So tell me Holla Forums, what is the difference from the acclaimed "New Working Socialism" and the "Old Non-working" Socialism"? What makes you so sure that this newly revised system works supposedly much more efficiency than Capitalism?
Also, what does Socialism and Communism have in common? Sources appreciated ITT.
Ignoring first half for bait, and sageing unless this thread gets good. AFAIK Marx made no distinctions, but their are some things that are attributed to him that was Lenin. Marx may have said Socialism was the lower stage and Communism was the higher, but I know he never gave then qualities to be identified by, he only defined communism. Lenin described Socialism as the transition to Communism.
Oliver Bell
They're the same. Unfortunately socialism is associated with social democracy and communism with marxism-leninism.
Kevin Jenkins
Elaborate?
So this makes Socialism (Communism) more efficient than Capitalism in what ways?
Grayson Ramirez
Making a distinction between socialism and communism is something Lenin did, not Marx.
Julian Gonzalez
Both Marx and Lenin said that Socialism was the introduction to Communism though. How can you tell me Marx did not make that distinction as well?
So if this is the case, how does eventual Communism work for a Capitalist nation? How does it work better than Capitalism to begin with?
You are being good poster so I will bump. Take some pats. Marxism-Leninism, is the belief that a socialist society requires a vanguard to lead the revolution, and that after the revolution/during we will have socialism. The gubbermint will slowly wilt away and we will have communism. This didn't work, but the conditions never came through, I suppose. Lenin described this process though. There is more to Marxism-Leninism, but that is up to personal opinion.
Brayden Roberts
see Socialism was officially established as pre-Communism by both it's creator and followers to the idea of Socialism.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism So what your saying is the existing government (Capitalism) collapses for a new government? Except Communism owns the state by it's means of production, rather than a free market.
Jaxson Morgan
False. Marx used the terms interchangeably, and referred to what you think of socialism as 'early stage communism'. Early stage communism and late stage communism were both referred to as socialism, as the terms were not only considered by Marx, but Proudhon and essentially every socialist writer of the time as interchangeable terms despite ideological differences.
What you, someone who has never read the works, are doing, is going "AKSHUALLY THAT'S NOT TRUE HAVE A DICTIONARY DEFINITION" to those who HAVE read. People are going to laugh you off and ignore you because you're showing you're coming here to autistically slapfight, not learn or debate.
Connor Wood
This book is retarded
Kevin Wilson
So both Socialism and Communism are literally the same thing then?
But that's how you define what things are, user.
Brody Fisher
Communism is a stateless, classless society. Socialism is what we call the transitional period where we are attempting to build Communism.
Nicholas Roberts
hi
Aiden Hall
Yes.
Camden Long
Socialism is any alternative to capitalism that is more fair to the exploited majority.
Thats why socialism as a system is never used as a single word, its qualified with terms like Market socialism or democratic socialism.
Jason Watson
Or you could go to the original source instead of relying on a dictionary definition written by a clueless moron.
Easton Harris
Marx said Communism is inevitable. It comes closer wether or not we stay under socialism or capitalism.
"Socialism" is not defined as a stage where communism is being built, unless you are a ML
Aiden Davis
Not quite. There are dictionaries that, despite the words being polar opposites, describe literally and figuratively as interchangeable terms. Dictionaries are, of course, a great thing, but they are not immune to mistakes and missteps. Especially online dictionaries.
Levi Rodriguez
Capitalism is incredibly inefficient, just about anybody could come up with a better way to distribute resources.
In terms of actually seeing to the needs of the population capitalism is an utter failure. We produce 1.5 times the food necessary to feed everybody on earth, and yet 7,000,000 people starve to death every year. That alone should be enough to convince you of the superiority of a system designed from the bottom up to address human needs rather than create profits.
Read the Bread Book tbh.
Isaiah Fisher
Marx said, as well as Lenin, Socialism is the earlier stage to Communism.
So, since Socialism is Communism
How is a free market "exploiting" it's own market?
