Ask Your Question today
I was on a website and somehow the topic of communism came up. One guy said, "Communists and socialists all suck."
Another guy said, "You dipshit, they're two different things."
Now I am curious.
What do you think IIN? What is the difference between communism and socialism?
| I know. | 33 | |
| I don't know. | 5 | |
| It is a distinction without a difference. | 9 |
In communism private property does not exist at all. Very extreme. Socialism is more moderate. In socialism, the public sector provides essential goods and services (e.g. healthcare, education, etc.) through funding provided by progressive taxes, and then proportionally redistributed to minimize wealth gaps between the wealthiest and the poorest; but the market, private property, and the possibility of being "richer"/"the richest" still exists. This guy above me hit the nail on the head.
It's difficult to explain. Umm. There's quite a lot to it and I can't think of a simple way of explaining it that's accurate enough for me not to be attacked by someone who thinks what I have said is wrong.
Ahh, what the hell. In the UK, the labour party used to be largely socialist. It wasn't like living in a Communist country. It was like living in a country with health care for all regardless of personal insurance. When I think of socialism, I think of the NHS (as a good example).
Communism is a special type of socialism and Communism is so different from capitalism that countries adopting it have to change the way they operate and become "Communist" countries. Whereas a country we'd see as capitalist could have a socialist-leaning government and still be a capitalist country.
One big difference is that Communism seeks for things to be state owned as opposed to individual ownership whereas socialism has no problem with private ownership; in fact it tries to give wider private ownership of things to people who are poor (i.e. encouraging people to be able to buy their own houses).
Each ethos poses a kind of "fairness" for all but Communism could be seen as achieving fairness by taking from all and only giving back what they need (on loan) whereas socialism wants to achieve fairness by redistributing wealth so that the gap between the richest and the poorest is made smaller.
"Communists and socialists all suck."
That in no way infers that he thinks they are the same thing, because of the word "and".
They are both different, and they do both suck.
Obviously.
It was the response to that statement ( -Another guy said, "You dipshit, they're two different things."-) that made OP curious.
In the UK (and to a greater extent Western Europe) we are socialists, at least compared to the US and it definitely does not suck. Children from any part of society have the opportunity to do well in school, which is free, and go to university where they get a subsidised loan to cover fees. People who cannot support themselves due to disabilities are supported by the government. We have free healthcare so if someone in our family gets ill we don't have the additional worry of needing to pay for treatment.
Of course all of this paid for with the money of tax payers. However tbh, we can afford it. If my Dad didn't have to pay 40% income tax then I would be able to have a much better computer an we could live in a bigger house etc. but a kid from a poorer background wouldn't be able to go to school or university or might die from a preventable disease because their parents would not be able to afford treatment. In the US PEOPLE DIE FROM DISEASES THAT CAN EASILY BE CURED, they just can't afford to pay. That doesn't happen in other developed countries.
A very basic distinction.
Is that in Socialism you have a central government.
In Communism there is no central government.
wow, most people dont know about the last one, then again, most peoples idea of socialism and communism is based the tainted leninist and stalinist ideals instead of marx's teachings.
well, that, and marx's communism would be impossible in real life.
Yes, it is a shame that people's knowledge of Marx is so tainted. I don't completely agree with him but I think that the general thrust of his ideas had value. Other than his work on transitioning to communism which I think is worthless.
I think Marx's communism would be impossible though it could serve as an ideal to work towards. Since the more private property the less liberty the individual has and personally I think striving for maximum liberty and least private property would be worthwhile.