Definition of Socialism and Communism

Post Reply New Topic

I'm so tired of people confusing communism and socialism with dictatorship, so I've decided to create a thread about political definitions of the ideologies:

1. Socialism:

An ideology about welfare for the poor. Originated in the mid-19th century Europe when many European nations became so-called "democracies" - by "so-called" I refer to the fact that the Working Class and people on Unemployment Benefits did not have the right to vote. Socialists wanted to change that.

Amongst socialist ideologies are Social-Democracy, which also originated in the 19th century but became more wide-spread in Germany and Scandinavian countries during the early 20th century. The Social-democrats were originally called Socialists, but the difference lies in the fact that Social-Demomcrats wants to negotiate reforms and wages with the Employers Organisations. This is why Labour Unions became so important, to organize the Employees to face the Employers collectively.

Examples of Market Socialism are co-operatives where the farmers get one vote per person, in contrast to capitalists getting more votes based on their shares in the company.

2. Communism:

An ideology developed mainly by Karl Marx, who argued that the working class has been exploited too much and the Social-democrats are too weak to face the real dangers of capitalism.

Communism promises an entirely new society, where the Means of Production are owned by the Workers (like in co-operatives). Because the Means of Production (industries etc.) are owned by private companies, the State/Government must seize the Means of Production and hand it over to the Workers.

3. What went wrong?

Socialism and Communism both have a bad reputation, because it is associated with The Soviet Union and various other so-called Communist states around the globe during and after The Cold War.

The thing is that it all started in Russia. Russia had a tradition of an Despotic Regime of the Tzar.
The people revolted against it, and Lenin took power. But Lenin would never hand over the political power to the common people, rather he created an inner-circle of trusted companions and ruled Russia with just as much an iron-fist as the deposed Tzar.

Later, Stalin got power, and it was the same show, for every single Soviet leader: It lead to Authoritarianism/Tyranny/Dictatorship. It is NOT because of the socialist or communist ideals, it has to do with who's in charge. The workers never got a say in anything in Soviet Russia.

And what about every other "communist country"? Well... Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam - the list goes on and on, common to ALL of them is that they're puppet-states of either Russia or China, both dictatorships.

Mao Zedong was, like Lenin and Stalin, not willing to share his power with the people.
Again, this refusal to share the political power with the people has nothing to do with being communist.

You CAN be a Communist AND be an Authoritarian.
But you can LIKEWISE be a Communist and be a democrat. in the liberal sense of the word (liberal democracy).

You CAN be a Capitalist and a democrat.
But you can LIKEWISE be a Capitalist and be an Authoritarian (Franco's Spain, Chile, Singapore, Poland, Hungary etc.).

Got it?
Good, so please stop your lies about communism always equal authoritarianism.

The thing is that todays Russia is not Communist, yet it is still being ruled by a dictator (Putin).
China is very much capitalist, despites its ruling party name (Chinese "Communist" Party).

It's not their former communist ideologies which made the authoritarian, rather it has to do with a Russian and Chinese tradition of dictatorship, dating back to ancient times.

When Rome was a Republic ruled by the majority of Senator votes, China was ruled by one person alone.
Many Roman dictators had a very short life, because here, in The West, we don't tolerate dictatorship very much, and never has, since ancient times.

Todays conflict between NATO and Russia is really more of an ancient conflict between the rule of the many versus the rule of the few.

For decades it was widely believed that Salvador Allende Gossens was establishing a democratic Communist or Marxist state in Chile until the US acted to stop him.

Salvador Allende Gossens was a Marxist, and was allegedly leading the country toward Communism.  Whether this was for good or evil is now a moot point, because once in power, General Augusto Pinochet refused to return authority to a civilian government and ruled as an Authoritarian Dictator.

Would Chile have become more or less democratic without the CIA's intervention?  We may never know.

I believe socialism is compatible with democracy, where communism is not. Simply because you cant change an ecconomic system every 5 years.

"Socialism", as defined by "when the workers own the means of production" does work within democratic systems.

A "Wheat Farmers' Cooperative", for example, might involve all the farmers owning equal shares in businesses involving grain storage, transportation, and processing.  Everyone benefits equally.

I don't quite know what the difference is supposed to be, except that socialism seems to suggest a slightly milder version of communism, and doesn't scare people quite so much if they're already suspicious of what the Left is up to. Here's one website's view of the differences. I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems to be saying that communism is different because it seeks to abolish religion, class, and private property completely.

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-be ... ism-195448

let's not forget that communism also is a techno-utopian vision which took root in agrarian societies and colonized countries, and which allowed authoritarians to seize power by hijacking this vision.
In Russia and China, this movement created mass-industrialization.
In the Arab world, Islamism played a similar role in defining nations and creating a counter-colonizing force from the beginning of the 20th century onward. Without the industrialization, but I'd argue with similar authoritarian rulers.

It's not just that communism in practice failed- it was only ever used as uniting vision in developing countries which had fallen behind the West by centuries and been exploited and humiliated by Capitalist countries. No wonder there was some incentive to play an entirely different game.

Democracy+Private Ownership = Capitalism
Democracy+ Public Ownership = Socialism
Dictatorship + Private Ownership = Fascism
Dictatorship + Public Ownership = Communism

Leonard Roy Frank