Post: #1

I'm having difficulty with this one.

I found the following quote, which I believe sums it up succinctly:

Marxism is the umbrella of the doctrine.

Socialism is the politically correct terminology for Communism.

Communism is utopia for socialists.

All three take away your freedoms, embrace bureaucracy, destroy cultures, are centrally planned, overbearing, and enjoy creating divisions within societies created through spin (misinformation).

However, is this correct?

Post: #2

I don't pretend to have all the answers but I did study history at university, including Russian, French and Chinese history.

I would say Socialism is a mix of democracy and capitalism with a heavy focus on wealth redistribution through high taxation. See Scandinavian model.

True Communism is a political system that in its infancy necessitates a state dictatorship that will abolish money and capitalism and replace it with production quotas and state directives. As a belief system, Communist maxim is as follows: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. A Communist political system ought to end in utopia when the state appartatus is altogether done away with - however, this 'final stage' has never been achieved. People organise economically in the form of collectives where the means of production (factories, farms) are owned by all (property with individual land rights is regarded as theft and curtailed).

Marxism is Communism according to Marxist principles rather than through the prism of Mao (heavily agrarian bent), Lenin (coup by revolutionary vanguard, limited scope for capitalism) or Stalin (Communism in one country, spread primarily by territorial conquest rather than by inspiring revolutionaries abroad). Marx's most famous works were The Communist Manifesto 1948 ('workers of the world unite') and Das Kapital 1967 ('The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist production, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus value, and consequently to exploit labor-power to the greatest possible extent'). Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Marx were all Communists but had differing ideals and thoughts regarding the manner in which their political system would be instilled in society.

I could ask my dad to chime in as he is a leading academic in Russian Studies and this question would be his bread and butter.

Post: #3

(02-22-2014 12:10 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I would say Socialism is a mix of democracy and capitalism with a heavy focus on wealth redistribution through high taxation. See Scandinavian model.

Scandinavia doesn't practise Socialism as writ.
In Sweden for example there's less regulations on Banks and trade than in the US.

That Scandinavia is socialistic is something that has mostly been propagated by the American Republican party as a response to Democrats pointing to Scandinavia/Europe as a model for social reform in the 60s.

Post: #4

(02-22-2014 09:54 AM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  I'm having difficulty with this one.

I found the following quote, which I believe sums it up succinctly:

Marxism is the umbrella of the doctrine.

Socialism is the politically correct terminology for Communism.

Communism is utopia for socialists.

All three take away your freedoms, embrace bureaucracy, destroy cultures, are centrally planned, overbearing, and enjoy creating divisions within societies created through spin (misinformation).

However, is this correct?

My parents grew up in a 'communist' state. Every now and then they explain to me the propaganda they were subjected to.

The official propaganda was that there was no 'communist' state, rather there was a group of 'socialist' countries who were working towards achieving a communist society.

Hence, the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and not Union of Soviet Communist Republics.

So yes, countries that were called 'communist' in the West were not called 'communist' in the East, the politically correct term was 'socialist,' with the understanding that the 'socialist' states were working towards becoming one day utopian societies, which according to Marxism is indeed 'communism'

Of course, different ideologies define different utopias, and some ideologies embrace socialistic aspects, but in those days in those countries the only allowed 'correct' version of utopia was the one described by Marx.

In reality, all 3 were indeed used as excuses to take away your freedoms, embrace bureaucracy, destroy cultures, be centrally planned, overbearing, and enjoy creating divisions within societies created through spin

So based on my parent's account, the quote you found is spot on.

Post: #5

I wouldn't give much regard to what states call themselves. Most countries that call themselves democratic or people's republics are in fact dictatorships.

Post: #6

Vicious, most Republicans couldn't find Norway, Denmark or Sweden on a map.

Scandinavia is not on their radar. Nobody cares.

And every liberal-inspired social reform in the US since the 1960s has failed.

Post: #7

(02-22-2014 02:07 PM)svenski7 Wrote:  Vicious, most Republicans couldn't find Norway, Denmark or Sweden on a map.

Scandinavia is not on their radar. Nobody cares.

You keep telling yourself that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderick...socialist/
http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/201...-list.html
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/03/58...lls-apart/
http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/06/02...overnment/
http://www.redstate.com/diary/Skanderbeg...are-state/

Just a sampling from some of the most influential republican blogs out there. I could go on forever.

