Can anyone simply explain the concepts of communism and socialism?
Socialism=common ownership of the means of production
Communism=a type of socialism with common ownership of their means of production without classes, money, or a state
They're both garbage.
>>436851
scum
>>436880
So like factories and shit?
Then why do people call medicare socialist?
>>436851
There are a million different flavors of both. Some are really tasty. Most are poo flavored.
>>436887
Socialism is a word that gets abused a lot.
>>436887
Insurance is collectivist in general. Their only saving grace for conservatives is they're private businesses and you can make money from them.
Is there anything that can be learned from socialism and communism and utilized in a capitalist system?
Is there a better alternative system to all three?
Communism- An eventual, technologically advanced society in which there is a very limited amount of scarcity for your average person, to the point where there is little to no competition for resources. This would eventually eliminate things like social classes based on wealth.
Socialism- All of the things a society has to do to keep the peasants from revolting until we make it to Communism.
>>436924
Comparisons between socialism and capitalism inform us of why capitalism works better.
There's not really a better system than free market capitalism we know of.
>>436924
Socialism and communism.
What was discovered.
Bureaucracy and stagnation, poverty and backstabbing, incompetence and failure.
You may have eliminated the effect of human nature and strife, but you can't eliminate the human.
Unless you turn everyone into robots (not those robots) and AI, and ascend humans with trans-humanist ideals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism), stick with capitalism.
Treat the market as a teenager who at whim, knows how to take care of himself, but can get himself beat up.
Make sure that he can't hurt others too much, but if some douche decides to pick a fight, let him go at 'em.
Socialism = government owns the means of production.
Communism = everyone owns everything equally
>>436931
I really hope we never reach post-scarcity. Generates nothing but garbage.
>>436916
elaborate please, kinda curious
>>436851
Socialism is the transitional phase by which the working class seizes state power and utilizes it to cement its own class dictatorship and eliminate any hope of revival for capitalism. After this threat is eliminated, it can now channel its power into pushing society towards communism.
Communism is the state of society where the means of production are commonly owned, and to use a quote, where the economy works on the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
That's my answer. You're welcome, OP.
>>436924
>Is there anything that can be learned from socialism and communism and utilized in a capitalist system?
The only way for capitalism to maintain itself was, and is, to take on the socialist project (i.e.: working class control and rights) by its own means (i.e.: privatization). In the capitalist test tube of America, we see in their history that the purer the capitalism the more corruption, alienation, poverty, class conflict, sickness, homelessness, and every social ill is inflated. Actual wars were fought all over the country over labor conditions and literal wage slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars Of course you can't convince people to live like this exponentially, and even the capitalists realized that if they don't appease workers then their is literally no reason they won't do there what the peasantry did in Russia. Although history is made up of people with their own individual thoughts and actions, this kind of development is unavoidable: again, people will only take so much of the shit end before things have to change. So capitalism is stuck in a quagmire: if it develops what you might call 'humanitarianism', it inevitably becomes a socialist economy, but if the capitalists try to roll back the advances and alienate the people it inevitably becomes a socialist economy. There is a point in history where the ruling system always crumbles, the question is when and they always contain in themselves their own demise: the question is when.
>>437375
>where the economy works on the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Communism would work fine if it actually followed that, since it means people work to the best of their ability and are paid what they deserve.
But that little axiom is, put simply, not something that follows through well because there are lazy people in this world.
>>436851
The concept is simple:
Play on people's innate jealousy of material wealth to claim an unaccountable amount of power via authoritarian regime or ideally a totalitarian dictatorship. Use the power to enrich yourself. Done!
Can I just clarify that Social Democratic policies and welfare were NOT in Marx's plans for socialism anyone calling these plans "socialist" have little knowledge and are typically American.
>>437375
>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
so feels > ability?
>>437391
Did Marx even care about any of that stuff outside of economics?
>>437394
How on earth did you read it like that?
>>437402
>from those with ability
>to those who feel that they need
>>437415
Where did you get the "feel" from?
