Difference between Socialism and Communism
Socialism vs Communism
Socialism is commonly regarded as an economic system that seeks to achieve equality among members of society. Communism, on the other hand, is both an economic system that seeks equality among members of society and a political ideology that advocates a classless and stateless society and rejects religion. It is regarded as a more extreme form of socialism.
Socialism and communism both adhere to the principle that the resources of the economy should be collectively owned by the public and controlled by a central organization. They differ, however, in the management and control of the economy. In socialism, the people themselves decide through communes or popularly elected councils on how the economy should work. This makes socialism a liberal system because majority of the people have a say on how the economy should be run. Communism, on the other hand, controls its economy through a single authoritarian party. It is thus characterized as conservative because the economy functions based on the decisions of a few.
The views of socialism and communism also differ in the distribution of wealth produced by the economy. Socialism supports the view that the goods and services produced should be dispensed based on the productivity of an individual. In contrast, communism believes that the wealth should be shared by the masses based on the needs of the individual.
There are two kinds of properties in socialism: (1) personal property that an individual can own and enjoy; and (2) industrial property that is dedicated for the use of producing society’s goods. Individuals, for example, can keep their digital cameras but cannot retain a factory that produces digital cameras. While personal properties can be kept, socialists make sure, however, that no private property will be used as an instrument for oppression and exploitation. In comparison, communism treats all goods and services as public property to be used and enjoyed by the entire populace.
Finally, socialism and communism differ in their views on capitalism. Socialists regard capitalism as a threat to equality and public interest. They believe, however, that there is no need to eliminate the capitalist class because it can be used as a good instrument in the transition to socialism as long as it is properly controlled. Socialists also believe that capitalism can exist in a socialist state and vice versa. From the point of view of the communists, capitalism must to be destroyed totally in order to give way to a classless society.
Summary:
1. Socialism is an economic system while communism is both an economic and political system.
2. In socialism, the resources of the economy are managed and controlled by the people themselves through communes or councils while in communism, management and control rest on a few people in a single authoritarian party.
3. Socialists distribute wealth to the people based on an individual’s productive efforts while communists farm out wealth based on an individual’s needs.
4. Socialists can own personal properties while communists can not.
5. Socialism allows capitalism to exist in its midst while communism seeks to get rid of capitalism.
- Difference between Socialism and Communism - May 31, 2010
- Difference Between Capitalism and Corporatism - May 31, 2010
- Difference Between Socialism and Democracy - May 31, 2010
Search DifferenceBetween.net :
Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.
Actually, the definition of communism here is wrong. Marxist communism, the ORIGINAL communism, says in the Communist Manifesto that the “distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property”. He means that the “hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned” property should not be abolished, but the type of property that creates CAPITAL, “that kind of property which exploits wage-labor, which cannon increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh exploitation”. Capital should be a collective product and not a personal property. It is the result of many people working together, but as Marx saw it, it was controlled by the bourgeois and they received the benefits.
He wrote to liberate the working class that was stuck under the bourgeois and barely made enough to sustain themselves. He wanted to put the means of production into the hands of the workers, not the elite bourgeoisie class.
One of the difficulties in writing an article like this is determining how much to talk about communism in theory or as originally defined, and the way it has been implemented in reality. You say the definition of communism is wrong, but the article is more of a description of governments who had or do call themselves communist rather than a definition.
Even then, I’m not sure that there is any communist government still around that doesn’t allow some private ownership.
You forgot to mention the millions of their own citizens that communist governments have murdered because they resisted having their property seized.
Uh, this is just wrong. Communism is only an economical system, not a political system. There can be many different types of communism, including anarcho-communism. (where there’s a democracy, but no government) Communism doesn’t need to have an authoritarian government. Countries like China, Russia, Cuba, and North Korea are all examples of communism under one type of government. Authoritarian. And that’s why they are not good examples. Capitalists state many different kinds of capitalism to prove that capitalism is successful, and yet communism is failed because “Russia, Cuba, North Korea, and China aren’t doing well.”
I’ll say this one more time. THERE CAN BE MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMUNISM. Of course, no one’s tried them, most likely because “Communism failed.” Capitalism has failed before, and they come up with a new way of capitalism. One last thing. Communism is only an economical system and can have many different types of political systems. Anyways, don’t judge a book by its cover. Aka: Don’t judge communism because one form of the political system failed.
I’m not a communist, and I support capitalism. I may be a bit biased towards communism, because everyone is so misinformed about it. I probably left the main idea of what I was trying to say behind, so here it is, one last time. Communism doesn’t control its economy through a single authoritarian party, that’s only one type of communism, and there are many others that haven’t been tried yet. So please don’t go out misinforming people.
Capitalism has never failed and never will.
The Great Depression and the Great Recession would say otherwise.
Perfect.
But with the great depression and recession a capitalist society self corrects.
What all the commentators.failed to mention is.that capitalism is a wonderful system to have except for its weakness being.that its only practical on a sparsely populated planet filled with natural resources. Capitalism and its cojoined twin consumerism is the deathnell to a planet as ours is now for it exploits our preprogramed software from the factory, selfishness and greed , which were necessary for survival then but are a hindrance now and has thus doomed us to extinction soon. Were at 800% , populationwise, of this planets sustainable ability yet no ones really seriously decided to take on this problem. With the population having increased 300% in my lifetime alone im afraid its now too late. Socialism is the only proper and fair system for a densely populated dirtball as we have. Of course the oligarchs who run the place dont care and continue as if extinction wasnt for them and theirs as well. Just a happy thought for the holdays.
