Could someone explain to me what Communism and Socialism is, and the difference between them? I just want to understand what it is, once and for all, and not peoples opinions of them, just what it actually is. Thanks.
++++++++++++++++
06-25-02, 07:53 PM
Strider0
I prefer to think of Communism as a strict form of Socialism where greater governmental control of goods, labor, economy is exerted compared to that which is practiced under Socialism.

This site offers a good explanation of the two and their differences: What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

There are ideologies of Communism which have as their goal a "dictatorship of the Proletariat" and the end of capitalism. Soviet Communism certainly fell in this category.

06-25-02, 10:43 PM
QwertyMac
Strider,

"I prefer to think of Communism as a strict form of Socialism..."

As the website you refer to correctly explains, "Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism." In other words, Socialism is a necessary step towards Communism. One is not a more or a less strict form of the other. That's pretty much the only correct generalization that one can gather from this website.

Then paper begins to degenerate into contradictions when it states "The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state."
This could be no further from the truth, Socialists, myself included, believe that the capitalist system can not be salvaged, reformed, fixed, recycled, or any such silly thing. There can be no transition to Communism unless the capitalist system is destroyed. Capitalism made less vicious is still Capitalism. The problem is that the writers (Huberman and Sweezy) confuse Socialist parties such as the long ruling Socialist party of France, or the Socialist party of the U.S., with Socialism. Those parties are Socialist in name only, and do not advocate any of the basic tenets of Socialism. In other words, they function more like any liberal capitalist party anywhere in the world, like the Democratic Party in the U.S.

"There are ideologies of Communism which have as their goal a "dictatorship of the Proletariat" and the end of capitalism. Soviet Communism certainly fell in this category."

Socialism/Communism advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat, always. That's what was achieved when the Bolcheviks formed the Soviet Union. Eventually though, with the death of Lenin, the exile of Trotsky, and the murder of the entire leadership of the Bolchevik revolution by Joseph Stalin, dictatorship of the proletariat ended and dictatorship of the dictator began.

06-25-02, 11:11 PM
newnickname
It’s possible to argue that what happened in Russia was neither communism nor socialism , but ‘state capitalism’, and this web site does so (it’s dated 1991). In any case, it is not certain that any Russian government ever aimed at ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ or the end of capitalism. As with most political systems, those who had power tried to extend that power as much as they could. In Russia, by historical chance, this resulted in totalitarianism, which failed, of course.

Have you tried the dictionary at the top of this site?

SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

COMMUNISM 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

06-26-02, 08:29 AM
Elexina
The way I see it, they have the same principles but Communism is far stricter, and less stable. There are still Socialist countries in Europe which function well, but we all know how Communism works out...
Have you read "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels?

06-26-02, 03:48 PM
coldfuse
generally view socialism as an economic system and communism as the complementary form of government.

06-26-02, 04:55 PM
hippolips
If you had actually taken the time to read the writings of Marx,Lenin,Mao and Castro,you would find that NONE of them advocated World Communism...they all advocated World Socialism!!!
So the Real Goal is World Socialism...so all of you good Liberal Democrats out there had better take a closer look at what many of you advocate...unless of course you actually are Socialists!!! In which case you know EXACTLY what you are doing! razz razz razz

06-27-02, 03:30 AM
mahal
One difference between the two that I haven't seen explained here is that put forward by one of our past Secretaries of State, and it partly explains why China and the Soviet Union were often at odds with each other in the 70's and 80's.

Communism allows for a single leadership of the people for inspiration and welfare. Competition is almost always inherantly antagonistic. In the late 60's and early 70's, we saw Chairman Mao trying to be that inspiration for the Chinese while Bresnev crusaded Soviet destiny, both with similar concepts of communism. Diplomacy between the two would always be strained because of the jealousy built into the philosophy. (I'm not sure I can explain exactly why, but you won't find this in socialism.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,