What is the difference between communism and socialism? There seems to be a great deal of confusion between these two terms for Amerifats for some reason.
>inb4 they're both the same
Socialism still has private property
>>1312414
Socialism grows out of Capitalism and is a system of production based on public ownership of the means of production (Anything from Soviet-style central planning to worker-controlled industrial democracy), Communism is a further development of this, also known as the 'higher stage' of Socialism, with no state, no money, no class system etc.
It would be correct to say that the USSR was a Communist state (They at least claimed to be developing Socialism in anticipation of transitioning to Communism), but it wasn't a Communist society.
>>1312414
>for some reason.
Because both were equated with the Iron Curtain and thus everything that used to be considered unamerican.
>>1312414
Communism has never been tried
>>1312528
>what is the vanguard
>>1312414
They're both literally the same
Ask Marx faggot
>>1312414
Socialism is the common ownership of property, in contrast to the capitalist system where private property is bought and sold. A lot of different schools of thought emerged from this idea in the 19th century. Marx and his communists, Bakunin and his collectivists, syndicalists, anarchists or all kinds, you name it.
>>1313620
Not quite. As I said below you, communism was the brand of socialism pioneered by Marx&Engels. They contrasted their brand with that of their political opposites openly. The anarchist-collectivists openly declared themselves to be anti-communist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
>>1313620
2bqh, socialism has some private ownership while communism doesn't. Atleast that's how I understood it.
>>1313646
>>1313671
But these fags here with the Soviet weeaboo shit piss me off. I swear to God, if Patton had lived, he would've wiped the USSR out for good and none of these faggots would fuck their brains over this toxic shit.
>>1313697
Patton, though far from incompetent, usually showed mixed performances when he went up against strong positions that actually fought back. He'd be useful a few months down the line after some bombing and attrition wear down the already-spent Red Army to a pulp.
>>1313620
Marx says Socialism leads into Communism. That isn't being the same at all.
If I'm on a train from Edinburgh to London via Birmingham, Birmingham does not suddenly become London simply because it is necessary to pass via it. Furthermore, London bound passengers and Birmingham bound passengers are not synonymous, and people who believe they can take the airplane and bypass Birmingham entirely also exist.
>>1312414
Communism is an unattainable utopia that completely denies human nature.
Socialism is a form of economics that has been shown not to work if left unchecked (though to be fair, the same is true for capitalism).
It should be obvious that taking socialist ideas with endeavors where private ownership makes little sense (i.e. healthcare, education) and putting checks in place to stop corporation from running everything to the ground would be the best form of government currently attainable, but I guess we can't have it that easy.
>>1312414
socialism: communal ownership of the means of production
communism: stateless classless society
They are linked to the same set of Karl Marx related beliefs. Technically they are not the same, but you can't really look at anarchists constantly quoting Karl Marx and such then seriously expect anyone to believe they are unrelated. Usually these ideologies were used by dictatorships as propaganda. Because they are completely deluded and have no bearing on reality they are useful for making a regime look like it represents the people without any actual political liberalization.
Communism is the end goal of Marxist socialism.
It's supposed to be a stateless, classless society with no private property or money where humans are free to do as they please. It's an utopia that has never been achieved (yet). Star Trek is a good example of this.
Socialism is what we saw in the USSR, Cuba, China.
>>1314993
the state controlled the means of production not the people
>>1315000
No.
In both socialism and communism, there is common social ownership of the means of production.
In communism, there is no state to control the means of production in the first place. The people own and control the means of production through common ownership.
These are all key parts of Marx's ideas.
>>1315693
why are you Sjws so bad at false flagging?
The argument we all would be having if Bernie Sanders was nominated.
>>1315918
Bernie Sander's model was social democracy, exactly what it's found in more civilized places (Europe). America would have seriously benefited from his policies.
Now things can either stay as shitty as always (Clinton) or we can take a trip of crazy with Trump's proposed tax reforms, hoping they don't bankrupt the country.
>>1316299
Social democracy only works in small homogeneous countries, no way you could apply to policies to the US
>>1316299
>why cant we be like denmark and sweden :'(
For starters, "social democracies" are a fraction of our size in geography/population, entirely protected by the USA, and 99% white protestants.
>>1316345
>Social democracy only works in small homogeneous countries
Explain.
>>1316364
Your point being? The closest thing to a point that you have is that Europe saves all of its military spending towards social programs, but the US already has extremely expensive social programs it could reform towards more productive endeavors.
Communism everyone still works
>>1316345
>>1316364
Arguably the UK has large elements of social democracy (or at least, closer than the USA.)
The SNP hark to Scandinavia and identify themselves as social-democratic, British Labour was in theory social-democratic under Blair. [The symbol of the Rose, from the 80s, was intended to symbolise a switch to being a Euro-style social democratic party.] although it continues to refer to itself as democratic socialist.
To go full Scandi social democrat takes a lot of things the USA will never have, but to do something a little closer to the UK would be relatively easy, though I concede the fact something like an NHS wasn't introduced in 1946 in the USA adds a huge number of problems to introducing such a system *now*.
I would say ultimately a lot of the problems with it aren't so much innate as cultural. i.e. if the press and to some degree the opposition parties wouldn't strawman an NHS to "hard working white man pays for the healthcare of unemployed black woman wih 10 kids" it would be a sustainable system.
But of course that doesn't happen. Even in the welfare system is brilliant "THIS FAT BASTARD GOT A HOUSE FROM THE STATE! ABOLISH WELFARE!" fodder. Combined with public ignorance you end up having the chancellor want to give people who failed a fitness to work test [i.e. disabled] the same amount of state support as those who passed one [i.e. unemployed] because hey, it's all "benefits" [welfare] in the end.