Rich, you are correct, in my opinion. In America today, it appears that majority of the population is middle to lower class, and struggle to make ends meet. Victims of a self serving ruling class, are blamed for its failures, and expected to be grateful for the opportunity to clean up a rich pricks feces off of the toilet of his fancy hotel room, expected to smile graciously when publicly humiliated, and to pretend that our personal freedoms aren’t slowly disappearing. Of course, these experiences are largely related to poor management which extends from poor government. Capitalism has potential to be useful only as an extension to socialism. Unfortunately, in socialism, we are also vulnerable to allowing lazy and ignorant people to claim equality to hard working and well informed individuals. “My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Which is another bastard child of poor leadership, poor management and poor government. When money rules, the actual “rules” of socialism and basic humanism are merely illusions.
I very much appreciate your response. I have always favored capitalism tempered by Christianity to minimize the impact of avarice. That view is certainly not supported by many.
The opposite is true. Socialism can only work with a small population. Example, Iceland.
Will never work large scale.
Rich while I’m a total consumerist, I agree with you 100%. I’m 67 now and fought the in the Cold War for 23 years and love my country. You are right that’s why we had our two generations of glory and have declined ever since. I hope someone smart like you vines up with a good solution and I apologize for my part in destroying our world.
Kenny why America is making all that weapons and going to war in almost all around Atlantic and gulf and still have half it’s population middle lower class ! You have all that land and a few crore populace.
So, Angel250, I gather then that the many forms of Communism not yet tried, as you describe, could really be considered “theoretical forms” of Communism?
True. This post was either biased or misinformed. Your comment is the most amazing summary of communism I’ve seen, and unlike you, I am a communist.
Not Russia, USSR. get your facts right. You also forgot to mention Vietnam. Finally the best way to understand the political and economical systems of those countries, is to stay and work there for a while.
Tell me, how do you have a country, Communist or Socialist or any other, that is not authoritarian?
What? So the western right wing world has never killed anyone, never bombed a country because they want their oil, gold, copper , diamonds, land that is depleted of natural compunds, never told lies or tried to get rid of governments they don’t like, get real mate and stop talking so much rubbish, look in the mirror first before you dribble diarrhoea
Wasteland, every government has performed atrocities. No one is exempt. Something about stones in a glass house!
Then the article should say that. On one hand it seems to talk about socialism in theory (because socialism in practice is not as described) and then compares it to communism in practice. (And frankly, even that is being too kind.)
no the definition is incorrect
What Socialism or Communism believe or wish for is unimportant the end the same. A few incompetent people controlling every aspect of the peoples life’s. That only care about filling their own pockets & staying in power for as long as possible with little to no incentive too care what happens to everyone else. Absolute power corrupts absolutely always has! That’s why it has always failed miserably everywhere it has been tried. The majority always suffers greatly just look at history.
You republicans are so god damn stupid you have no F.ing idea what your talking about!!
Thank you for you intellectual Democratic feedback. Come back when you pay the taxes you work for and the ones you dont. While youre at it, become a degree holder. Even then, raise a proper family without getting divorced for once. On top of that, become educated in a subject such as this.
LOL, I had to click “Reply” just to say, “+1”.
+2
What’s wrong with food safety regulations?
Rofl
Stupendous reply!
The amount of logical fallacies and assumptions made in this single post is astounding. I have no idea how he fit it all in such a tight space.
It just goes to show that neither of you know how to conduct yourselves properly. Just insulting each other back and forth with your preconceived assumptions of one another isn’t a way to argue your point. Now if you want to perpetuate the image that you are uninformed and uneducated on the matter, you can continue to make replies and comments like these. Anyone with half a brain will pay you no attention.
And yet, here you are, paying them attention. 🙂
Plus one here…
I was adding my plus one to Tim’s comment
I was adding my plus one to Tim’s comment, not to the one that came after…
He should get some maturity about him and stop the petty name calling. There are plenty of “republicans” with doctorates, who have started companies from nothing, are movie stars, Doctors , lawyers and such. I would put there efforts for society far above this ” knee jerk” person. Ya’ll have a great day and do something for someone
spelling on there is their… voice to text again….
Wotta puffed up cunt you are shade.
Why would you call or use that c word on social news. Asshol
So all the Republican friends I have aren’t divorced and have degrees……
I have a degree, but there are some that I personally know who have degrees and are divorced and making barely surviving.
So don’t be so quick to judge we are all hypocritics. Now go do something nice for someone and be a blessing.
Shade, you’re to harsh. Done all that and others will learn to.
I like tacos
who do you want capital aligned with, the creative and productive or the politically well connected and bureaucrats? That is ultimately the choice. Which alignment choices has the best chance of being based on competence? Capital is present in all of these systems. The choice is truly with whom to align the capital.
very true
Well done, you have managed to realise there is a problem but you’ve totally misunderstood that problem. You’re government are not communist, they are capitalist, and they are so shamefully right wing yet you’re solution is that they become moreso. I don’t think you really understand the political system at all, why don’t you get yourself out of the US and see how the rest of the world succeed or fail. Check Denmark for example, possibly the most egalitarian country on the planet, and not a T party nazi in site.
The rest of the world is succeeding through Capitalism. Once Japan, the Four Asian Tigers, China, India, and Brazil switched to a more Capitalist economy they began to develop. On the other hand, Europe is collapsing because of its expensive welfare state and drift towards Socialism.
You talk about Denmark? Denmark and the rest of the Scandinavian countries are projected to decline the most over the next 50 years. It is a fact — their economies will slow down drastically and much of the world will surpass them. So maybe the current generation is living well, but the future is looking bleak. The same is true for all of Europe. First world and egalitarian now… third world in the next century.
Europeans have become too complacent and are wasting all of their wealth and resources. But what about the future? They are not thinking ahead. The modern generation may be able to get away with working relatively few hours, having many vacation days, years off for maternity leave, a young retirement age, universal healthcare, and favorable unemployment benefits, but the next generation will not. The privileges Europeans currently enjoy cost money and they are not a recipe for staying competitive in this global world. We are seeing the results with what has been happening in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc over the last few years. European economies are not growing, they are contracting. Capitalist economies are growing.
