Started By
Message
What are Socialism and Communism?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 2/25/16 at 5:26 pm
I really, really hate talking to both sides of the political spectrum regarding the definition of these two ideologies because, quite honestly, neither of them understand it whatsoever.
For both Left-Leaning and Right-Leaning posters:
Both Marx and Engels rejected Egalitarianism and Wealth Distribution.
Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest (such as a universal notion of "equality"), but was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires. Thus, Marx's notion of communist society is radically individualistic.
Source
Karl Marx was a proponent of two principles, the first applied to socialism and the second to an advanced communist society: "To each according to his contribution" and "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need". Although Marx's position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, in reality Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.
Source
Furthermore: Communism cannot have a dictatorship. It's not feasible because an advanced communistic society demands:
Superabundance: This means that there need to be a surplus of resources of whatever is being classified as "Common Ownership". In practice: Charities and public bodies (in theory).
Statelessness: In a communist society, the state is rendered obsolete and in reality, it's closer to anarchy than it is authoritarianism.
Classlessness: Similarly, classes are to be excised from society.
Money: Doesn't exist in a communist society.
This means, in theory, there has never been a communist society, and one could even argue that there never will be.
Why are National Socialists (Nazi) right-wing?
I should preface this by saying: Don't be a chauvinist toward whatever wing you choose. Both sides of the political spectrum have their pitfalls and advantages. I consider myself a centrist, maybe even leaning right-wing, but Nazism/National Socialism is a right-wing ideology.
The Why:
First and foremost, NATIONAL Socialism is like having a CLOSED Free Market. The two simply are diametrically opposed. Socialism is INCLUSIVE (not to be confused, as stated above, with Egalitarianism) and to have NATIONAL Socialism is just Fascism or Nationalism. The Socialism part is used by dictators around the world to unite and take advantage of otherwise simple people, as it's a very appealing idea to the uneducated or even simpleminded folk of any society.
Second, Marxism/Communism/Socialism all oppose nationalism. As I said before, it's an oxymoron.
I look forward to having a discussion, perhaps even a debate, but I feel like I have to preface: There is way more to this political theory, and what has been practiced in the past are not Communistic (by far) and wouldn't even qualify as being first-stage Socialistic states.
They were dictators who latched onto an idea and exploited their people by using certain terms.
Thank you for your time, and apologies for the long (relative to OT) post.
For both Left-Leaning and Right-Leaning posters:
Both Marx and Engels rejected Egalitarianism and Wealth Distribution.
Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest (such as a universal notion of "equality"), but was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires. Thus, Marx's notion of communist society is radically individualistic.
Source
Karl Marx was a proponent of two principles, the first applied to socialism and the second to an advanced communist society: "To each according to his contribution" and "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need". Although Marx's position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism, in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to a notional equality, in reality Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.
Source
Furthermore: Communism cannot have a dictatorship. It's not feasible because an advanced communistic society demands:
Superabundance: This means that there need to be a surplus of resources of whatever is being classified as "Common Ownership". In practice: Charities and public bodies (in theory).
Statelessness: In a communist society, the state is rendered obsolete and in reality, it's closer to anarchy than it is authoritarianism.
Classlessness: Similarly, classes are to be excised from society.
Money: Doesn't exist in a communist society.
This means, in theory, there has never been a communist society, and one could even argue that there never will be.
Why are National Socialists (Nazi) right-wing?
I should preface this by saying: Don't be a chauvinist toward whatever wing you choose. Both sides of the political spectrum have their pitfalls and advantages. I consider myself a centrist, maybe even leaning right-wing, but Nazism/National Socialism is a right-wing ideology.
The Why:
First and foremost, NATIONAL Socialism is like having a CLOSED Free Market. The two simply are diametrically opposed. Socialism is INCLUSIVE (not to be confused, as stated above, with Egalitarianism) and to have NATIONAL Socialism is just Fascism or Nationalism. The Socialism part is used by dictators around the world to unite and take advantage of otherwise simple people, as it's a very appealing idea to the uneducated or even simpleminded folk of any society.
Second, Marxism/Communism/Socialism all oppose nationalism. As I said before, it's an oxymoron.
I look forward to having a discussion, perhaps even a debate, but I feel like I have to preface: There is way more to this political theory, and what has been practiced in the past are not Communistic (by far) and wouldn't even qualify as being first-stage Socialistic states.
They were dictators who latched onto an idea and exploited their people by using certain terms.
Thank you for your time, and apologies for the long (relative to OT) post.
15
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:10 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
What are Socialism and Communism?
