Isn't the difference between Communism and Socialism like the difference between water and wetness?

[livingwordunity]

Liberals always defend Socialism and say it’s not the same a Communism. But they never say what the difference actually is. Can anyone here explain exactly what the difference is between Socialism and Communism, if any? I notice that every Communist country calls itself Socialist. Lenin, Jim Jones, Hitler, and Stalin identified themselves as Socialists as does the tyrant of North Korea, the tyrant of China, the tyrant of Cuba, and the now deceased tyrant of Venezuela.

 

[msokeefe]

My understanding is that in a socialist government, there is private ownership, though the government controls prices and generally controls the economy.

In communism, everything is owned by the State and controls everything.

 

[mikeeh]

Socialism is the idea that all wealth should be communally owned and redistributed so that all people are relatively equal. Communism is an ideology which allows socialism to be implemented.

 

[livingwordunity]

My understanding is that in a socialist government, there is private ownership, though the government controls prices and generally controls the economy.

In communism, everything is owned by the State and controls everything.

But why have the majority of Socialist governments also been Communist governments? Why does every Communist government identify itself as Socialist? It seems that this happens far to often to be a coincidence. There must be some strong connection between these two. It seems like they are two sides of the same coin. Are there any Socialists who have condemned Communism? Because it seems like they all admire each other.

 

[StudentMI]

But why have the majority of Socialist governments also been Communist governments? Why does every Communist government identify itself as Socialist? It seems that this happens far to often to be a coincidence. There must be some strong connection between these two. It seems like they are two sides of the same coin. Are there any Socialists who have condemned Communism? Because it seems like they all admire each other.

Theoretically speaking, socialism was just a step towards communism, at least in Marxist theory. There have been anti-communist socialists, but they were mostly overshadowed in the twentieth century by Marxist socialists.

 

[livingwordunity]

Theoretically speaking, socialism was just a step towards communism, at least in Marxist theory. There have been anti-communist socialists, but they were mostly overshadowed in the twentieth century by Marxist socialists.

So there were some Socialists before Marx who were against Communism but none like that today. Thanks.

 

[StudentMI]

So there were some Socialists before Marx who were against Communism but none like that today. Thanks.

There are some. I have a friend who is a socialist, but his ‘socialism’ is more social democracy, and he has referred to Marx as mostly irrelevant nowadays.

 

[livingwordunity]

There are some. I have a friend who is a socialist, but his ‘socialism’ is more social democracy, and he has referred to Marx as mostly irrelevant nowadays.

So his ‘socialism’ is like a watered-down form of it. What about a hardcore socialist? Are there any of them who have condemned communism? If so, who that we can all know of?

 

[msokeefe]

Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, who abhorred communism.

 

[livingwordunity]

Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, who abhorred communism.

What was it that they didn’t like about communism?

 

[St_Francis]

There were–and still are-- several types of socialism, of which Communism was one. Marx said, among many other things, that first there would be a revolution–a violent overthrown of the capitalist running dog government–resulting in socialism, then the government would wither away…

Non-communist socialists of the time did not think a revolution was necessary per se, and had not proposed many of the other things Marx proposed.

One group in particular were the Fabian Socialists, who thought that socialism could be brought about gradually, in a step-by-step way.

 

[St_Francis]

What was it that they didn’t like about communism?

Communism was definitely a world-wide movement, but the socialism proposed by Hitler and Mussolini was national (National Socialism is what Nazi is short for). This really upset the Soviets, who called the national socialist movements “right-wing,” meaning to the right of the most extreme left!

And if national socialism took off, there went the Soviet Communists’ plans for world domination…

 

[Holly3278]

I know that the Catholic Church condemns Communism but does the Church also condemn Socialism?

 

[St_Francis]

I know that the Catholic Church condemns Communism but does the Church also condemn Socialism?

Good question! And the answer is: yes.

From Rerum Novarum: 15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

Since Communism is a type of socialism, it was included in Pope Leo’s condemnation of socialism.

 

[bzkoss236]

diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

 

[Holly3278]

Good question! And the answer is: yes.