>neets on 4chan living off government welfare and government healthcare hating on socialism
the fucking irony
>>437389
>lazy people
Do you think hunter-gatherers had laziness? At which point in history do these lazy people come about? And what's the value of not being lazy? Why is it that there are people that work three jobs but are poor? It seems to me that "laziness" is a highly subjective accusation and at the very least has nothing to do with accurately diagnosing material conditions.
>>437418
What is a "need"?
Most people want much more than just their needs.
>>437458
Laziness in a hunter gatherer society probably turned out with getting beat, or dying.
Struggle causes innovation, Communism appears to try and prevent or reduce struggles.
>>437466
>Communism appears to try and prevent or reduce struggles
It would ultimately conclude the class struggle that has been prevalent throughout all of history. So, you are correct somewhat.
>>437466
>Communism appears to try and prevent or reduce struggles.
No, that's hegemonic capitalism. Communism is a revolutionary socialism that seeks to mobilize the lower class to physically overthrown their masters in struggle.
communism is the end stage of socialism where there are no states, no classes, means of production are equally owned.
socialism is varying state involvement in the economy including provision of a welfare state
>>437478
Then I am both morally and personally opposed to it.
End struggle, end innovation.
>>437485
But they don't have any masters, there doesn't even have to be a violent revolution. There are many small socialistic communities that exist without any classes all across the world.
I also refuse to accept that violent revolution would solve anything. Historically it only results in the destruction of civilization and leaves a power gap for somebody to fill.
>>437366
You make money off of insurance by getting really sick. In America, cancer can cost a million dollars or more for a round of treatment. No one is paying that in premiums, so you end up actually getting a lot more out of the insurance company than what you're paying for.
That being said, it's totally not worth it.
>>437494
>End struggle, end innovation
How would the end of struggle between ruling class and ruled class stifle technological or cultural development, exactly? Elaborate, please.
>>437542
What drives innovation?
How would the end of the "struggle" between those that are successful and those that are not help technological development? I would leave culture out.
It promotes the weak, the unintelligent, uneducated, and unwashed filth to wealth, without any of the work.
That kind of a change will almost certainly lead to a failure, see Zimbabwe
>>437557
>How would the end of the "struggle" between those that are successful and those that are not help technological development?
Technological development would most likely not be hindered by the profit motive, first of all.
>It promotes the weak
I don't think the weak would wage a revolution.
>unintelligent
I didn't know you knew every single proletarian.
>uneducated
What I said above. Also, can't the people you label "weak, unintelligent, uneducated, unwashed filth" be elevated above their condition? What's keeping them from having their basic needs provided so they can develop themselves?
>to wealth without any of the work
Elevation to class power, to correct. Also, I think a revolution would be a hell of a lot of work, considering all the organizations and spreading of Marxist education among workers needed to encourage them to arms.
>That kind of a change will almost certainly lead to a failure, see Zimbabwe
Please direct me to your sources, I did not know Zimbabwe implemented socialist worker's control in its history.
>>437450
You don't need to project your own insecurities on the rest of the posters here.
>>437391
They're socialist but not socialism.
>>437641
>Technological development would most likely not be hindered by the profit motive
Impossible, profit motive is the most efficient and controlled method of technological development. Well, if you want some insane technological motive you put a man to war, but it is certainly not controlled.
This is not promotion.
>I don't think the weak would wage a revolution.
The weak are the ones who think of their precious "revolution", they have no principle or honor. Just like a pack of feral Negros who can never fight as individuals, only as a gang of hyenas.
>I didn't know you knew every single proletarian.
Intelligence is a heavy determination in social class. I don't have to know every single "proletarian".
>What's keeping them from having their basic needs provided so they can develop themselves?
If we cared just about basic needs, we should keep everyone in a very low energy state and feed and provide them with just enough food and water to sustain a healthy body weight. Any more is uneven, and the creation of a class.
You cannot define a "basic" "need" without using the word want. Frivolous argument.
Next you'll say college education is a basic need.
>Elevation to class power, to correct. Also, I think a revolution would be a hell of a lot of work, considering all the organizations and spreading of Marxist education among workers needed to encourage them to arms.
