "work" that I can think of is in the area of Civil Liberties and Freedoms and the like.

So, it really depends what you mean by "worked".

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The mobilization of resources by state planning augmented the country's industrial base. From 1928 to 1932, pig iron output, necessary for development of nonexistent industrial infrastructure rose from 3.3 million to 10 million tons per year. Coal, the integral product fueling modern economies and Stalinist industrialization, successfully rose from 35.4 million to 75 million tons, and output of iron ore rose from 5.7 million to 19 million tons. A number of industrial complexes such as Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk, the Moscow and Gorky automobile plants, the Urals and Kramatorsk heavy machinery plants, and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Cheliabinsk tractor plants had been built or were under construction.

Based largely on these figures the Five Year Industrial Production Plan had been fulfilled by 93.7 percent in only four years, while parts devoted to heavy-industry part were fulfilled by 108%. Stalin in December 1932 declared the plan a success to the Central Committee, since increases in the output of coal and iron would fuel future development.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Originally Posted by -1up!-

Which is worse. How could one logically claim that something can "never work" if it hasn't even been tried?

Induction.

[Atomic Rain]

Originally Posted by -1up!-

Which is worse. How could one logically claim that something can "never work" if it hasn't even been tried?

clearly it must be unnattainable.