so you guys socialists or communists?
communism is just the end stage of socialism.
We're everything left-wing.
islamic queer communists
We have both. Communism itself operates a socialist economy.
They are the same thing.
1984 was written by a man who fought in a Marxist millita for socialism so no. And 1984 describes a capitalist, authoritarian state, so double nope.
no, we are all for dismantling state, either immediately (anarchists) or after some time (marxists).
Okay OP to break it down a bit more:
Socialism has wage labour roughly speaking, but not for a boss, all economic activity is carried out by organised co-ops, individuals, or the state, or a mixture of the above based on your flavour of socialism. In one way or another your labour will earn you money/labour vouchers which you will use to buy things, or you will directly trade what you produce for what you want.
Communism: Society has such abundance that nobody has to work if they don't want to, you can simply use whatever you need from the common stock. This is not really possible with today's technology, so communism remains an end goal of socialism. In my opinion it doesn't really make sense to call oneself a communist at this moment.
Try and pat a dog and have a bad day - not possible.
ok so in communism i would never have to work for anything. who keeps the peace? who works the land? etc…
In socialism the state decides what my work is worth? is everyone "paid" the same who does the same type of job?
I hated how high school teachers wanted to convince the students that 1984 is a critique of communism, i literally called the guy out one time and he called me a commie
No, you go to work and you get the fair amount owed to you because the parasitic owner class no longer exists. If you spend 10 hours a day at a gas station serving smoothies, you don't have the cost of the gas station rent, the smoothie machine, and profit deducted from your payment.
This isn't how it works at """real communism""" but it is how it would affect your life in the immediacy.
No, in socialism you are paid for the skill of your job and the amount of production you have made.
In communism no one gets paid, you work because you want to help and contribute to society
robots presumably, as I say it's not currently feasible, more of a long term vision
Depends on what tendency, there's different kinds of socialists, the common factor is no porky parasites at the top stealing the labour of the workers. Some people thing everything should be produced in worker owned co-operatives that will trade like companies do nowadays but everyone who works for them has an equal stake in profits and decisions. Personally I think it makes more sense to organise things through a democratic state to eliminate the inefficiency and inhumanity of markets, but yes in my opinion every job should pay roughly the same, more unpleasant ones should have shorter hours. People should natural gravitate to the jobs they're best at (ie. hard working high achievers would be doctors, people who just want to enjoy life will be low level workers).
You clearly have no idea what communism and socialism are but follow general, anti-communist sentiment based mostly on ignorance and misinformation
We have a pinned recommended book thread, you can download main works of communist theories from there in pdf
they're the same
miss me with that ML revisionism
liberals think of themselves as left wing so no
learn to reply, reddit
communism is based on direct democratic management of production for use
no resources wasted on marketing, parallel development, military or other bullshit
full employment becomes feasible (but not necessary)
the environment can be saved
YOU get a say in your life as there are no politicians or capitalists running society
We need a Questions that don't deserve their own thread general
Communism explicitly rules out money and the state, unless we're using the 'just don't call it a state' anarchist definition of it, communism is more than just common ownership of the MOP
What if I don't want to?
No they aren’t. Communism is a type of Socialism.
Communalists. Google Murray Bookchin
I'm. My own.
But I can take a "socialist" attitude if it benefits us all. I can take many attitudes according to my needs. Except those who are hierarchical fuck those.
There's no difference.
Not every type of organization is a state.
Communism is a movement inside the broader socialist camp, which originally included reformists, anarchists and other non-Marxists. Communism as a distinct ideology crystallised after the betrayal of reformists in the Second International, and explicitly advocated a revolutionary Marxist ideology. It was largely identified with Leninism later on.
Marx himself didn't consider socialism and communism as distinct things ; he outlined that lower-stage communism is a society emerging from the revolution which, though based on the socialist mode of production, still contains bourgeois constructs and requires renumeration for labour. Upper-stage communism is a fully realized society which has eliminated class distinctions and has a superabundance of goods leading to consumption according to needs.
Many Marxists have since re-named "lower-stage communism" as simply socialism, and 20th century worker's states were at various stages towards building socialism.
So the core tenet of capitalism is that in a market of "perfect competition", goods will be sold for precisely the amount it takes to replace the resources used to create it. Marxism, however, objects to this; due to the existence of private property, those who own the capital necessary for the creation of the goods feel the need to take a cut (this is not to say they ought not to, under capitalism; capitalism is built upon these owners allocating resources in such a way to obtain the greatest amount of money through these cuts possible), inflating the price it takes to purchase an item over the price it takes to produce it. What's more, that "surplus value" - transferred from the consumers to the owners (note that most Marxists approach this from the lens of workers - the price the owner took was correct, the cut just ought to have gone to the workers instead of the owner; either way, the analysis is basically the same) - accumulates; more and more wealth is transferred from those who do not own the means of production to those who do.
What do the owners, or capitalists, do with that money? A lot of the time, they engage in purchasing other capital to increase the amount of revenue they own. But the reason they ultimately do this is to have money for personal use. This money, however, is far in excess of what is necessary to obtain sustenance for themselves. What exactly do they do with that money? They spend it on frivolity, like diamonds, hot rods, name-brand items, things like that. What's more, their purchase of these things that don't actually give them any value influences the production process; less is allocated to production of essentials and more to production of luxuries.
My problem with the system is not the existence of the exploitation per se. Rather, it is the inefficiency of production this inherently requires. For starters, those with great ideas for production are cut out from being able to put them into practice, because they don't own the property required to put their ideas into action. Moreover, the economy is geared to serve the interests of the rich, rather than the interests of the many. It would be absolutely possible to provide food, water, clean electricity, clothing, and shelter to every man on earth with the production capabilities we have access to, but that doesn't happen because that production is instead wasted away doing nothing of real value. I want public ownership of the means of production to be able to enable actually productive people to work without having to pander to capitalists, and to plan production to enhance future production and provide universal needs rather than limited want.
This, I feel, makes me a socialist, rather than a communist. Were I a communist, I would want public ownership of the means of production to allow individuals to flourish and produce what they wanted personally. I, however, am thinking more collectively, wanting to declare certain subjective wants "irrelevant" and moreover allocating a bunch of resources to making future resource acquisition more efficient.
However, I'd say that once humanity has achieved exceptionally great electrical generation and storage capabilities, automation of the vast majority of tasks necessary for the preservation of life, and well-developed space mining to remove the limit of resources we have on Earth, then actual communism might be possible. It'll just be a while in the distance, and in the mean time we will need a focus on personal asceticism and aversion to individualism.
Alt Left here
we're all anarcho-communists
Whoops, that impersonating thread was too much fun