Your analysis of Europe is all over the map. I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, the stated outcome of a prediction cannot be a fact until it has already happened. Second, how is Europe “wasting all their resources?” Do you even really know what’s going on over there? Or are you just making more assumptions based on media nonsense you hear over here?
China changed their economic policy in 1979 and the economy didn’t improve until the 90s. Therefore the problem was not Socialism or Communism.
The reason for China’s improved economy in the 90s was do to the return of Hong Kong and the New Territories . The Chinese appointed a Capitalist(Chinese) to run Hong Kong’s economy. They then adopted much of those policies for the rest of China. China began to release its grip on its citizens until pro freedom groups began protesting for more freedom. Remember Tinamin Square ?
Totally wrong, Leo.
Denmark’s economy have, in the first month of 2015, grown the GDP of 0.3%. Thats massive, and means it’s getting richer and richer.
A welfare state might, in your eyes, be shit. But, in fact, it isn’t. To pay 2000$ for a broken leg, thats shit. And to pay hundreds of thousands for your child to be studying, is also shit.
First of all .3% growth is terrible, 3% is basically the standard for “good” growth, so maybe your country doesn’t have a good education system. Anyway, $2000 might sound like shit for a broken leg, but you are paying for it in taxes, economics lesson would be great for Europe right now. Moreover, you should be thanking the USA for subsidizing healthcare developments, especially pharmaceuticals, for all the nationalized EU systems that set price controls and force investment elsewhere.
What’s more important, pal, your cherished economic growth or standard of living. China still has a terrible standard of living under the ultimate capitalist society- free market but no human rights. Countries in Europe like in Scandinavia are very rich and have welfare states, and have great standards of living. I think those Scandinavian countries are the bee’s knees.
Don’t disagree with your sentiments about the benefits of the socialist policies for the citizens of countries like Denmark.
One problem with China’s current model is that the sheer size of their population (India’s too) REQUIRES that their “middle class” stays infinitesimally small and their upper class stays even smaller.
1.6 (or so billion people) broadly enjoying a middle class style of living is a practical impossibility on so many levels.
The current version of capitalism we’re experiencing here in the US is bullshite. 92% of all the new wealth generated in this economy since the Great Recession has gone to the elite here.
Wages have stayed stagnant for 40 years.
That is also going to be an impossible paradigm to sustain also.
I agree with your line of thinking, but China’s middle class is around 23% vs. India ‘s which is around 3% now. but of course neither middle class is the same as that of the US; in the same way that the Canadian middle class is different from America’s. Just a thought.
Wow Leo… you forgot to take into account that a “growing” economy as you put it, puts pressure on selling more all the time (consumerism first) and that THAT is the problem. Selling more means people have to buy more and we need to thus produce more… which in turn means extract more from the earth and probably throw away more… the scandinavian countries that you mentionned understand that and live accordingly. Maybe a bit of travelling might do you good.
Also… just a friendly reminder. Your current president has gone bankrupt about… well lets not be mean here and actually show a number. You can wiki it yourself. But again, travelling might be informative to you in many ways. I have learned many langages on my own (including English) and found that curiosity and open mindedness are often the remedy to preconceived notions we get from people that were not worried about the future of this planet. Like the boomers that are currently teaching at Yale and Harvard. You could flatter yourself for being a college educated male. But until you have seen something else, maybe you should not post your opinions on political web sites. Cause they are not really your opinions. They are the opinions of your teachers. I bid you a good one…
Lived in Europe for many years and I know they have looked ahead for the solution, and it will be final.
There is very difficult adopt the ideology of communism … Socialism is better or easy to handel
Upon dropping comment, just be aware of giving supporting details that would make it more clear for other readers, I think that would be more beneficial.
Good discussion except where those on the left start cursing. The Left in the US are increasingly hostile, not toward all religion but especially toward Christianity. It would seem that truth must be destroyed on the way to completing the lie. We see Russia (USSR) as the only apparent form of communism, but that is only how this deadly foolishness reared it’s head in one century — it will likely take on newer, and hopefully subtler nuances in this century. But those states which most strongly embrace capitalism will show great success. The US is clearly on a dead end path in this cycle.
The left’s “hostility” as you put it, towards Christianity is a direct result of the lies, hypocrisy, and misrepresentation of the ideals Christ taught being spewed by the right wing fanatics that have highjacked that religion.
There is direct references in the constitution concerning the freedom of religion and the separation between church and state.
Christ said give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and give to god what is god’s.
The prosperity gospel that is the love child of right wing big money backers/politicians & the evangelical church is absurd.
Christ said that it was the responsibility of those with more to care for and show compassion to the sick, the hungry, the poor while the Republican “theologians” claim that god favor’s the rich.
Christ said it would be easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven.
He also warned of false prophets.
Please answer me this questions…. Who would Jesus bomb? How many women would Jesus grab by the pussy? Which poor, disenfranchised and marginalized group would Jesus take from to give millionaires, billionaires and multi-billion dollar multinational corporations yet another tax cut?
Michael Payne that was AMAZING.
Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
Michael, before you get too high on your apparent moral superiority, let’s not forget that Bill Clinton and other Democrats claim to be Christians while behaving in the way you want to believe that only Republicans behave. Many more Democrats who may NOT claim to be Christians have also recently been brought down by their behavior. Maybe you think this is OK because at least they aren’t hypocrites, but it does not make their behavior any less reprehensible.
Your dark view of those who disagree with you politically seems to have given you a dark view of a faith that teaches what you seem to want. For you to imply that there is something virtuous about being hostile toward Christianity is wrong.