The Vanguards are nothing but ideological failures trying to justify their position as Broguagzzi.
>I did not know Zimbabwe implemented socialist worker's control in its history.
You missed the point, the point was violent revolution of the unwashed, uneducated masses results in failure. Especially when you hand over lard portions of wealth and power they had not previously had.
Your perfect ideological utopia can never exist, and will never exist, because it goes directly against anything that is in the nature of humans.
>>437313
thats the stupidest comment in this thread. nobody owns anything under communism. its all government regulated
>>437802
>I've never read a single piece of leftist theory
>>436924
Natural resources based economics
>>436851
socialism is everyone pitches in to buy stuff that benefits everyone, roads, schools , cops, military, in every not american country healthcare.
communism is an impossible dream that could only work for robots. or could only work in a post singularity post scarcity world.
but anymore they are scary words used by idiots to frighten other idiots to keep them complacent and afraid.
They're rackets.
>>436887
because americans don't know what it means
>>436851
>>436924
Well, Social Democracy solves the problem with unequal starting positions.
>>439786
what utopia do you suggest
>>437466
> Most people want much more than just their needs.
How is this relevant? Stop being a pussy, speak up and say what you want to have said instead of just shitposting.
>>436851
>Communism
The means of production ought to be controlled democratically by the workers with the eventual goal of total statelessness.
>Socialism
The means of production ought to be controlled democratically by the workers with the aid of the state.
>>436851
>To each according to his contribution is a principle of distribution considered to be one of the defining features of socialism. It refers to an arrangement whereby individual compensation is reflective of one's contribution to the social product (total output of the economy) in terms of effort, labor and productivity.
It means you should get rewarded for your labor as a contribution.
Where as in a highly capitalist society. A significant portion, often the majority, of profits from your labor contribution go to capital, which is the means of production, and the capitalist gets paid by virtue of ownership. The capitalist gets his income from returns on his capital investments, rather than the labor he produces.
The key difference is the laborer gets income because of his labor. The capitalist gets income because of his capital. It is the difference between those who are willing to work, versus those who can afford to finance.
Any society with progressive taxes, a welfare system, and other social benefits is inherently a little socialist. Social policy is not mutually exclusive with market economy.
>>440485
Define needs friend.
>>440487
>democracy
>with no state
>>441572
I don't have a definition, however you clearly have one since you're claiming people want more than what they need.
In socialism and communism, man screws his fellow man.
In capitalism, it's the other way around.
>>436851
Socialism
>Gibs me dat or I'll write a comedy skit about you and downvote your comments
Communism
>Gibs me dat or I'll send you to the Gulag
>>441576
>Democratic state
Nice oxymoron senpai
>>436851
They be bad and they want to kill all whites also they are feminist and sjw and they keep me from getting a gf
>>441749
>they keep me from getting a gf
No one's fault but your own, buddy.
>>437375
>Communism is the state of society where the means of production are commonly owned, and to use a quote, where the economy works on the motto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
This has always confused me, what if the needs of the consumers drastically outweight the ability of the producers? Surely this is an obvious point with an obvious answer?
>>436851
In heaven there is no such thing as money and thus everyone is communistic/socialist
>>436959
without substantial corrective action (which departs from 'free market capitalism'), in the long run, it entirely falls apart
>>437379
Not particularly well written but quality post still.
>>437494
>they don't have any masters
I would love to watch you try to explain that to a slave.
>>436887
because there's a difference between the actual economic states of socialism and communism and the political movements
>>436851
Steal all the wealth of the white people and give it to turd worlders
>>436887
because its a buzzword in american politics used to scare uneducated voters
Am I an uneducated yuropoor if ilegitimately think that socialism is a better overall system to capitalism? I feel that it's the only way to effectively help a large portion of a society.
I'm an immigrant who has spent most of my youth in Sweden btw.
Almost all of the major parties here would be considered leftist shit by the rest of the world, and Sweden still is considered one of the best countries to live in.
