!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu's diagram:
Itt: countless people who have never read a single work by a communist or socialist philosopher.
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you're thinking if this is new to you.)
Apart from the specific definitions and history of practice there are people who help people and people who help themselves. All systems have been derived from this.
Socialism - Everyone contributes money to social programs that benefit everyone. Taxes are higher, but the money is used for the benefit of all. The government exists to oversee the programs that support the people. This HAS worked in many countries around the world. It is not about everyone being economically equal in society, it's about accessibility of care and benefit for everyone regardless of their starting point.
Communism - Everyone is to be on equal footing and wealth is to be evenly distributed among everyone. Everything is, in theory, shared and belongs to everyone. The government exists to oversee the transition of society, then is meant to step aside rather than remain above the rest of the people. This has NOT worked as no one has ever successfully established this and then stepped aside. It leaves the door wide open for abuse of power.
Entirely wrong.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu's diagram:
The government in socialism does not "step aside." Instead, the working class state collectivizes all production and distribution, at which point classes no longer exist and all that remains of the state is administrative duties, which are socially necessary. Many states have developed socialism, but communism is global and post-socialist.
This is completely incorrect, cite any socialist or communist philosophers agreeing with you.
Socialism - any system of government where the workers own the means of production. This has nothing to do with welfare or healthcare or any of that, just that the working class owns the factories and other private property. (The marxist and original definition of private property is property that generates capital, not your toothbrush, which is personal property. Same with your home.)
communism - a post socialist system where the workers own the means of production, currency has been abolished, there are no class divisions or state (note the marxist concept of the state is probably not what you're thinking if this is new to you.)
That's just social democracy, not socialism.
In your communism definition, the government is not supposed to step aside, it's supposed to stop having a function as classes are eliminated, because the state's purpose is the oppression of one class by the other.
More simply, socialism is about indirect redistribution of wealth through taxes paying for social programs that benefit everyone. Communism seeks literal redistribution of wealth to maintain equal economic status for all.
Socialism might also seek the direct redistribution of wealth via wealth taxes.
The difference is primarily in collecting wealth via taxes after the fact, rather than having a central body try and actively redistribute everything before payment.
Man I actually read Lenin and now this thread is making me question what I know. I guess theres what Marxist philosophers say and what is considered in the modern usage.
Marxists say that communism is the ultimate end point. A stateless classless moneyless society. Something so different from our understanding of society as it is currently conceived. I think Ursula K Le Guin probably best imagined what this might look like in "The Dispossessed" (she calls herself an anarchist, but I think this what Marx himself envisioned). Where the way labor roles are divided up by the needs of the group and the choices of individuals. Socialism is said to be the transition state from capitalist society into a communist one. Where the machinery of capitalism is no longer used for the benefit of individuals and is used for the benefit of all. Marx imagines that a society that uses it's tools for the good of all will naturally evolve into a communist society.
Then there is the modern usage of the terms which seem to vary based on who invokes the them. For example, Republican politicians will use the term socialism to mean communism and vice versa. Some politicians like Mamdani or Bernie will describe socialism to mean a more humane type of capitalism that has other priorities other than pure profit seeking. Some people use communism to describe an authoritarian system that has no regard for human agency. I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but I think this thread is proof that multiple people will have multiple definitions that most often don't align with how Marxists describe communism and socialism.
I think part of the problem is the history of the Soviet Union. It billed itself as a communist society, even tho it never really achieved anything described as a stateless classless moneyless society. I think at best it probably achieved a form of socialism(by the Marxist definition). Guy Debord(who is a Marxist philosopher) criticized the Soviet Union for creating a new type of class without intending to do so. So a lot of people today hear the Soviet Union call itself a communist country, and so that's the popular misconception of communism.
I personally think the lack of consensus around these is an intentional bit of propaganda that makes it easy to demonize these terms because most people who grew up in capitalist centers of power have been fed a steady diet of red scare propaganda for decades. It's easy to throw these terms around to scare people into not even exploring the academic thought that devised them.
Then there is the modern usage of the terms which seem to vary based on who invokes the[m]
I think the thing to keep in mind is: 1) words evolve over time, and 2) the people using those words might be abbreviating what they actually mean, because they don't know that there's another related concept that is named similarly. The best example of the first is how "truck" in the 1910s meant what we now call a "hand truck", and "car" from that era meant traincar. Whereas in the 2020s, "truck" and "car" both refer to automobiles, and we had to create the backronyns of "hand truck" and "rail car" to avoid confusion.
I don't think your theoretical understanding of Marxism is wrong -- though I've not read enough to confirm -- but I would hazard against using other people's wrong definitions and usage guide your own understanding. If you understand the ideology, then it's a matter of rendering it using the right words; that is, it becomes a communications problem.
For example, Republican politicians will use the term socialism to mean communism and vice versa
I would especially not suggest relying on right-wingers to properly use -- let alone understand -- left-wing ideology, since their objective is to denigrate leftists through FUD and infantile repetition. Basically, the maxim of "if enough people are 'talking' about something, it must be controversial" or "I'm just asking questions bro", neither of which are anywhere approaching a good-faith discussion on the merits.
Some politicians like Mamdani or Bernie will describe socialism to mean a more humane type of capitalism that has other priorities other than pure profit seeking
How the two use the word "socialism" is almost always understood as a shorthand for what Europeans would call "social democracy". So it's definitely on the list of valid implementations of socialism, but is specifically about reforming an openly capitalist system into something more egalitarian. That said, "social democracy" still leaves out a lot of details which need clarification: do Mamdani or Bernie support (re)building the social safety net? Does the state need to also own railroads the same way that they own highways? For the former, there's the standalone word "welfare state", but I'm not aware of a compound phrase that means "social democratic welfare state", if that even describes Bernie or Mamdani at all. I'd certainly love a word that means "social democratic welfare railway state" but nothing has caught on.