Post: #8

(02-22-2014 01:29 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  In reality, all 3 were indeed used as excuses to take away your freedoms, embrace bureaucracy, destroy cultures, be centrally planned, overbearing, and enjoy creating divisions within societies created through spin

But it's for your own good because we cannot trust you to make decisions for yourselves!

The sad part is that American socialists ('progressives' is the PC term for it in the US) think they can implement socialism better than everyone else.

The fundamental problem with socialism and communism is they contravene human nature, and thus require force, oppression, destruction of the family (creating dependence on the state, easier indoctrination, etc.), monopoly on violence, censorship, thoughtcrime, etc., in order to force humans into line.

Post: #9

Marxism is an ideology. It's methodology and analysis can influence a society's economics, politics, culture, etc.

Socialism is an economic system. It is based on the public ownership of the means of production.

Communism is a socio-political system. It is historically influenced by Marxist ideology (e.g. classless society) and implemented using a socialist economic system.

The terms, however, are frequently conflated and can mean different things to different people and in different contexts. For example, the West now commonly equates socialism with high taxation, which is related to but distinct from public ownership, and in China the ruling communist party now has little remaining Marxist influence.

Post: #10

I would say socialism is the umbrella term since it predates Karl Marx.

Post: #11

http://mises.org/books/socialism/introduction.aspx

This introduction from Mises in his epic book Socialism is the best thing I've ever read about it. Bear in mind he wrote the whole book just a couple of years after the Bolshevik Revolution and thus didn't have the next 80 years of historical evidence available to him.

So it's spooky that he predicted every single thing that would happen and why.

Post: #12

(02-23-2014 08:12 AM)Krauser Wrote:  http://mises.org/books/socialism/introduction.aspx

This introduction from Mises in his epic book Socialism is the best thing I've ever read about it. Bear in mind he wrote the whole book just a couple of years after the Bolshevik Revolution and thus didn't have the next 80 years of historical evidence available to him.

So it's spooky that he predicted every single thing that would happen and why.

Terrifying. He absolutely nailed the modern way of thinking:

Quote:According to the Marxist conception, one's social condition determines one's way of thought. His membership of a social class decides what views a writer will express. He is not able to grow out of his class or to free his thoughts from the prescriptions of his class interests.

We're getting towards this stage now:

Quote:Anyone who failed to comply unconditionally with this coercion was proscribed and outlawed. In this way Socialism was able from year to year to win more and more ground without anyone being moved to make a fundamental investigation of how it would work. Thus, when one day Marxian Socialism assumed the reins of power, and sought to put its complete programme into practice, it had to recognize that it had no distinct idea of what, for decades, it had been trying to achieve.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #13

There are no functional definitions of Marxism, socialism and communism, because there have never been functional and successful examples of Marxism, socialism and communism.

This is like trying to get the perfect anatomy of dragons, orcs and pixies - you cannot because these are just phantasies and every artists or author imagines them in his own way. So with these ideologies - every scumbag liberal idealist imagines them in his own way while they share some common guidelines, they still imagine them differently. You can only study anatomy of real life animals like wolves or horses.

Don't try to understand hallucinations.

Post: #14

You have two cows.

In Communism, the government takes the cows and gives you some of the milk.

In Socialism, the government gives one of your cows to your neighbor.

I don't know how Marxism differs.

Post: #15

(02-24-2014 10:28 AM)Mage Wrote:  There are no functional definitions of Marxism, socialism and communism, because there have never been functional and successful examples of Marxism, socialism and communism.

Spanish Revolution?

Post: #16

(02-24-2014 12:00 PM)Doctor Wrote:  You have two cows.

In Communism, the government takes the cows and gives you some of the milk.

In Socialism, the government gives one of your cows to your neighbor.

I don't know how Marxism differs.

In Marxism, the cows control the means of production.

