Communism vs Socialism

[MH84]

How is socialism different from communism? Is socialism based on giving power to the people, while communism is based on giving power to a specific political party?

Is the Catholic Church against socialism?

I know communism is wrong, but if someone asked me why, I wouldnt be able to explain it.

Can someone explain in straight forward terms. Thanks.

 

[BamaRider]

Been my experience ALOT of folks around here are experts on this subject, cause they can’t wait to try it in the USA

 

[Kaninchen]

How is socialism different from communism? Is socialism based on giving power to the people, while communism is based on giving power to a specific political party?

Is the Catholic Church against socialism?

I know communism is wrong, but if someone asked me why, I wouldnt be able to explain it.

Can someone explain in straight forward terms. Thanks.

Ok, I used to be a politically-active anti-socialist but I’ll give it a try.

Theoretically-speaking, socialism involves state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange; theoretically, that state would wither away and die leaving ownership and control in the hands of the ‘workers and peasants’ (communism).

That would be an evolutionary process and would require that you started off with an advanced industrial society - what happened in Russia and China was an attempt to seize control of primitive (very in the case of China) industrial societies and force the ‘advanced industrial society’ bit into existence so that the rest would follow. They were ‘Socialist/Communist’ only in theory and eventually became bureaucratic power structures interested only in maintaining the power-structure (Mao tried to destroy this in the ‘Cultural Revolution’ period but only created serious chaos).

Marx wouldn’t have approved of the whole process, by the way, and would never have considered the possibility that it could just take place in just one or a couple of countries - with antagonistic capitalist countries existing alongside.

 

[MH84]

Ok, I used to be a politically-active anti-socialist but I’ll give it a try.

Theoretically-speaking, socialism involves state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange; theoretically, that state would wither away and die leaving ownership and control in the hands of the ‘workers and peasants’ (communism).

That would be an evolutionary process and would require that you started off with an advanced industrial society - what happened in Russia and China was an attempt to seize control of primitive (very in the case of China) industrial societies and force the ‘advanced industrial society’ bit into existence so that the rest would follow. They were ‘Socialist/Communist’ only in theory and eventually became bureaucratic power structures interested only in maintaining the power-structure (Mao tried to destroy this in the ‘Cultural Revolution’ period but only created serious chaos).

Marx wouldn’t have approved of the whole process, by the way, and would never have considered the possibility that it could just take place in just one or a couple of countries - with antagonistic capitalist countries existing alongside.

Does this mean that in a socialist country, there would be no private businesses?

 

[Kaninchen]

Does this mean that in a socialist country, there would be no private businesses?

Some small capitalistic enterprise (workshops, small farms) might exist to cope with ‘minor’ problems of supply.

Remember, I’m giving you the classical definition of socialism (not to be confused with ‘social democracy’ which is a different tradition).

 

[anna30]

Historically the oldest socialist idea was liberalism (known as capitalism). Capitalism produced new society - manufacturers and consumers - and eventually made proletariat. The answers were: communism, fascism and nazism. Communism suggested a different approach to economy, state, politics etc. - one party and one way of public life - collectivism.
All the ideas are based on terror and fear - direct (communism) or indirect (liberalism). Both do not accept the fact that a human being has got rights as a person because both are materialisms.

 

[Kaninchen]

Historically the oldest socialist idea was liberalism (known as capitalism). Capitalism produced new society - manufacturers and consumers - and eventually made proletariat. The answers were: communism, fascism and nazism. Communism suggested a different approach to economy, state, politics etc. - one party and one way of public life - collectivism.
All the ideas are based on terror and fear - direct (communism) or indirect (liberalism). Both do not accept the fact that a human being has got rights as a person because both are materialisms.

More than a little a-historical, I’m afraid.

Furthermore, auite how you would describe the utopian socialists of the 19th century as having their ideas based on ‘terror and fear’, I can’t imagine. In England it was based on Methodism so perhaps you see Methodism as based on ‘terror and fear’. ‘Communism’ would actually be a society with no State, so how it would be ‘one party’ is a mystery.