The free market is non-biased to both it's producer and it's consumer. It distributes product so long as the person can pay for it.
So let me ask again, what makes Communism a better solution than Capitalism? Where the means of production is owned to a free market rather than the government?
Dylan Adams
Fuck you I don't believe that, and you were being such a good poster. :( Idgaf what Webster has to say, they are idiots.
Blake Brooks
No. Marx said the DotP is the earlier stage of communism, and if you understood historical materialism you would understand that capitalism, feudalism and tribalism are also earlier stages of communism.
Free market is a nonsense term. Market socialism reduced exploitation because workers can keep all of what they produce, and puts workers in control of the economy instead of whoever has the most dollars.
So let the "person" that pays be the government.
Because capitalism is a zero sum game which also causes the rate of profit to decline over time. It will collapse.
I really hope ancaps win out. Regulation is the only thing that saved capitalism from itself thus far.
Owen Wright
Wrong, the history of capitalism can be traced back to early forms of merchant capitalism practiced in Western Europe during the Middle Ages. Where most modern forms of communism are grounded at least nominally in Marxism, (an ideology conceived by noted sociologist Karl Marx) during the mid nineteenth century.
Colton Edwards
No he didn't. Marx spoke of a "lower phase of communism" and a "higher phase of communism", he didn't distinguish between socialism and communism.
Cooper Ortiz
wtf are you talking about? The origins of capitalism are irrelevant. The point is it can be built upon to make communism and will be since the collapse of capitalism is inevitable.
Nicholas King
So, again, Socialism simply introduces Communism, since they are basically the same thing?
Right, because Communism's main objective is to remove the existing government that owns private means of productions and making it public (making it owned by Communist government).
Sounds pretty fascist.
Ian Robinson
...
Aaron Martin
man you are being retarded right now. quote Marx just once saying that. I'll wait.
Isaac Murphy
Critique of the Gotha Program
Dylan Bailey
still waiting for it. everyone knows DoTP is the revolutionary society where the proletariat seizes the state. now show me where it says socialism is a transitory between capitalism and communism.
Carson Nelson
quelle surprise
Oliver Bell
Die.
only tankies believe this. Yes, tankies are retarded.
Gabriel Sanchez
There is no difference, because there can be none. There will either be a successfully established socialism consequent of a successful abolition of the capitalist mode, or there will not be one. What "form" this socialism takes on will in the first instance be wholly dependent on socialism's own base implications, and second by what superstructural changes can be made conducive to said base.
Socialism is not "revised"; it is not a blueprinted ideal to which reality will have to conform itself. Just like capitalism it is a product of the generalization of commodity production that was consequent of the abolition of feudal's limitations on commodity production. Capitalism started out minarchistic, then became oligarchic, then gave us suffrage for one sex, then the other, then sometimes even finds itself functioning through direct democracy in some places. What aligns all of these different "forms" of the social dimension of capitalism is what situation the mode found itself in, and how far that mode could then allow new types of freedom.
No mode of production hitherto and beyond capitalism will ever be as efficient at productivity as capitalism, because capitalism by way of providing for its own continuation and solidification constantly needs to produce more and revolutionize more and more. This is one of the biggest symptoms of why labour, which supports all of this impersonally-invoked nonsense, resists capitalism, and starts organizing itself accordingly. This reaction to the contradictions and unbearable demands of the capitalist mode of production is what we call communism or the communist movement. It attempts to bring into existence a paradigm that is post-capital, which will necessarily no longer obey to the laws of impersonal market forces through isolated production for exchange and relating to one another through objects (commodities). Socialism will only be more "efficient" than capitalism in that it will directly respond to human utility rather than indirectly through the need to amass capital.
The previous incarnations of socialism have all violated the guidelines of Marxism by forming in undemocratic third world countries. It's no wonder they didn't work, socialism needs to be built on top of liberal capitalism.
Easton Hill
So the real kindness of the West to shit hole countries is to just force them to become liberal capitalists so they can then become communists?