Would it be right to think of socialism as being right in the middle of communism and capitalism? Or is it closer to one or the other? Or maybe such a discription isn't the right way to describe it at all?

Communism is a form of socialism, but not all forms of socialism are communist. Since communism is a form of socialism, socialism is obviously closer to communism than it is to capitalism.

More information can be found here.

Socialism covers a pretty broad spectrum nowadays, from "almost communism" to much further to the right. The majority of Socialists in the UK seem to be somewhere in the middle.

One of the common misconceptions many people have, especially in countries such as America, is that Socialism is Communism. That isn't true.

Another misconception is that one of the Socialist beliefs about the distribution of wealth means that anyone with money should give it to the State and its people. This is not true. If it was then very wealthy people like Sir Alan Sugar wouldn't support The Labour Party. which is the UK's Socialist Party. (Though the Labour Party in the UK has moved to the right since its beginings over 100 years ago, this does to an extent reflect the increasing affluence and better working conditions in the last 100 years.) The wealth referred to is "the forests, mines, and oceans from which natural wealth is extracted, the factories in which this natural wealth is processed, and the distribution of that wealth via transportation networks such as roads and railways, and distribution centres such as grocery and department stores."

Sylvia Pankhurst, who was a Socialist, explains it in this article.

I think this website is interesting; it gives Einstein's view on Socialism.

quote:

Originally posted by Xanadu:
One of the common misconceptions many people have, especially in countries such as America, is that Socialism is Communism. That isn't true.

That's true in the sense that some people think Communism is the only form of Socialism. But Communism is one form of Socialism. It would be very wrong, however, to say that it is the ONLY form. There are many, many forms of socialism, and as Xanadu points out, many of them are much further right than Communism.

I have a Russian friend who said it best. "Communism" is the "Application by force" of "Socialism".
Socialism ,if not forced upon, is not at all bad philosophy in my point of view. France , Canada and many other countries have moderate forms of Socialist government.

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

Careful, Mozart. I said something similar a few weeks ago and was nearly laughed off of Answerpool by Fred and Babs. To my memory, neither one was willing to say there is "socialism" in any country that isn't run by a Communist party. I think they took the word to be an insult, which I certainly don't think it is, although Babs says she's a socialist. Strangely, when I asked her which country's economy she admired as a socialist, her answer was that she thought Cuba had a good chance if not for the US. So basically, the only example of socialism that she found admirable was, in fact, run by a Communist party. There's nothing wrong with that, but it demonstrates why so many people get the idea that "socialism" means "Communism" and nothing more.

I have yet to meet a person who uses the word "socialist" to describe themselves who doesn't admire communism, although that admiration is generally very qualified to such an extent that it is a form of communism that has never actually existed on the planet. I also have never met a socialist who could say that they want their country to have an economy like another specific country of any time or place. Socialism, in the minds of modern activists, still seems to be an ideal that doesn't and never has existed as it they think it ought to.

In other words, it seems to me that while many countries do employ socialist ideas very sucessfully, socialists themselves tend not to associate themselves with them, since most countries that have some elements of socialism also have some elements of capitalism. I'm sure that's not true of all socialists, but it is something I've noticed. I'm not quite sure what that means, but personally, I think that the word "socialism" will probably become less and less common except as a pejorative term, although its ideas will continue to be practiced in moderate forms, under other names such as "welfare state". Socialists themselves are killing the word by becoming offended or calling people ignorant when the word is used to describe successfully functioning aspects of economies in democratic countries. Personally, I would like to see the US adopt more socialist policies (I admire Canada's health care system from what I know of it, for example), but I think it is best if we stay away from the word "socialism." It's too polemic.

quote:

most countries that have some elements of socialism also have some elements of capitalism.

That's so you can pay for the elements of socialism.

Sarai

quote:

I have yet to meet a person who uses the word "socialist" to describe themselves who doesn't admire communism,

You've just found one.

Yay! If I find more of you, I just might join up.

Ah! That makes sense now. A lot different than what I thought. Thanks Sar, Xan, Moz, and Juan.

Sarai when I was writing of socialism and 'socialist' I was puzzling over American views and usage. To me a country nowadays'under socialism' is 'under communism' because that's what 'under socialism' means now, in effect. Beyond that we don't use the word 'socialist' to describe a whole country. Britain is not socialist, nor is France. Both countries have governments which support what Americans call 'socialist' in that, for example, they both have national health care and Americans seem to think of a country as 'socialist' on grounds as strange as that.Neither the left nor the right in either country would condemn a national health service as contrary to their dogma or policy. We'd be slow to call the Conservative Party ( of the right here)'socialist' but to Americans it must seem to the left and 'socialist' in its ideas.

'Socialist' is not, to me, an insult though it seems to be so for some others.

Socialism, of course, is an economic concept, while communism is a political one. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. The communist government of China has successfully used capitalist principles to become a world economic power in a relatively short period of time.

You are right Fred ,in the sense , that for me to be a (moderate) "socialist", places me in the left or "very Democrate" seat and not at all on the Conservative seat as you mentioned, which seems to be the case in other countries.

If elected ,I promise to pass a law which will force Walmart to raise the salary of all their "Associates" by $1/hour per $ Million / quaterly profits. They deserve it. Watch out McDonald I'm coming after you.

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

As far as I know, there's never been a communist country, as I understand the term. Unless I'm wrong, the essence of communism is "from each according to ability, to each according to need." I visited a commune in Rostov-on-the-Don. There are a few in Israel. But no government has ever been run on that principle, which is why the use of the term "Communist" is, in my mind, laughable. The soviet union was essentialy a socialist dictatorship. There's nothing about communism, per se, that makes it a threat, other than the fact that it doesn't work. The term, like so many others -- and moreso nowadays -- has become some sort of catchphrase used for various purposes to inflame and divide. I'd wager that a tiny minority of people who throw around the term have any ability actually to define it. What's the point of my rant? Not a darn thing.

SID, Socialist Dictatorship and Communism are synonymous to me. Where do you tell them apart?
quote: "the term Communist" is, in my mind, laughable" unquote.

" A communist is one who has yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings !"

Sid, I agree that no country has ever acheived the Marxist stage of Communism. Technically, the countries that we call "Communist" should be called "Marxist socialist." All this is a technicality, however, since in common speech, the word "Communist" is generally used to describe a country that is run by a Communist Party - that is, a party that desires to reach the Marxist stage of Communism (and thus names itself "Communist") and subscribes to the Marxist Socialism. I believe that strict Marxists wouldn't use the word "Communist" but "Socialist" to describe such countries, since they aren't yet at the Communist stage (and, I'm pretty sure, never will be). I think it is a kindness to more moderate socialists, however, to make a clear distinction. On the other hand, maybe the word "socialism" is going out of style and therefore, there's no good reason to worry about how it makes a moderate Socialist feel to hear "socialism" used to describe certain dictatorships and not much else. As I said, I don't think moderate socialist ideas are going anywhere, but they may just have to stick around under another name, just to avoid the bad press Socialism has gotten thanks to the Communist party.

quote:

Originally posted by sid1114:
As far as I know, there's never been a communist country...

Oddly, this may have been a contributing factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union. Many of its citizens wanted the promise of true communism, which was never delivered.