In reply to mark’s october 1 comment, no one doubts that the democrats sin. Everybody sins regardless of political party or religious views. The big difference we are seeing right now is republicans who claim to have the moral high ground and use their platforms to preach their beliefs are getting caught in some very unsavory positions (that they deny or use their platforms to victim blame), while democrats are just getting caught (and most are even apologizing). They may both do bad things, but let’s be honest, it is worse to get caught doing something you have pretended is morally below you and even attacked others for doing.
As for the comment about democrats not coming out about their own religious positions, thats because they know it shouldn’t f matter at all in their line of work. This is a much bigger argument about the separation of church and state, because even Americas forefathers, who could have never known what this country and their words were going to be used for, knew that religion has no place in politics or how laws should be decided and applied.
And so, now more then ever, it is extremely important to call out and even bash politicians who do anything in the name of their religious views, because lets be clear, these men are not morally superior or a compass for what good choices look like. They have simply found a way to get more voters by pandering to their ignorance; And i know that sounds harsh, but when christians can’t even agree on their own stance for certain issues, the last place they should be thinking about God is when they are filling out ballot.
Last but not least, since this is a forum about socialism vs. communism… now vs. capitalism, capitalism is a beautiful thing, for the 1%. Keeping money in companies and families for generations so the other 99% never even have a chance to make something better for themselves even though most work just as hard if not harder doing jobs that are far less glamorous. And now, as a 30 year old with a degree, I get to work a full time job in a field i love, and work another part time super demeaning job because the I’m a single mom with one son who lives in an economy priced for married couples. And why do i choose to live in a community that I can’t afford without help from my parents who never went to college but make decent money, it’s because I want my son to get a first rate education, and because of our capitalists/ consumer system, most schools don’t even have option of producing the future elites of America because they are so focused on test scores to secure funding to even keep their doors open. At one time capitalism really worked for our country, but times have changed and so have the needs of the people. On paper, communism looks amazing, everyone having what they need and some of they want (which is how every human being should live whether they deserve it or not) but it just doesn’t seem to work out because of GREED, the foundation of American capitalism. So socialism is really the next realistic step if we want the 99% of Americans to thrive in a country that is currently stacked against them, and that means people having to let go of this GREED and entitlement to wages that do not reflect the work being done. Will some people take advantage of the system, for sure, but people take advantage of our system now, and its mostly the rich avoiding taxes and not paying fair and livable wages to employees even though their companies bring in billions of $$ yearly (talking to you wal-mart, bunch of cheap asses). Very few people out there are truly refusing to work and just trying to live off the system, and honestly, I don’t care. I happily pay taxes and vote for tax increases because I would rather have a little less and know that everyone out there has what humans need to survive and feel safe. Everyone should think a little bit more about what that money means to people who are struggling, especially if you are one of the lucky few who doesn’t live paycheck to paycheck. So in closing, the only people who would really be against everyone living with the means to support themselves and their families without fear of losing it all or going without, are people who probably already have too much money. And if you are one of those super poor people who ” doesn’t want a f handout”, for the sake of yourself and your family, swallow your pride and know that no matter how hard people work, we all need help sometimes, and it isn’t your fault that you worked hard your whole life but situations changed and either you’re broke from medical bills or getting laid off or being part of a trade that is no longer necessary, or whatever the reason, you don’t deserve to suffer or go without. Anyone who pays THEIR FAIR SHARE in taxes and public programs deserves to enjoy the fruits of their labors.
So if these conservatives think we’ve turned into a socialist or communist country, then why don’t the socialists and communist think so? You people make so many of us cringe at how impressionable and just blatantly retarded you are because of your paranoid and hateful media/religion.
This is from frontpagemag.com. If you don’t like the source there are numerous others if you care to look.
“Erwin Marquit, a member of the International Department of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), recently told a conference of communist political parties from around the world that communists in the U.S did not run their own candidate for president on November 6 because they worked within the Democratic Party for the reelection of Barack Obama and the victories of “progressive” Democrats to Congress.
“The Communist Party USA not only welcomes the reelection of President Barack Obama, but actively engaged in the electoral campaign for his reelection and for the election of many Democratic Party congressional candidates,” Marquit declared at the conference, hosted by the Lebanese Communist Party.
Under Obama, he said, “…we have been forming Party clubs in states in which we previously had very few or even no members. This influx of new members led us to have a national Party school earlier this year to acquaint new members with the Marxist-Leninist orientation of the Party.””
I understand where your comment is coming from, but to suggest that Barack Obama is a communist because he is supported by the communist party is the same line of reasoning used to say that Donald Trump is a racist because he is supported by the KKK.
Just because someone is endorsed by a certain group does not imply that they [the endorsed person] agree with the endorsement, nor does it imply that they agree with the ideals and ideologies of the endorsing group.
Seriously just used a derogatory word against a group of people while defending a government you feel is better for all people with the principle that all are created equal.
Your statement: “You people make so many of us cringe at how impressionable and just blatantly retarded …”
Who is using hateful speech?
The rest of it was pretty low as well, but before you say others are hateful you may want to check yourself.
Cindy, it is quite obvious that you do not understand the basic concepts of satire… Retard.
As someone who dabbled a lot with red politics in my younger days (I currently lean libertarian), this article is clearly written by a socialist who is essentially enforcing the anti-communist social stigma, in order to potentially prop up the view of socialism in the eye of the reader.
This article is talking about socialism, and only socialism. It’s attempting to take all the bad about socialism, and separating it as “communism”, while keeping what the author considers as the good traits. As the USSR, China, and Cuba, which seems to be the inspiration for what the article refers to as communist, were really just socialist states based to varying degrees on Marxism.