Post: #17

communism refers to a system where the means of production are publicly owned and there is no government.
marxism is when a communist system is established by a spontaneous revolution.
leninism is when a marxist revolution occurs through a.vanguard party as opposed to a workers revolution.
maoism is when the revolution occurs through a protracted peoples war started by the peasants as opposed to the urban working class.
socialism is when there.is a government and the prpfits and loses are shared by society.

communism breaks down into 2 subcatagories- marxism and anarchocommunism. anarchos believe that once society reaches a post-scarce level communism will just happen because thats the end game of capitalism. no revolution needed. any violent or revolutionary form of communism falls under the general umbrella of marxism. however, the prerequisite for both os a post-scarce society brought about by capitalism. so all marxist subcatagories on some level will have to involve rapid economic growth plans and to some extent the elimination of capitalist and feudalist social structures and norms. the only real differences between the marxist catagories is how revolution occurs and is carried out.

Post: #18

Quote:"They told us in Odessa, that in San Francisco it's hard to find milk."

This is the typical Soviet mentality, and they were used to it, and they bought into it, and then they entered that American supermarket and saw the rows upon rows of milk of different brands and kinds and fat percentages.

This is where some have been known to cry. It is the realization that their lives were stolen from them by the regime. A realization of what could've been, if they had been lucky enough to be born in this place which, from everything they knew, could not possibly exist.

I now live in Northern California, in the heart of the Bay Area, thousands of miles away from my homeland.

And yet the poison of Soviet propaganda seeps through college dorms just as it did in Soviet classrooms.
Stop a random youth on the street and you'll find out what he thinks about capitalism (bad!) and communism/socialism (good!). Their favorite news programs are the "Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report," where comedians reinforce their brainwashing via short, catchy clips.

http://tinyurl.com/qdrcyev

Post: #19

(02-22-2014 09:54 AM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  I'm having difficulty with this one.

I found the following quote, which I believe sums it up succinctly:

Marxism is the umbrella of the doctrine.

Socialism is the politically correct terminology for Communism.

Communism is utopia for socialists.

All three take away your freedoms, embrace bureaucracy, destroy cultures, are centrally planned, overbearing, and enjoy creating divisions within societies created through spin (misinformation).

However, is this correct?

That is essentially correct. The big problem, which confounds most people, is how to categorize the socialism inherent in the modern welfare state --- often referred to as the European Model (meaning Western European).

That model is a fourth category of soft socialism that, instead of using violence, used indoctrination, the ballot box, and the dumbing-down and infantilization of voters to impose most of socialism's goals -- usually by exalting a cradle-to-grave nanny state over self-reliance and personal liberty. That is where much of Western Europe and North America is today. It is not an economically self-sustaining model of governance.

Post: #20

Thanks All ... some interesting food for thought.

I've recently finished Enjoy the Decline, which led me to question the different facets of socialism. Unsustainable sums it up, for sure.

Interesting times we live in.

Post: #21

Here's how I was taught it:

Socialism: The Means to the End (i.e. Communism).

Communism: The End (Utopia).

Marxism: ???

By my interpretation of the word, there has never been a communist country. All were socialist countries, on the path to create a communist society, but none have ever achieved it and I don't think anyone ever will.

Post: #22

(03-03-2014 09:08 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  By my interpretation of the word, there has never been a communist country. All were totalitarian countries, on the path to create a communist society, but none have ever achieved it and I don't think anyone ever will.

Fixed that for ya!

Post: #23

(03-04-2014 05:25 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-03-2014 09:08 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  By my interpretation of the word, there has never been a communist country. All were totalitarian countries, on the path to create a communist society, but none have ever achieved it and I don't think anyone ever will.

Fixed that for ya!

Neither of you have this quite right. Most modern nation states have or had some degree of socialism in their economies. The countries that we call communist or that were called communist during the cold war were all totalitarian countries with mostly socialist economies. Many countries today have a great deal of socialism in their economies but are nowhere near totalitarianism (e.g. US, France, etc).

Countries like Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany had a sort of de facto socialism. The means of production were nominally private but were de facto controlled by the government. Only those businesses which supported the state were allowed to exist and only if they did what the state wanted.

Also, socialism is not the same as a welfare state. People often confound these two. Same with capitalism and free markets.

Post: #24

Bumping for relevance. Socialist policy is being promoted in America by Bernie Sanders. Maybe we need a new thread to become more informed on why Socialist policy is bad for society.

Post: #25

I see where Rolling Stone Magazine is thrilled by Bernie's socialism. Somedays I think his version should be called the Natural Socialist Vermont Latte Party.