>>443534
>I feel that it's the only way to effectively help a large portion of a society
That's pretty much what socialism does, with it having the majority of society(proletariat) overthrow the minority of society(bourgeoisie). So, unless you're part of the bourgeoisie(For instance, being a CEO), socialism would be the better overall system for you.
>>442844
I would love for you to try and convince a relatively free man that he is a "slave".
Because really in all essence, a free man is but a slave to the self.
>>443714
So why are most people on this site pro capitalism/right wing? I don't get why neets get mad about muh leftists destroying muh freedoms?
I'm a vet student so I'm not at the bottom of society but I still feel that the left offers more for more people
>>443892
Because when all else fails, Capitalism just WERKS.
>>443892
>the mass unwashed, uneducated, unaccomplished filth have some arbitrary right to other peoples wealth
and wash it be flushed down the drain in 20 years.
>>443714
Collectives aren't banned in capitalism, so a bunch of workers can own a factory and in fact there are several companies out there operating on that principle. It's just that they usually perform worse than companies owned by the "bourgeoise".
Installing socialism thus means just forcibly removing their more successful competition.
>>443896
>30% of Sweden economy is owned by one family
This. Sweden is rich thanks to capitalism, not socialism. Volvo, Ikea, Scania, Volvo, SKF, aren't owned by the workers.
>>443896
Get fucked. My parents are doctors and I'm on my way to being a vet. What has your family contributed to Sweden?
If 30% owns the wealth, shouldn't they share it with the 70%? Swedens wealth comes from capitalism, but it's success as a country comes from solidarity.
Tell me that tge healthcare, benefits and safety are a oroduct of capitalistic thinking.
>>443959
I am not Swedish.
How can you justify taking away that families owned wealth and giving it to the masses? They obviously earned that wealth, amassed it over generations. Their economic influence is why Sweden was so rich. Now their immigration policies and socialistic tendencies are draining the economy.
The socialistic healthcare, benefits, and safety are only available because of their small population and large wealthy success.
Basically the rich socialist countries operate like this:
>get a gigantic wealth thanks to capitalism
>enjoy welfare socialist policies until you run out of money and go back to capitalism
Notice that the ONLY countries that are both socialist and rich, amassed the wealth thanks to capitalism. When socialism was applied in poor shitholes (all those African countries, China, USSR, etc), it only resulted in anal poverty and famines.
I think this is the reason why Marx viewed capitalism as necessary for implementing socialism, not because of "class awareness", but because socialism is pretty much an organized theft of pre-existing resources that couldn't be produced with socialism alone. Hence why every socialist country is doomed to fail in the long run.
>>444006
>The USSR was poor through its entire history.
I didn't know the Soviet state only existed during the 30s. World War II and the Entire Cold War must've been pretty short.
>>444006
>Notice that the ONLY countries that are both socialist and rich, amassed the wealth thanks to capitalism.
Are Sweden included here?
>>444006
>social democracy = socialism
please stop
>>444078
Yes.
Especially Sweden. Sweden has some of the largest global tycoons m8.
Read some Anarchist books, I would recommend Bakunin and Proudhon. Argue away both Communism and Authoritarian Socialism, I can tell not many people here have read much of that and although it could be argued to be very idealist, its more of a goal than an end point, to create a more anarchist status quo rather than to implement anarchism immediately and specifically, gradually move towards it.
>communism as defined by communists
Everything is shared through worker's councils which are paradisiacal and utopian institutions that makes no wrong.
>communism as a historical phenomenom which can be analyzed as it actually existed
Every single aspect of civil society is controlled by the Communist Party. Economics, politics, culture, even human relationships, everything is subjected to the Party.
If you combine this with the Gramscian and Laclaunian notion of the Party, which understands it not as a single institution, but as the collective will of the activist intelligentsia, then it becomes clear: America is a communist country.
>>444587
>>444600
>mfw /leftypol/ cant even make good memes
>>444648
>>444682
>>444695
>>444712
Alright fine, you made me laff
>>437802
it's actually kinda sad that so many people believe, that this is what communism is.
