The main difference in them is the driving principal of your behavior. Communism says you should do what the state says is most beneficial for society. Socialism says you should do what you feelmis most beneficial. Granted it’s extremely generalized and far more nuisanced than that, but overall, it’s not wrong.
Happy to see that this conversation is so amicable. I really love the whole climate here on Lemmy.
Communism cannot be defined by what the state tells you, as communism is, by definition, a stateless society. Depending on what kind of communist or socialist you ask, you’ll get answers on what the difference between the two is that vary from “they’re interchangable terms” to “socialism is the stage of society that eventually will become communism, which will happen when the state, money, and class withers away.”
Anarchism, specifically anarcho-communism, sees the end goal as the same as communists. A society in which no classes, money, or state exists. The difference is that Marxists tend to believe in a necessary interim period, normally referred to as socialism, before communism can be achieved. Anarchists believe communism can be achieved directly by simple behaving as communists now, and fighting for a revolution for communism directly.
These are all generalizations, and I’d you ask 11 communists… et cetera.
As someone else said, the issue most people point to when critiquing communist philosophies is central planning. Specifically central planning done in some nefarious way by a shadowy unelected government. It’s worth noting that places like the USSR, Cuba, et cetera, democracy was increased after their revolutions. It may not be what some would want out of a democracy, but it was more democratic than what came before. Central planning, too, isn’t exclusive to communist/socialist ideology. Walmart, Amazon, and plenty of other retailers run massive centrally planned economies that rival the size of many nations. It’s an incredibly efficient way to run an economy, and with proper democratic control of the government, oversight, and a focus on what the actual needs of the people are over the profits of a corporation, or the welfare of an elite few, those models could prove to be able to end hunger, homelessness, and all manner of societal ills. Or we can use them to make sure the Walton family can buy extra mega yachts or bookman can go to outer space. Societal priorities are all that need to shift.
The main difference in them is the driving principal of your behavior. Communism says you should do what the state says is most beneficial for society. Socialism says you should do what you feelmis most beneficial. Granted it’s extremely generalized and far more nuisanced than that, but overall, it’s not wrong.
Happy to see that this conversation is so amicable. I really love the whole climate here on Lemmy.
Communism cannot be defined by what the state tells you, as communism is, by definition, a stateless society. Depending on what kind of communist or socialist you ask, you’ll get answers on what the difference between the two is that vary from “they’re interchangable terms” to “socialism is the stage of society that eventually will become communism, which will happen when the state, money, and class withers away.”
Anarchism, specifically anarcho-communism, sees the end goal as the same as communists. A society in which no classes, money, or state exists. The difference is that Marxists tend to believe in a necessary interim period, normally referred to as socialism, before communism can be achieved. Anarchists believe communism can be achieved directly by simple behaving as communists now, and fighting for a revolution for communism directly.
These are all generalizations, and I’d you ask 11 communists… et cetera.
As someone else said, the issue most people point to when critiquing communist philosophies is central planning. Specifically central planning done in some nefarious way by a shadowy unelected government. It’s worth noting that places like the USSR, Cuba, et cetera, democracy was increased after their revolutions. It may not be what some would want out of a democracy, but it was more democratic than what came before. Central planning, too, isn’t exclusive to communist/socialist ideology. Walmart, Amazon, and plenty of other retailers run massive centrally planned economies that rival the size of many nations. It’s an incredibly efficient way to run an economy, and with proper democratic control of the government, oversight, and a focus on what the actual needs of the people are over the profits of a corporation, or the welfare of an elite few, those models could prove to be able to end hunger, homelessness, and all manner of societal ills. Or we can use them to make sure the Walton family can buy extra mega yachts or bookman can go to outer space. Societal priorities are all that need to shift.
You are confused friend. Read this if you feel like it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
thanks, i guess i have always had a skewed understanding then.
You aren’t alone. Reading the above I realise I’ve never really had it all spelled out for me like that. Definite food for thought