The downfall of great nations.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:18 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
This is a great post 
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:35 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Thank you for the clarification many people really needed this.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:38 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
the downfall of great nations
Look at sweden, denmark, canada, etc and say that again. All three of those contain the happiest people and the most liked governments. People in this country are unhappy with the government and many are just pricks in general.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:50 pm to DickWhitman
quote:
Look at sweden, denmark, canada, etc and say that again. All three of those contain the happiest people and the most liked governments.
They have lots of oil money that can subsidize the public, but with the price of oil right now these countries are struggling to pay for all the social programs they've instituted. Canada's currency took a major tumble recently due to this fact. Norway is pretty much screwed.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:59 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
"To each according to his contribution"
quote:
to each according to their need"
These seem a bit contradictory. If someone is a high contributor, then he will get much because of his contribution. But then, if he is getting much, his need will be low, so he should get less. How does Marx reconcile this?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 8:10 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Greed ruins it for all.
There will never be a pure form of any type of government.
Read Animal Farm. There's no way a pure capitalist society could exist because who would build roads, schools, support a military ?
As fricked up American politics can be, we've done about as good as any society could have done over the course of 2 1/2 centuries.
There will never be a pure form of any type of government.
Read Animal Farm. There's no way a pure capitalist society could exist because who would build roads, schools, support a military ?
As fricked up American politics can be, we've done about as good as any society could have done over the course of 2 1/2 centuries.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 8:18 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Socialism: The utopia I told hippie chicks I was fighting for in order to get lots of flower power pussy in the 60s.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 8:21 pm to DickWhitman
Sweden, Denmark, the rest of the Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser extent, Canada, are much more homogenous countries than the US. They don't have huge portions of their population that think they're entitled to something they didn't earn because of past mistakes. Their populations all work and pay taxes ( a much higher percentage than this country) and that makes socialism work. More than half of working age Americans either don't work or get a larger tax refund than they paid in. The US is the multicultural experiment for the rest of the world and it's failing. Too many groups of people think they are entitled to money/services that they didn't do anything to earn.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 8:34 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
In Marxist theory socialism is a transitional state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. In looking at the definitions for each, I think communism is the most detailed as it applies to the human condition.
Socialism advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Communism supports a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
While neither ideology specifically provides for a ruler, communism especially mandates a hierarchical system that, considering the very social nature of humans, seems incomplete without a demigod who "guides" a willing (subjugated) population. North Korea is my idea of an example of communism as it can function. It is not ideal for humans, obviously.
I think the hive is an example of perfect socialism. Humans, at our current stage of evolution, can't even approximate the efficiency of eusociality displayed by a hive of ants, bees or termites.
However, we do have needs that can only be abated via socialism. Our military and highways are clear examples of systems that exist only because we have the capacity to engage in socialism on a grand scale.
I also think that socialism is the future of our species. Not in our current forms, of course.
Something radical will have to change. Population control will have to be one of the first expressions of humans engaged in serious socialism.
There is no possibility that billions of people existing in fractured political and economic states can employ socialism in its pure state. Perhaps a few hundred million could.
Pure socialism has no leader. While there are divisions of labor, there is no hierarchical structure. Every division carries the same weight as it applies to the health of the hive.
Can humans ever hope to engage in pure socialism? I don't think so. We've been acclimated to the importance of individualism for too much of our history.
We can, however, spawn a new species for which pure socialism would be ideal, artificial intelligence.
Socialism advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Communism supports a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
While neither ideology specifically provides for a ruler, communism especially mandates a hierarchical system that, considering the very social nature of humans, seems incomplete without a demigod who "guides" a willing (subjugated) population. North Korea is my idea of an example of communism as it can function. It is not ideal for humans, obviously.
I think the hive is an example of perfect socialism. Humans, at our current stage of evolution, can't even approximate the efficiency of eusociality displayed by a hive of ants, bees or termites.
However, we do have needs that can only be abated via socialism. Our military and highways are clear examples of systems that exist only because we have the capacity to engage in socialism on a grand scale.
I also think that socialism is the future of our species. Not in our current forms, of course.
Something radical will have to change. Population control will have to be one of the first expressions of humans engaged in serious socialism.
There is no possibility that billions of people existing in fractured political and economic states can employ socialism in its pure state. Perhaps a few hundred million could.
Pure socialism has no leader. While there are divisions of labor, there is no hierarchical structure. Every division carries the same weight as it applies to the health of the hive.
Can humans ever hope to engage in pure socialism? I don't think so. We've been acclimated to the importance of individualism for too much of our history.
We can, however, spawn a new species for which pure socialism would be ideal, artificial intelligence.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 9:10 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
The problem is that without a government in a socialist or communist system, there is no mode for resource allocation. That right there should render communism impossible. For socialism, the means of production are owned by the public. Again, this means there has to be a mode of distribution. The process by which resources are distributed spontaneously within a society without central planning is a market process operating through entrepreneurial competition and market prices. Without these processes, a central authority has to be the mode in which resources are distributed (a government).