The key point in communism is that it’s intended to be stateless – with the people themselves running their own
show. Socialism is, according to Marx, the transitional state in which the government takes control of all means of production. This can be, and has been, quite harsh, despite this article’s attempt to paint it as a democratic paradise. While perhaps that’s true in some Scandinavian countries that are held up as examples, it certainly wasn’t true in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Despite almost universally being referred to as communist in the west, the Soviets were well versed in Karl Marx’s writings, and were very self-aware that they were just that in-between transitional state on the way to the greater, yet unrealized, ideal.
As I’ve read the discussion here, it’s been said he’s talking about “communism in practice and not communism in theory”, however, communism really only exists as a theory outside of very minor examples, usually small and localized, such as hippie communes in the sixties, and their modern successors. And yet, socialism is presented fully in it’s ideal form. Communism, to me, has always seemed to have more in common with anarchism, than socialism.
Here’s an example that represents my problem with this whole article:
“3. Socialists distribute wealth to the people based on an individual’s productive efforts while communists farm out wealth based on an individual’s needs.”
Socialist “distribute” based on effort. Communists “farm out” based on needs. The word choice is very telling of the author’s personal bias. There is no difference in meaning here.
P.S. Communism doesn’t have to reject religion, Marx himself didn’t even believe this. If you want to spit out the famous quote, I would recommend pondering the medicinal use of opiates during Marx’s time. Religion can in fact be the catalyst for the formation of communistic societies. (See Jonestown)
Also, based on paragraph two, I question if the author even understands the terms “liberal” and “conservative”.
I recommend researching these ideologies elsewhere.
Why does this article describe communism differently from this article (http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-capitalism/)?
I think you haven’t studied the true principle of Marxism.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/communism?q=communism this is just an outline concept of communism.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Definitely pent subject material, be thankful in support of picky facts . ckdafekadkdd
On the other hand, those that attempt to dodge the consequences of a Communist Transformation by emigrating will have their lands rearranged and
took.
This whole thing is wrong. Please stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, because you clearly don’t.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are all modes of producing and distributing goods and services, each successively replacing the former when the former has exhausted its potential and becomes irrelevant to circumstances. Each system is like a software upgrade to the economy.
Under capitalism, goods and services become produced on a social basis, requiring a more and more intertwined network of workers to collaborate to produce goods on a mass scale. Under feudalism, which preceded capitalism, all goods were the products of an individual, but under capitalism, no individual can claim to be the sole producer of any good. How these goods and services are in turn distributed remains individualistic, however, with a more or less anarchistic marketplace exacerbating the contradictions between those who own the means of production (the 1%) and those who do not (the 99%).
Under socialism, goods and services become increasingly socially produced, and now socially distributed. All the means of production gradually become public property. Goods that are scarce and competitive remain distributed on an individual basis; goods that are no longer scarce are distributed on a social basis, with free access for the individual.
Under communism, all goods and services are socially distributed, with free access for the individual to everything produced. “From each according to one’s means, to each according to one’s needs.”
I believe communism also involves the destruction of government, as it is a form of oppression.
Now THAT was a good understanding and explaning. Thank you Micheal Leone.
“Communism, on the other hand, controls its economy through a single authoritarian party. It is thus characterized as conservative because the economy functions based on the decisions of a few.”
You clearly have no clue what conservatism is. Conservatism is not characterized by how many (or few) people are involved in the decision making process. By that logic a Dictatorship or a Kingdom would be the ultimate for of conservatism due to decisions being made by only 1 individual.
Let me correct your statements, article, and let me explain why.
1. Socialism is an economic system while communism is both an economic and political system.
Correct statement: 1. Communism and Socialism are both economic systems.
Reason: There can be many different types of government running a Communist or Socialist country. There isn’t just one form of government for Communism, and there isn’t just one form of government for Socialism.
2. In socialism, the resources of the economy are managed and controlled by the people themselves through communes or councils while in communism, management and control rest on a few people in a single authoritarian party.
Correct statement: 2. In socialism and communism, the resources of the economy are managed and controlled by the people themselves, although in communism, a single authoritarian party might take over, and then the management and control would rest on only a few people.
Reason: In communism there can be many types of government. There’s not one certain government for communism.
3. Socialists distribute wealth to the people based on an individual’s productive efforts while communists farm out wealth based on an individual’s needs.
Correct Statement: Socialists distribute wealth to the people based on an individual’s productive efforts, and communists distribute wealth to everyone according to their needs. There are no social classes. Everyone is equal in communism.
Reason: I felt like the statement’s words needed to be changed a bit, to phrase it more correctly.
4. Socialists can own personal properties while communists can not.
Correct Statement: Socialists and Communists can own certain types of personal properties
Reason: Communists can own certain types personal properties, just not things like factories, which could oppress the workers.
5. Socialism allows capitalism to exist in its midst while communism seeks to get rid of capitalism.
Correct Statement: Socialism allows capitalism to exist in its midst while communism isn’t able to work perfectly without everywhere in the world being communist. (Notice how I said perfectly. Communism could still work, but not as well)
Reason: This statement is true enough, because communism won’t work with capitalism still around. The whole world would need to be communist.
The statement that Communism is a conservative view is completely WRONG! The idea of government run control and less freedom of the people is a an obvious liberal way of thinking. Freedom of the people and less government control is conservative, regardless of the numbers in the government. The number is irrelevant, the control and who has it is the key.
oh ya your totally right…. freedom of religion including (not believing in one), marijuana legalization along with the failed war on drugs (freedom to do as one chooses), pro choice, support of same sex marriage are all conservative ideas….hmm oh wait no those are actually ALL liberal social issues that give more freedom to the people & less government control!
Conservatives want govt. out of our lives except in your bedroom where they want to decide who you can marry.
They want to the govt. to decide what a woman can do with her body. They want to abolish abortion and then not take care of the unwanted babies. Double standard.
They want to fight wars with YOUR children at the front lines and not theirs.