As for liberalism . . .

 

[anna30]

‘Communism’ would actually be a society with no State, so how it would be ‘one party’ is a mystery.

Why? In communist regime there is only one ruling party.

 

[Kaninchen]

Why? In communist regime there is only one ruling party.

Because there’s a difference between ‘communism’ and the ‘Communist’ regimes. As I said in my first response, the societies involved hadn’t reached a stage where ‘socialism’ was possible, never mind ‘communism’. The ‘vanguard of the proletariat’ (as they thought of themselves), established governments aiming at rapid industrialization and collectivization of primitive peasant farming as a first stage to reaching ‘socialism’. Faced with this (and, very importantly foreign hostility and both real and threatened armed intervention) a theory of ‘socialism in one country’ was embarked upon which ended up in terror and finally sclerotic bureaucracy.

Marxists had always thought that the crisis of capitalism that would lead to its collapse would happen in advanced societies, with an advanced and educated working class like, particularly, Germany (not so much Britain because they tended to think of the British working class as somewhat bourgeois and obsessed with practicalities). The assumption was that, in such societies, the transition to socialism would be rapid and, with enough such societies involved, the withering away of the State would follow in a reasonable period of time.

In that final stage - ‘communism’ - there would be no State to have political parties in!

 

[DL82]

Some small capitalistic enterprise (workshops, small farms) might exist to cope with ‘minor’ problems of supply.

Remember, I’m giving you the classical definition of socialism (not to be confused with ‘social democracy’ which is a different tradition).

Actually, you’re giving the Marxist definition of socialism. Generally speaking, ‘socialism’ today is used as another word for ‘social democracy’.

Communism is an ideology of revolutionary repossession of power by the working classes, following a specific programme outlined by Marx and Engels, resulting in a global dictatorship of the working classes, with the collective ownership of the means of production and the end of the capitalist market. In a communist state each works according to his or her ability, and receives according to his or her need. At least, that’s the theory. In practice, it is violent, degrading and unworkable.

Socialism on the other hand refers to a broad range of different approaches, including Marxist or neo-Marxist approaches, but also including trade unionism, anarcho-syndicalism, social democracy and the welfare state, which aim to orient the means of production in favour of the whole of society. These approaches can range from nationalising the means of production, the distribution of company shares among workers, high taxes for the rich to pay for welfare for the poor, leaving the market untouched but taking state control of services such as schools, hospitals and public transport, selective sales taxes or rations on luxury goods to ensure a fair distribution of basic food and clothing for the poor, or any number of other solutions.

On this broader definition, socialism is just any system that sees a more equal distribution of public goods for all as the main aim of society. This might, in practice, involve a lot of free-market economics, as is the case in many European countries with modern social-democrat governments, or even in communist China. The difference between a socialist free market and a libertarian one, however, is that socialists want free trade in order to ensure the fairest distribution of goods, and are not afraid to limit free trade if that will achieve greater equality, while libertarians believe that free trade is an end in itself, even if it leads to the rich becoming super-rich and the poor starving.

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, you’re giving the Marxist definition of socialism. Generally speaking, ‘socialism’ today is used as another word for ‘social democracy’.

Stickler for historical sequence that I am.

Communism is an ideology of revolutionary repossession of power by the working classes, following a specific programme outlined by Marx and Engels, resulting in a global dictatorship of the working classes, with the collective ownership of the means of production and the end of the capitalist market. In a communist state each works according to his or her ability, and receives according to his or her need.

And this is different from what I said, how?

At least, that’s the theory. In practice, it is violent, degrading and unworkable.

And this is different from what I said, how?