I think that should underscore my point: even after resolving exactly which word they might be abbreviating, there aren't enough short words to succinctly describe any particular ideology. Rather, the words are useful to get a rough idea of a person's views, but ultimately, every one and every candidate is going to have a slightly different take on certain questions.
Some people use communism to describe an authoritarian system that has no regard for human agency
I personally refer to this definition as "Stalinist communism", because it does accurately describe how the USSR was operating under Stalin. Essentially, it wrapped a cult-of-personality in the trappings of communist thought, though people like Trotsky pointed out how communism could be done much differently. Obviously, history is quite clear that the Stalinist approach was not adopted as-is by any other country, nor retained in the USSR after Stalin's death. Indeed, I've never come across anyone who genuinely refers to themselves as a Stalinist or who seriously proposes to the adoption of Stalin-style, top-down authoritarian communism. Maybe some right-wing Russians do, but idk. My point is that, like the Republican examples above, Stalin and authoritarian communism is usually only brought up as a "thought terminating answer" rather than to seriously debate the merits of communism, either theoretically or practically.
multiple people will have multiple definitions that most often don't align with how Marxists describe communism and socialism
Yes, because they're usually talking past each other about different things. Being able to detect which definition someone means to use, that's a skill that you can develop for yourself, to have a clearer picture than they do.
I'm primarily writing this comment because I abhor the idea that an idea -- it could be anything, from rocket science to theorrtical mathematics -- is perceived as being an arena where everyone is just making up stuff, and if that should lead to people becoming turned off the idea of studying it for themselves, that's a net-negative. No doubt, some countries, politicians, and agencies want to denigrate or prop up their own definitions, but that just makes it easier to identify fake socialists and "communists in name only".
The merits and failures of socialism and communism deserve to be comprehensively hashed out in the public mind, and it only serves the status quo that this not happen. And the longer the conversation is delayed, the more that the indisputable ails of the status quo will take more victims.
First off, I just want to thank you for your thoughtful response. One of the reasons I continue to use Lemmy or Mastodon is because of the actual thoughtful human beings like yourself.
words evolve over time
Absolutely so we shouldn't have to stay married to older definitions.
I'm primarily writing this comment because I abhor the idea that an idea -- it could be anything, from rocket science to theorrtical mathematics -- is perceived as being an arena where everyone is just making up stuff, and if that should lead to people becoming turned off the idea of studying it for themselves, that's a net-negative. No doubt, some countries, politicians, and agencies want to denigrate or prop up their own definitions, but that just makes it easier to identify fake socialists and "communists in name only".
Part of my motivation for looking into a more precise definition was the desire to truly understand the debate around socialism. And in order to have a proper debate, we need to be able to explain that we mean by certain terms. I think the modern medias failure to properly define these terms for everyone is an intentional strategy to obscure the conversation around socialism and communism.
The merits and failures of socialism and communism deserve to be comprehensively hashed out in the public mind, and it only serves the status quo that this not happen.
Exactly. The way our society is structured is to prevent having a real conversation. Tho obviously we both know the reason why they don't want precise definitions floating around in the public consciousness.
There is definitely a difference, and they are not interchangeable. I'll let other people chime in with a rigorous definition for communism, but at a minimum, it must have abolished the state and social classes entirely. So one could say that communism is at the very end of the road, and the various flavors of socialism are the routes to get there.
Various flavors of socialism? Yes, I've written an earlier comment about that, and another one here. In brief, there are many ways to move beyond capitalism.
Businesses (capital), labor (society), and the government are the three main components of a functioning state.
"Capitalism", "socialism", and "communism" are terms used to describe who is given the most control over the means of production in the economic system of a state.
"Capitalism" describes an economic system that places most of the control in the hands of capital (businesses). "Socialism" describes an economic system that places most of the control with workers (society), and communism describes an economic system that places most of the control with the government.
It should be noted that, even though these terms are VERY often conflated and even used interchangeably with terms that describe political systems, such as "authoritarian" or "democratic", the fact is that these terms have nothing to do with each other and no combination of terms from either set are mutually exclusive.
To say it more simply, any capitalist, socialist, or communist society can also be democratic or authoritarian. The idea that socialism is the same thing as authoritarianism is propaganda created by capitalists who are scared to death of livong in a society that places the needs of the common working man above the needs of the biggest businesses in the country.
So close until you got to communism. Cite marx.
communism describes an economic system that places most of the control with the government.
I know you're simplifying things for brevity but this is misleading at best. You can't gloss over the goal of a classless, stateless society when defining communism, and it is explicitly a left-wing philosophy. Contrast with fascism, a right-wing political philosophy that places most of the control with the government by reinforcing control over capital and creating a clear national identity.
Both words can have more than one meaning.
Socialism may be among other things:
Communism, in Marxist theory, is a future stateless moneyless classless society which Marxists claim will inevitably happen after socialism. (Nonsense, but that's the theory.) But a lot of times the word is used, it just means the second point from above, ie the way the Soviet Union and its allies were ruled. That's mainly because a lot of ruling parties in those countries called and still call themselves the Communist Party of (country), though others didn't, eg the East German ruling party was called the Socialist Unity Party of Germany.