I guess I’ll continue to soap-box for those who are still reading and not hostile (none, by the looks of the votes) then:
I used to think “communism” was not the same as “socialism” until I was told by a communist (I think on lemmy.ml? Maybe it was Twitch?) that Karl Marx and other communist or socialist academics technically never made an academic distinction between the two.
My perception before that date was that “socialism” is kinda like a direction on a continuum (the opposite direction from “capitalism,” more or less, but more strictly speaking the opposite of “individualism” or “selfishness”), while “communism” was the destination, typically explained as an anarchist/stateless society resembling ancient societies who had literally no form of measuring trade discrepancies (e.g. currency), and would just give what extra goods they produced freely to those they believed needed it and vice versa, i.e. the Marxian mantra of “from those based on their ability, to those based on their need.”
That’s just paraphrasing off the cuff of my former understanding until I was told otherwise by someone who very much seemed to be much more educated on the topic, and you’re free to correct me/them at any point.
Marx made the distinction between “lower-stage” and “higher-stage” communism. Marxists since Marx have clarified this lower stage to be socialism, and that this stage itself has stages. Here’s a diagram by Cheng Enfu:
Communism in the Marxist conception and anarchism are in essense polar opposites, communism is a fully collectivized global system while anarchism is a fully communalized decentralized system. Through a scientifically planned economy with advanced productive forces, everyone’s needs are met in communism.
Still helps to be charitable, the worst that happens is I get ignored or insulted for trying, which just makes it clearer for anyone viewing that I was the only one actually taking it seriously.
I don’t know what “flavor” you’re looking for. Apparently you have some kind of set of related but different ideas that in your head form the notion of communism. And apparently this notion leads you to think that Bernie or AOC are in favor of communism. But neither of them is in favor of anything that even remotely resembles any commonly accepted definition of communism.
I thought that was clear, and made abundantly so by my soapbox you just replied to (that it seems like you didn’t read).
Let me be as blunt as possible so you don’t miss it again:
What does (the person behind) lemmy.world/u/wpb believe “communism” and “socialism” are?
Both can have radically different forms and definitions, throughout history and between people. Debating whether or not anyone in the US is in favor of either obviously highly depends on what form we’re talking about.
Mamdani is opening government-run grocery stores. That’s socialism - wouldn’t you agree?
Both can have radically different forms and definitions, throughout history and between people
Not really. Redditors like you like to insist that your personal understanding of a concept is as valid as any other, even though that is not and has never been how communication works. You are free to believe any word means any thing, but you’re going to have a hard time engaging in any gainful discussion with anyone when you gotta argue over the meaning of every word first - Especially when you are too prideful to acknowledge that your understanding of a term might be lacking and your definition is incorrect.
Mamdani is opening government-run grocery stores. That’s socialism - wouldn’t you agree?
“Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does the socialister it is, and if it does a whole lotta stuff, then its communism”
Dude socialism isn’t defined by “does the government do social programmes?” it’s a social relation to the means of production and governance of state. Denmark has free university education (for a little while longer, its getting cut every year) but that is not socialism. China has billionaires, but that does not mean it is not a socialist state. That is because ideology is not determined by the presence of social programmes.
Neither Bernie nor AOC are pro-communism.
Also communism is not socialism.
So you’re just going to side-step the question?
I guess I’ll continue to soap-box for those who are still reading and not hostile (none, by the looks of the votes) then:
I used to think “communism” was not the same as “socialism” until I was told by a communist (I think on lemmy.ml? Maybe it was Twitch?) that Karl Marx and other communist or socialist academics technically never made an academic distinction between the two.
My perception before that date was that “socialism” is kinda like a direction on a continuum (the opposite direction from “capitalism,” more or less, but more strictly speaking the opposite of “individualism” or “selfishness”), while “communism” was the destination, typically explained as an anarchist/stateless society resembling ancient societies who had literally no form of measuring trade discrepancies (e.g. currency), and would just give what extra goods they produced freely to those they believed needed it and vice versa, i.e. the Marxian mantra of “from those based on their ability, to those based on their need.”
That’s just paraphrasing off the cuff of my former understanding until I was told otherwise by someone who very much seemed to be much more educated on the topic, and you’re free to correct me/them at any point.
… or you could just dodge the discussion again.
Marx made the distinction between “lower-stage” and “higher-stage” communism. Marxists since Marx have clarified this lower stage to be socialism, and that this stage itself has stages. Here’s a diagram by Cheng Enfu:
Communism in the Marxist conception and anarchism are in essense polar opposites, communism is a fully collectivized global system while anarchism is a fully communalized decentralized system. Through a scientifically planned economy with advanced productive forces, everyone’s needs are met in communism.
lol they have responded to everyone EXCEPT this one
Being charitable, they may have nothing to add and may agree with me, or they may be busy and/or sleeping.
sadly, doubt it. If you’ve seen their other posts.
Still helps to be charitable, the worst that happens is I get ignored or insulted for trying, which just makes it clearer for anyone viewing that I was the only one actually taking it seriously.
I am envious of your patience!
I see it more as pragmatism, but thank you!
I don’t know what “flavor” you’re looking for. Apparently you have some kind of set of related but different ideas that in your head form the notion of communism. And apparently this notion leads you to think that Bernie or AOC are in favor of communism. But neither of them is in favor of anything that even remotely resembles any commonly accepted definition of communism.
I thought that was clear, and made abundantly so by my soapbox you just replied to (that it seems like you didn’t read).
Let me be as blunt as possible so you don’t miss it again:
What does (the person behind) lemmy.world/u/wpb believe “communism” and “socialism” are?
Both can have radically different forms and definitions, throughout history and between people. Debating whether or not anyone in the US is in favor of either obviously highly depends on what form we’re talking about.
Mamdani is opening government-run grocery stores. That’s socialism - wouldn’t you agree?
Not really. Redditors like you like to insist that your personal understanding of a concept is as valid as any other, even though that is not and has never been how communication works. You are free to believe any word means any thing, but you’re going to have a hard time engaging in any gainful discussion with anyone when you gotta argue over the meaning of every word first - Especially when you are too prideful to acknowledge that your understanding of a term might be lacking and your definition is incorrect.
“Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does the socialister it is, and if it does a whole lotta stuff, then its communism”
Dude socialism isn’t defined by “does the government do social programmes?” it’s a social relation to the means of production and governance of state. Denmark has free university education (for a little while longer, its getting cut every year) but that is not socialism. China has billionaires, but that does not mean it is not a socialist state. That is because ideology is not determined by the presence of social programmes.