They are against religion mixing with politics unless it’s Christianity.
They are Christians but failed the read Mathew 19:21: “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” or Mark 10:25 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Do they have a different bible then the rest of us?
What we have today is a society breaking free of the brainwashing from the past. We were able to break through due to their greediness. That will be their ultimate demise. The masses in this country are becoming more and more impoverished. Because of this they are questioning everything they have been taught. The conservative party will ultimately fail if they continue to not address the wealth inequality. Of course this excludes the delusional people of the south. They will still be voting republican even after the party has dissolved. These are the same people that are building and “Ark Encounter”. Enough said.
That was beautifull Steve. I’m so sorry it did’nt convince people. But the democrats made the wrong choice with Hillary. They should’ve gone with Bernie. He was the only logical antidote to Trump. Now you guys are stuck with either him or, in the odd chance he gets impeached, Pence… good luck with all that.
Sorry my previous comment was meant for “oneeyeopened”
OneEyeOpen, can you please provide a list of Democrats who have sold all of their possessions and given it to the poor? Bernie? Gore? Schumer? Pelosi? The Clintons? The Clintons did not become multi-millionaires until they became “servants of the people”. But they Democrats are not greedy?
And while you are coming up with this list, please provide a second list of Democrat Presidents who did not send our sons (and daughters) into battle.
The problem is that you can say liberal people believe things of that nature, but that has changed in the last decade to believe what they believe or be condemned. They are becoming more of a totalitarian party looking for a dictator with which to rule. I could give example after example of how liberals today want to silence people by any means necessary, and deceive people into thinking that individualism and free thinking is inherently evil. They want people to step in line…or else. That my friend is socialism.
In reply to steve jones comment from June 14… wow, I really wished I would have visited this comment sooner. I think you’re confused with the difference between liberals and conservatives. Everything you were saying kind of fits with republicans, even though I really try not to make generalized statements about large groups of people because obviously being part of a political party does not mean you agree with everything they stand for.
As for your ideas of liberals trying to lead us into a dictatorship…. we aren’t the ones supporting Donald Trump, and if you look back in history, there really is a pattern of behavior by dictators, or in this case, a wannabe dictator; aka: admiring other dictators, cutting off the government from allies, hiring family and friends, declaring journalist and media enemies of the American people, making a profit from his position in office, BIG charismatic speeches aimed at his base even tho he’s already been elected (not by the people but by an outdated and racists system known as the electoral college), constant lying and “alternative facts”, threatening to jail people with dessenting opinions and beliefs, using christianity to pander (even tho he obviously believes he’s probably God), inciting violence, bigotry, misogyny, and bans of human beings…. I don’t even think i named all the examples, like saying he wants an indefinite presidential term, but those are just the ones that come to mind when I think of how conservatives elected and now defend someone who is actively trying to erode and upend American democracy. The worst part of Trump is not Trump at all tho, it is the blanket of ignorance or just straight up weak ass pussy’s (sorry to use that word in a derogatory fashion) who let him get away with this S&. To be proud American then where a shirt saying you’d rather be Russian then a democrat, all I can say is you might be well on your way to getting your wish republicans, just look at who trumps best buddy is. (Putin, incase you weren’t paying attention).
But luckily in this country we have a majority of people who are so pro democracy and human rights that they get out every weekend and protest and call attention to what is happening to our country with signs, news reports, articles and every other free form of speech we have in this country. They don’t let anything get by without bringing attention to it, because complacency is how we ended up with this threat in our white house. Does every liberal do everything the right way every time, no, but if we held groups accountable for one persons actions then every white supremacist in Charlottesville would be in jail right now for MURDER. So lets just say that both sides f it up sometimes, but the left has never even acted in a way that would lead anyone of a sane mind to believe we are anti democracy. All we do is fight for people in this country (and around the world) and their rights to vote, to assemble, to speak, to make decisions for themselves that quite frankly are nobody else’s business. Yeah, thats right, I saw your abortion comment. If the fetus is not able to survive outside the womb, then it is not a human being. And more importantly, every republican argument that’s anti abortion is contradicted by another republican belief. Constitutional rights say keep your religion away from my rights and body even if it means no more unwanted babies being born, but you love to bring it up when you’re worried about some 18 year old who wants to buy an assault riffle or a background check isn’t done in time so someone who might not legally be allowed to own a gun gets one because of a f loophole; Respect the constitution if you think its such f gold. Freedom of religion… unless that religion doesn’t follow a Judeo christian God. Freedom of speech, if that speech is from fox news and agrees with everything you say and believe, or at the very least, try’s to manipulate the truth. Sorry, I’m going off on a bunny trail about hypocrisy. Back to why you are hypocrites about your pro life (anti choice) arguments… The death penalty. You want to say life is sacred for a fetus that has made no impacts on the world or developed personal relationships (or even a set of lungs), but its ok to put teenagers to death for the worst choice in their lives. BTW, unlike most liberals, I am for the death penalty because I understand the hypocrisy of saying we can end pregnancies but can’t practice capital punishment, however, even though I am in favor of the death penalty, I am against how it’s been implemented and used against innocent and minority offenders, but thats an issue with the justice system, not the death penalty itself. You fight for cops and guns and peoples right to kill people if they “feel threatened”, DO YOU HAVE ANY F CLUE HOW THREATENING AN UNWANTED BABY IS TO SOMEONE’S LIFE!? Because thats what pregnancy is for that woman, it is a threat to her livelihood, her security, her safety and if men had to share even half our burden maybe we wouldn’t fight so hard to protect ourselves from the imminent threat that a fetus truly is to our lives. But republicans don’t think about individuals, they think in a generalized fashion that puts their ideals