Socialism - Everyone contributes money to social programs that benefit everyone. Taxes are higher, but the money is used for the benefit of all. The government exists to oversee the programs that support the people. This HAS worked in many countries around the world. It is not about everyone being economically equal in society, it’s about accessibility of care and benefit for everyone regardless of their starting point.
Communism - Everyone is to be on equal footing and wealth is to be evenly distributed among everyone. Everything is, in theory, shared and belongs to everyone. The government exists to oversee the transition of society, then is meant to step aside rather than remain above the rest of the people. This has NOT worked as no one has ever successfully established this and then stepped aside. It leaves the door wide open for abuse of power.More simply, socialism is about indirect redistribution of wealth through taxes paying for social programs that benefit everyone. Communism seeks literal redistribution of wealth to maintain equal economic status for all.
Socialism might also seek the direct redistribution of wealth via wealth taxes.
The difference is primarily in collecting wealth via taxes after the fact, rather than having a central body try and actively redistribute everything before payment.
Glad I learned something today. I didn’t know the difference until now. Thanks.
It’s important to consider the fact that an economy does not have to be entirely Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist.
Most countries already have Socialist and Capitalist components at this point.
What I’d personally like to see is Land be a communist system. Necessities be Socialist. Luxuries be Capitalist.
Every citizen of a country should own and share in the land of the country equally. It should not be possible to privately own land. If land is leased or rented from this pool for individual or corporate use, that money should be given to everyone equally. Likely that would be handled by a government in reality, but it should be fairly hands off other than facilitating the transfer of value.
Necessities like Basic Housing, Basic Food, Public Transportation, Medical Care, Parks, Rec Centers, Schools, Police, Courts, etc. should be all handled with socialism. Where the government collects taxes from the land value and capitalist markets, and operates these systems itself for the benefit of everyone who needs them.
If you want more than necessities, capitalism should stick around to handle those desires. Want a bigger fancier house, some fancy oranges from another country, a suit made of silk, go ahead and buy it on a capitalist market either with the money you receive from your portion of land ownership value, or through participating in the capitalist market yourself.
There is definitely a difference, and they are not interchangeable. I’ll let other people chime in with a rigorous definition for communism, but at a minimum, it must have abolished the state and social classes entirely. So one could say that communism is at the very end of the road, and the various flavors of socialism are the routes to get there.
Various flavors of socialism? Yes, I’ve written an earlier comment about that, and another one here. In brief, there are many ways to move beyond capitalism.
Socialism, social democracy, and communism all focus on a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income. To what extent and what their approaches are, differ, though.
Social democracy proposes a classless society, usually within the premise of an ‘electoral democracy’, often with trade unions, collective bargaining, worker representation, and strikes as a bulwark against further deterioration into capitalism.
Socialism, if distinguished from social democracy, also wishes for a classless society, but it goes further: it wishes to advance social ownership of the economy.
Rather than just politics, the economy is also fully democratised. Instead of a CEO possibly deciding for all, it’s the labourers that choose, that have a say.Communism proposes that a just society must be not just classless, but also moneyless and stateless.
Instead of money as transferrable and susceptible to wealth accumulation, other means for exchange are used; labour vouchers, community exchange systems, and so on. Instead of a centralised, repressive state, society would be decentralised and free, living in communes; if there is a military or a police, both should stand on equal footing with the people.Personally, I’m an anarchist communist and favour that model, though I also can see a case for market socialism or council communism, and feel sympathetic to the left wing cause in general. And that is what all of us should do: respect each other’s outlooks, and strive together for the left cause. The greater the strength is there, if comrades complement one another, supporting each other under the red banner.
Talking about “socalism” in a language beset by capitalist oligarchs applying the label to things as mundane as “feeding children” really does require we draw a distinction between the numerous resultant definitions.
Some people use “socialism” to mean the anti-capitalist ideal you describe, while others mean either “thing I dont want my taxes to provide” or “the things those guys keep blocking.”
deleted by creator
Socialism is an economic term. Communism is a political term.
Apart from the specific definitions and history of practice there are people who help people and people who help themselves. All systems have been derived from this.
Communism is a specific type of socialism
One is a socioeconomic philosophy, while the other is a political structure. One might involve the other, but that’s not necessarily always the case.
The way I recently heard it explained is that socialism is when the workers own the means of production and communism is when the government owns the means of production
Socialism is a wider umbrella term.
Removed by mod