On this broader definition, socialism is just any system that sees a more equal distribution of public goods for all as the main aim of society. This might, in practice, involve a lot of free-market economics, as is the case in many European countries with modern social-democrat governments, or even in communist China. The difference between a socialist free market and a libertarian one, however, is that socialists want free trade in order to ensure the fairest distribution of goods, and are not afraid to limit free trade if that will achieve greater equality, while libertarians believe that free trade is an end in itself, even if it leads to the rich becoming super-rich and the poor starving.

Do I hear the words ‘commanding heights of the economy’ in the background?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

How is socialism different from communism? Is socialism based on giving power to the people, while communism is based on giving power to a specific political party?

Is the Catholic Church against socialism?

I know communism is wrong, but if someone asked me why, I wouldnt be able to explain it.

Can someone explain in straight forward terms. Thanks.

The CCC has the best answer:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

The parts I’ve bolded are sure to anger socialists and the parts I’ve underlined turn right-wing ideology on its ear. It’s a well-balanced view that I wish more people would look into.

 

[Kaninchen]

The CCC has the best answer

No, that’s just a set of instructions to Catholics. It’s not an answer to anything other than “I’m a Catholic, what should I do/believe?”

Which is ok, obviously, for those who are vaguely interested in what the Catholic Church wants to tell Catholics to believe. For the rest of us, it’s just ‘Harry Potter’ and would have not been the vaguest use when we were young in a world where we were still, in the 80’s, surrounded by real socialists and real communists.

 

[Kaninchen]

The parts I’ve bolded are sure to anger socialists

I’m sorry, this will sound terribly insulting, but you wouldn’t know a real socialist if he bit you on the leg.

 

[Kaninchen]

The parts I’ve bolded are sure to anger socialists and the parts I’ve underlined turn right-wing ideology on its ear. It’s a well-balanced view that I wish more people would look into.

I’m sorry for the tone (though not the content) of my previous response, too many memories.

 

[1ke]

If you are interested in understanding the history and development of these ideologies and being able to articulately discuss this topic, I highly recommend you get a copy of Jonah Goldberg’s current bestseller Liberal Fascism.

It is an **excellent **book on the topics of communism, socialism, and fascism and how these ideologies have manifested themselves in the United States.

 

[Kaninchen]

If you are interested in understanding the history and development of these ideologies and being able to articulately discuss this topic, I highly recommend you get a copy of Jonah Goldberg’s current bestseller Liberal Fascism.

It is an **excellent **book on the topics of communism, socialism, and fascism and how these ideologies have manifested themselves in the United States.

I’d recommend something serious, like Lenin’s: “The State And The Revolution” or “Imperialism, The Highest Form of Capitalism”.

 

[1ke]

I’d recommend something serious, like Lenin’s: “The State And The Revolution” or “Imperialism, The Highest Form of Capitalism”.

Your use of pejorative terms aside…

These would serve as historical documents but not a discussion of what has transpired over 100 years and the face that these ideologies wear today.

And, his exhaustive research and volumous footnotes should satisfy those who want to go read source documents.

 

[Kaninchen]

Your use of pejorative terms aside…

Oh dear.

These would serve as historical documents but not a discussion of what has transpired over 100 years and the face that these ideologies wear today.

Err, check what the op asked for.

And, his exhaustive research and volumous footnotes should satisfy those who want to go read source documents.

Thanks to the United States defending of freedom and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites, I’m in the fortunate position - I say this with absolutely no sarcasm or irony - of only having to concern myself with European issues and analysis and not having, because of a common enemy, to take American political theorists seriously.

I’ve never commented in all my 1000whatever posts about US politics (other than being a bit sarcastically jocular about the American definition of socialism being ‘having been spotted reading the NY Times’) and I didn’t in ‘real life’ during the years we lived in the US.

So, just take my response as being for European readers.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The Church opposes all forms of Socialism whether they be Nazism, Facism, or Communism and is none to pleased with unbridled Capitalism either. Read Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors and then Rerum Navarum for further information. Miri Vos isn’t bad either.

CDL