From Rerum Novarum: 15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

Since Communism is a type of socialism, it was included in Pope Leo’s condemnation of socialism.

Ah okay. Thank you!

 

[CaptFun]

Good question! And the answer is: yes.

From Rerum Novarum: 15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

Since Communism is a type of socialism, it was included in Pope Leo’s condemnation of socialism.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQvP6E1pCTNFO2BYstKjpGtcm0PCeUO0tTqto7R9wu6OLjlj5m
Leo XIII !

 

[Kaninchen]

Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, who abhorred communism.

Well, actually, you’re right that they abhorred communism but, of course, they weren’t socialists.

Socialism involves common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and neither Fascism nor National Socialism were about common ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange, quite the opposite.

The German word for the English words ‘National Socialism’ is ‘Nationalsozialismus’, it’s a typical German compound word and there’s something of a hint in that. The Party platform was about returning Germany to earlier times, a world of peasant proprietor farmers, artisan/craftsman production and small shopkeepers (the contradiction was that they needed Big Business - which was a threat to peasant proprietor farmers, artisan/craftsman producers and small shopkeepers - to achieve that) and, indeed, the bulk of their support came from these kinds of people, the money came from Big Business because the Party promised to end the threat of Socialism, Communism, Trades Unions and so on.

A couple of German words for you - ‘Gleichschaltung’ (coordination) and ‘Volksgemeinschaft’ (people’s community) which express where the ‘social’ comes in. The aim was to re-create a (mythical) German community of the past where all the peasant proprietor farmers, artisan/craftsman producers and small shopkeepers would be unified, with one set of ideas/ideals - lots of independent people all thinking the same way with an end to divisive concepts such as ‘class’ and religious feuding. Anything social, political or racial that stood in the way of that would be eliminated and, since the idea was that Germans needed more room to have lots more peasant proprietor farmers, artisan/craftsman producers and small shopkeepers, it would stretch over Eastern Europe and much of Western Russia, the inhabitants of which would be eliminated or provide a slave class.

So, no it wasn’t about common ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange, the peasant proprietor farmers would own their farms, the artisan/craftsman producers would own their workshops and the small shopkeepers would own their shops. They’d just all think the same way.

Italian Fascism was somewhat different but you get the general idea.

Were there some Nazis who had ‘socialist’ ideas and some Fascists who had ‘socialist’ ideas? Yes there were but there are Catholics who support he idea of women priests . . . . .

 

[Tony_the_mad]

From Rerum Novarum: 15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

The Pope commenting on which form of government works best makes just as much sense as a sociologist commenting on which religion is best. Which form of government works best is way outside of expertise of the Papacy,

The ironic thing is that the earliest Church promoted a form of Socialism, which Luke seems to praise in Acts. Not that the early Church cared about either government nor about eliminating property rights. They joined the community voluntarily. My point is that none of these early Christians seemed to think that by joining the community they were eliminating their ‘interest in exerting [their] talents or [their] industry’ and it would introduce ‘confusion and disorder’.

Not that I care, or know that much about, socialism. I am an American, and quite frankly socialism is so far outside of the culture of the US that it is hardly worth worrying about, for our internal politics at least. You would sooner find someone who worships pagan gods than someone who is a socialist. Here, the only people who care about socialists are the far right who need a bogey man to incite mobs to break out their pitchforks and torches and descend upon the houses of those the leaders dislike.

I suspect as well, that a good portion of the above quote from Pope is also a fight against a non-existent bogeyman. Communists main problem was not its socialism, if it could even be said to be socialist in practice, but its totalitarianism. Certainly, communism used socialism to justify their takeover and maintain their leadership, but goods were hardly distributed equally.

 

[livingwordunity]

Communism was definitely a world-wide movement, but the socialism proposed by Hitler and Mussolini was national (National Socialism is what Nazi is short for). This really upset the Soviets, who called the national socialist movements “right-wing,” meaning to the right of the most extreme left!

And if national socialism took off, there went the Soviet Communists’ plans for world domination…

Isn’t every socialist government nationalist if not by name in practical terms?