and beliefs on those they see as not knowing whats best for themselves… until their mistress gets pregnant… then we know how excited they are about roe v. wade, but the thing is, rich people can get abortions even when they are illegal, it’s the poor and hard working women who will shoulder the burden of unwanted babies. And when we are forced to have all those babies, republicans will then cut our health care and food stamps, we can’t work cuz we can’t afford daycare because whether you get assistance or not, you aren’t making enough money for daycare, believe me. So to wrap it up (no pun intended, but men need to be more willing to shoulder reproductive health burdens by wearing condems), only fetus lives are important, not colored people and murderers (because republicans should get to choose who has worth), when we do get abortions you want it to be law that we have the most excellent and unnecessary care that we have to pay for because there is no insurance or programs to help pay for abortion, then you are going to make sure we can’t afford to feed these babies or take them to the doctor, and then if we try to work we will have to pay at least $450 (<– modest) for daycare so either we better have a really good job, or we need to work a part time minimum wage job so we qualify for help from the state and entitlement programs that you want to cut funding for, then as that child gets older they get a second rate education cuz we can't afford to live anywhere decent and most likely live in subsidizing housing (thank you government for making me rely on another hand out) all so that baby can grow up an start the cycle over again as a teenager because they didn't get the right support, not because their mom didn't try but because she had to drop out of school to take care of a baby she in all reality had no business trying to raise at that moment in her life… and this is a positive story where the mom just wasn't at the right time in her life to have a baby, she wanted finish school and become secure, just imagine all the babies born of rape and incest that live in poverty and abuse and keep that cycle going, or worst yet, a bunch of liberal babies whom conversative fathers wanted to have them aborted but the the mistress refused and they had to grow up knowing there father is a deplorable human being. Don't ever try to say that a fetus has more rights then the woman who will have to dedicate her whole life to taking care of that baby, or putting it up for adoption so it can maybe go to a nice christian family in the midwest that homeschool there children to protect them from the secular world of people saying, "mind your f business" and "whoever told you that lied to you, here's the science".
I know this is about economical models, which wouldn't we be f awesome if we, as in Americans, were to come up with a successful form of capitalism mixed with socialism called communism (<– lol, just a joke) but seriously, let people get rich but without hanging on to all the wealth and becoming disgusting examples of greed and wasted money, while at the same time making sure everyone has what they need, what they want, and is safe and secure in a beautiful home in a neighborhood with well funded schools and police who know there place is serving the public and not this mob mentality, we are us they are them bS idea. I know it sounds super corny and utopia'esque, but its more then possible if people weren't so damn greedy. I know it's even more hippy dippy to say that we should really be taking care of each other, and not just during disasters, cuz our country is almost two years into a slow moving disaster that could end America as we know it, and if thats what you want, some anarchist/ militia society where its everyone for themselves and all the races "stay with their own kind" then go somewhere else, go be totally alone, or by all means, take you and all your democracy hating homies and start your own country, declare war and then let all the gays and transgenders in the US military destroy you. Because thats really the bottom line, we may be in favor of more government oversight with businesses, money and laws because we want civilization to survive, but we aren't using our ideas and beliefs to come into people homes and make their personal choices for them… al though we are against hate speech i guess… i mean, say whatever you want, but know that when you say something f up, you're going to incite a reaction from people who find you repulsive, but we aren't asking that you go to jail, we just want you to lose your jobs or get boycotted, so you know that spreading hate is not socially acceptable and should be saved for private conversations and the internet.
Communism, Capitalism, Socialism. What we have here in the US is Fascism. I lean more left than right. Here are the things I see:
America is no longer Capitalistic.
America is not communist.
America has social programs that work well but is not socialist.
Socialism allows for citizens to own personal property while capitalism does not.
Historic examples of socialism are examples of a dictator taking over and controlling the capital (economy) which is the opposite of democratic socialism.
Germany has a mixture of capitalism and socialism. This is the strongest country in the EU. It needs to be used as an example where socialistic policies have worked well. We don’t see many German immigrants in this country. One has to ask Why? I have a good idea after talking to countless Germans on the subject. They think we are fools and they love their system. If they were poor Trump would fighting to keep them out of the US also.
Capitalism is the greatest system of building wealth on the planet! However, after it’s done it’s job of taking a 3rd world nation out of poverty it has a big problem of instability as well as huge wealth inequality to deal with like here in the US. It models the game of Monopoly. In the beginning of the game all players have equal opportunity until one player builds the first Monopoly. Once this occurs the other players try to follow suit. However, they will eventually fall victim to one player who will eventually control all the capital. At this point the game is over unless the players keep borrowing from the bank to stay in the game. Problem is they will eventually become bankrupt.
We are at the same point here in the US. Most industries or market sectors have become monopolized. “Too big to Fail” has become the norm. This has led to Fascism(merger of corporate and political powers). We have all become enslaved and are surviving on borrowed money. Our political system as well as economic system is rigged in favor of the few elite. While all you conservatives are fighting the idea of socialism/communism you are being robbed and manipulated by the wealthy that don’t want to give up their power. Instead of a Hitler or Putin dictating our lives we have corporate powers doing it. At least under socialism our health isn’t held for ransom like it is now.
Looking at this election we can see that conservatives as well as liberals agree that most of the candidates including Hitlery Clinton represent these elite. The candidates that don’t seem to are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Their popularity shows the truth. The country needs a nice mix of Capitalism/Socialism functioning under a true democracy. That’s what will work. Greed is our number one enemy.