>>444791
America was a mistake.
t. God
>>437390
Came here to say this. That's it on the head. The great and terrible mistake people make when addressing Communism is viewing it as an actual economic system rather than an elaborate strategy to give one man private ownership of a country.
>>436887
>medicare
No serious politician calls medicare socialist.
It would be political suicide. Only ancap fags think that. And their opinions are worthless.
desu senpai
>>447213
The irony of this picture perhaps lies in the fact that the concept of capitalism is a socialist invention, created to describe post 1848 economic system in Western Europe, and that the first comprehensive description and definition of capitalism comes not from Orthodox Economics but from Karl Marx in his book Das Kapital.
>>436851
Simply:
Socialism is worker control of the means of production generally working in a cooperative economy.
In Leninism, Socialism is the revolutionary stage where the working class overthrows the capitalist class and implements a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to suppress the bourgeoisie and capital, often by putting in place a "democratic" technocracy of the most committed Communist intellectuals to lead the working class through Capitalist and Socialist development into Communism. (Hence why Lenin referred to the USSR as State Capitalist)
Communism is a theoretical point where the "state" no longer exists as a hierarchical structure and everyone lives in a flat society based on communal ownership. (also noted in Economic theories of Marx this would be due to essentially largely mass automation, robots, AI making the workforce basically redundant )
>>447213
Hilarious.
Whenever I asks Capitalists to explain capitalists it's "DUUUR FREE MARKET" When I ask Socialists to explain capitalism I get Das Kapital, a fucking tome on social and productive relations.
Also Capitalism was literally defined by Marx, the idea that Socialists can't explain Capitalism is absolutely hilariously stupid.
>>436851
>Can anyone simply explain the concepts of communism and socialism?
Several good ideas form those ideologies.
>The means of production should be available to all, and shouldnt be locked into a certain family by way of inheritance.
>Value should be measured by contribution, rather than by supply and demand.
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Stuff like that. It works well on a small scale, as in your family for example - the child isnt left to starve just because it cant make money, instead the father feeds it. Doesnt work well on a big scale, because I simply dont care about that other guy asking for a telescope on the other side of the county, I wanted mine this month. Fucking corrupt government, I bet his uncle is in the party or something.
>>447213
Also that image is stupid
>The aim of socialism is to bring the lower classes into the middle class and dissolve the upper class?
Wut in Socialist theory the "upper class" is the aristocracy, the "middle class" is the owners of productive capital.
"What is not noticed blah blah"
Except that was noticed and called out by Anarchists, Luxembourg, Trotsky.
Actially nothing in that text even knows what Socialism is in any meaningful way, let me guess, it's just another brain fart by Mises or Rothbard.
Also Capitalism isn't evil in Socialist theory, the first chapter of the Communist manifesto flat out praises capitalism as the greatest economic system the world had ever seen.
>>447328
>defined by Marx
True. It doesn't exist outside of Marx.
>>436880
Excellent definitions.
Always useful to go back to these to explain to gommunists why their ideas suck.
Attempting to implement the latter into reality without unwarranted bloodshed is itself ridiculous.
You end up having to pick between a utopian anarchist model with little to no practical applicability, especially on a grand scale, or a more authoritarian means of achieving it, which defeats the entire purpose of 'ending the exploitation' by instead engaging in wide-scale theft, terror, and other hypocritical acts.
Once the state and its borders disappear, then what? How do you maintain it? You basically have to mobilize at least enough resources and manpower that a regular nation state would to keep this going, so in order to eliminate the 'arbitrary line' you have to create a mock-version that looks and acts the same way, while pretending it isn't, or else the communist pipe-dream will become overrun by outsiders.
>>447449
>Attempting to implement the latter into reality without unwarranted bloodshed is itself ridiculous.
The first rule of revolution is that it requires victims.
>>436851
Communism - Utopia, people life in economic model not using money. That dream does not described enough.
Socialism - worker have right for geting a some part of everyday profit of whole company.
Goverment Socialism - state as couple of corporations of government. That was USSR model.