In socialism, a central planning authority plans the economy and controls the means of production while also distributing goods and services. In a market system, goods and services are distributed by supply and demand with a price system used as a signifier as to what industries need more entrepreneurial competition and which industries do not. In economics, this is called 'discovery'. Socialism takes away this price system since goods and services are not distributed by supply and demand. This, then, makes it impossible for central planners to know which goods and services are in surplus and which are in shortage. This is discussed in much greater detail in the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, and Israel Kirzner (whom I had the great pleasure of meeting and talking to this evening in DC).
National Socialism or fascism is not free market in any definition of the phrase. A free market requires the free exchange of ideas, openness to entry into the market, and also requires that a central authority not pick losers or winners in the market place. Institutions are also very important to a free market, and among those most important are the recognition of property rights. Since the Nazi's did not protect property rights, the free exchange of ideas, openness into the market, nor did they refrain from picking winners and losers, they cannot be considered free market. In the left vs right spectrum, certain institutions are left ambiguous. For instance, the left wing spectrum generally supports social freedoms like gay marriage while the right wing generally supports a free market. Neither sides of the left-right spectrum are wholly fascist, rather fascism takes elements from both sides including a lack of personal freedoms (right) and a lack of economic freedom (left) and combines them into another axis of authoritarianism. The opposite side of authoritarianism is liberalism (or classical liberalism in the US).
Anarchy and totalitarianism make up the other axis. Since communism is theoretically a stateless society without the use of any central authority force, it would theoretically be considered anarchy. Practically, communism cannot exist, and socialism cannot exist without a central authority which would put it further up the axis toward authoritarianism or totalitarianism.
In socialism, a central planning authority plans the economy and controls the means of production while also distributing goods and services. In a market system, goods and services are distributed by supply and demand with a price system used as a signifier as to what industries need more entrepreneurial competition and which industries do not. In economics, this is called 'discovery'. Socialism takes away this price system since goods and services are not distributed by supply and demand. This, then, makes it impossible for central planners to know which goods and services are in surplus and which are in shortage. This is discussed in much greater detail in the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, and Israel Kirzner (whom I had the great pleasure of meeting and talking to this evening in DC).
National Socialism or fascism is not free market in any definition of the phrase. A free market requires the free exchange of ideas, openness to entry into the market, and also requires that a central authority not pick losers or winners in the market place. Institutions are also very important to a free market, and among those most important are the recognition of property rights. Since the Nazi's did not protect property rights, the free exchange of ideas, openness into the market, nor did they refrain from picking winners and losers, they cannot be considered free market. In the left vs right spectrum, certain institutions are left ambiguous. For instance, the left wing spectrum generally supports social freedoms like gay marriage while the right wing generally supports a free market. Neither sides of the left-right spectrum are wholly fascist, rather fascism takes elements from both sides including a lack of personal freedoms (right) and a lack of economic freedom (left) and combines them into another axis of authoritarianism. The opposite side of authoritarianism is liberalism (or classical liberalism in the US).
Anarchy and totalitarianism make up the other axis. Since communism is theoretically a stateless society without the use of any central authority force, it would theoretically be considered anarchy. Practically, communism cannot exist, and socialism cannot exist without a central authority which would put it further up the axis toward authoritarianism or totalitarianism.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 2/25/16 at 10:00 pm to AllbyMyRelf
The future
Posted on 2/26/16 at 1:05 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Good post. I could spend hours talking about this subject.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 4:28 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
..OK,which ones will let me keep my guns?
Posted on 2/26/16 at 7:03 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Communism cannot exist without dictatorship. You have to inject fear into the population. Otherwise, the whole thing would collapse. That's what happend when Eastern Europeans no longer feared their police states.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 9:42 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 2/26/16 at 10:09 am to thomass
quote:
Communism cannot exist without dictatorship. You have to inject fear into the population. Otherwise, the whole thing would collapse. That's what happend when Eastern Europeans no longer feared their police states.
Yep, and North Korea is a prime example of how communism works.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 11:37 am to Kentucker
But is it really communist? There is more or less an elite, favored class in N.Korea that pulls the strings in that country. Also, you/your family have to be looked upon with favor to even be allowed to live in Pyongyang.
Posted on 2/26/16 at 11:51 am to GumpInLex
quote:
But is it really communist? There is more or less an elite, favored class in N.Korea that pulls the strings in that country
That's the rub with communism. It takes a massive central authority to implement, but Marx's theory suggests that once in place, the authority or state is no longer needed. But those who implement never step down. They just stay in power because they have it do so much better than the underclass.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News