I would like to also add that I am independently wealthy and not looking for handouts. I earned every cent through education and hard work. That being said I think most Americans are getting the shaft and the millennials are really screwed!! I am so glad I was born when I was to have a chance at the American Dream instead of the American Mirage of debt indentured servitude. Something has to be done. We need a new system here. I haven’t heard one plan from any republican from any debate except build walls to keep Mexicans out. We can’t live on the wages these Mexicans receive so why are they the target? I live in Az and can say the Mexicans are a true asset. They are hard working, family orientated christian people. They are the prime example of what republicans have been spewing out over the last decade. This is a distraction from the real issue of wealth inequality which is the end result of Capitalism. At least the liberals are trying to come up with plans. Whether you agree with them or not they HAVE a plan. If a repug had just one idea or plan I would consider voting for one. They don’t. I will give Trump credit for saying that we need to bring back the jobs. That’s the only thing he said that wasn’t counter productive to our progress. Trickle down economics has failed. More tax breaks for the wealthy will not make things better. These are old tried ideas and need to be put to rest!
Please see my previous comment that I mistakenly sent to Steve… it was for you. Respect.
So, if one or both of communism and socialism are purely economic and not political, it would seem to follow that hey must also be purely voluntary. You only need politics to force
people to do what they wouldn’t do otherwise.
And yet, the only people I’ve met who seemed to like living under communism were the guys at the top. Apart from the identities of who occupies the corner office, I frail to see any diffeeence between how communist countries run and any other slave economy. That’s what they look like to me, anyway.
The major difference is that socialists believe that change can come through the ballot box, whereas communists know that the ruling class will never give up power willingly. History has proven this.
There is such a thing as libertarian marxism. Anarcho-communism, libertarian communism, LEFT LIBERTARIANISM etc. It seeks for maximum freedom in personal affairs while eliminating private ownership of the means of production.
They are both totalitarian. It turns the working classes into slaves. while the government classes live with the wealth that they steal from the low in middle classes. Classic example Hitler was a socialist. Stalin was a communist. Both Mass murderers that put their people in poverty. No communist and no socialist Run state has ever succeeded, because of the oppression of the people. In modern times Venezuela is an example of how socialism is working properly. All you have to do is look up the 10 pillars by Karl Marx. Sounds great doesn’t it? It surely is not. It had been proven in history to be pure and evil tyranny. with people starving to death while the government class lives in luxury. Communism, socialism, Marxism it’s all great if you don’t mind finding scraps and garbage cans and hunting rats to survive. ( if you’re lucky enough to survive). And you better not speak out against the government or you and your family will be snatched up and executed.
P.s. Democratic socialism=socialism
Wow, this person clearly has no idea what actual communism is. They are confused with Leninism and the authoritarian left. This was most likely written by a conservative American.
That’s dumb Metro boomin. You were good until you threw in the conservatives.
It is abundantly clear that this author is pro-socialist, and does not know what they are talking about. They put socialism on such a high pedestal. Notice it says in one of the points “People CAN own property.” Which people? Oh, the wealthy? The rest of society is paying 80-90% in taxes and practically slaves. And you better believe they can’t own land. And neither communism or socialism will let you own land outright. That is why you can’t own a piece of land in America. You don’t pay property taxes and the government will take your land. That is because we already have socialistic tendencies throughout this government. You want more of that? Keep your socialism. It’s no better than communism. It is still control by the elite.
Thank you for this article. I learned a lot as someone who’s always wondered what the differences between socialism and communism is.
Pro choice is not freedom because that child doesn’t have a say. That is totalitarian parenting. Colorado has also published a study that shows more accidents are caused by people who are driving while high. And I can’t see your third point on my phone. But liberals who are pro-socialism/Marxism/communism demonstrate how little they have been taught the Constitution. The state of the union is sad.
Awaiting moderation? That is socialism/communism and Marxism on display. You are only allowed to post what we say you can post.
All of you who advocate the “values” and “virtues” of either Socialism or Communism, really ought to find yourself another country to live in, instead of taking and yet dismissing the blessings of our capitalist society. It isn’t perfect, and yes, there needs to always be a safety net for the truly needy who are unable physically or mentally to work. As for the rest of you, what you were born with is neither your fault nor to your credit, but only in a capitalistic society are you free to use what you were given and make more or less of your life. What you become is “on you.”
What if all a person would argue for is taxpayer-funded public education (including preschool and university) and health insurance? That doesn’t sound like either one of these labels.
In the United States it’s not uncommon to hear of people accused of being communists or socialists (the terms are ignorantly used interchangeably) for merely consenting to those policies. It’s as though these terms are becoming less and less useful.
Hello all,
I can agree that there are many definitions of socialism; however, I wanted to provide another analysis of what practical socialism is in today’s society and how it could be useful in addressing the many issues we now face in America.
Socialism, in my perspective, consists of democratically owned and operated enterprises. One employee, one vote. Shares of the company can be purchased only by employees. Typically, rules would govern inequality and leaders of individual teams would be elected by their respective divisions within the company. Raw capitalism has produced horrific outcomes: economic inequality, child labor, exacerbated and ignored human caused climate change, exploitation of emerging markets and third world economies etc… Capitalism by default is a system of exploitation.
If a company was democratically owned and operated, would the employees of said company vote to ship their jobs to another country? Would a democratically owned and operated refinery choose to maximize profit by cutting emissions technology and implementation considering that the owner/operators lived in the community that the refinery existed? I would argue that Socialism, via worker self directed enterprises, would account for costs not typically addressed in a typical top down enterprise.
When an employer hires an employee, they automatically know that they will make more off of the employee than they pay the employee. The chair is made so by the labor, not the material changing itself. Therefore, this is deemed the product of labor. Why is labor expected to be separated from their respective work, which arguably removes the meaning behind labor.
robert,
Where would the initial investment come from to open said “democratically owned” business? I would suggest it would be very few people willing to take on that kind of financial risk.
You are free in the US to setup this kind of business, feel free and let us know how it goes. I feel it would not go so well, not many people have the drive or temperament to get any company off the ground and be successful. The successful companies you know of would never exist.
This argument has been used before and usually just means taking over or stealing a company, thinking the collectivist you could run it better.