In real general terms, communism is about people/state’s ownership of the means of production. Under this system, most private property is nationalized.
Socialism allows for private property and sees the role of the state to redistribute power and wealth among its citizens through some sort of state program.
Also for additional information, Countries/Economies don’t have to be entirely one or the other.
The US has both socialist and capitalist components. The post office system is socialist, so are functions like public roads, and fire and police services. There are also overtly socialist programs in place in things like food stamps, medicare, etc.
Other countries like Canada are the same, but generally have more socialist organizations and programs in comparison (like our healthcare system and electric grids)
The post office system is socialist, so are functions like public roads, and fire and police services.
I’d argue that having the government provide a service isn’t enough to call something socialist. In “The Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith said that in a free-market economy, the governments role was to provide defence, law and order, and public works (eg. roads and education). If we’re using Marx’s definitions for communism, then surely we have to use Smith’s definitions for Capitalism.
Even if you do exclude those pieces, the US still has socialist organizations and programs that fall outside that definition. I’d argue that even Adam smith is just realizing that socialism is required for certain industries because capitalism has extreme market failures in situations where two or more providers are not economically viable, or in situations where the public good an profit are not aligned.
Florida has a public state insurance company for example. It had to because insurers are fleeing the state.
Texas maintains a publicly controlled electricity distribution organization (Ercort) covering most of the state.
First off, you may live in a republic. I don’t. Don’t assume everyone is American.
Secondly, your definition of Socialism is too narrow. Socialism isn’t strictly an economic system of who owns things. Social welfare programs are Socialism, but in the political sense. The political movement of Socialism almost always involves wealth redistribution programs like food stamps.
The US is very obviously not strictly a capitalist country. The government owns and controls significant assets including land, resources, and companies which it utilizes to the benefit of the citizenry and would fall under even your definition of Socialism.
Fanny and Freddie? FDIC? Government owned
Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)? Government owned
Hospitals? There’s a number that are owned by State Governments
Airports? Liquor Stores? Lotteries? Utilities? Transit Systems? Also lots of them owned by Governments in the US
You are mistaken. Socialism is worker owned means of production. Communism is a theoretical stateless, classless, moneyless society that Marx supposed would eventually form from the conditions of socialism (AKA dictatorship of the proletariat).
Does communism really only have this one meaning defined by marx? At least to me that sounds stoopid to let one guy define something that could be a spectrum
I mean, he wrote the book(s) that started the whole ideology. Why would we want one word to mean a bunch of different ideologies? Pick a new word for the other ideas.
Thank you for clarifying that ^^
Wtat i interpret from this is that even though there where others who reinterpreted it the original ideas from marx where so “point on” that it like stayed this way
Your definition of socialism is false. Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. This is incompatible with capitalism, where the means of production are held by those who own capital. In simpler terms, under socialism workers have agency over how their workplace whereas under capitalism that is decided by a CEO/board of directors.
What you’re describing is a social democracy, which is a more socialised version of capitalism.
Factories and stuff. In capitalism, a rich person buys the equipment necessary to turn raw materials into useful products, pays workers a set wage to operate that equipment, and then pockets the difference between the cost of raw materials and employee wages, and the sales price of the product. In socialism, the equipment is collectively owned by the workers themselves, who share the difference between the price of raw materials and sales price.
Probably important to also include that personal property is not private property. Private property would be means of production such as farms or factories - they are owned by the workers collectively. You still can have a house, a bed, a refrigerator, a TV, etc.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Socialism would be a country like USSR. What you are on about could easily be a capitalist country like Denmark. I’m a big time capitalist because I think socialism is inherently unstable and prone to have huge huge inefficiencies as seen in the USSR. You need the market to correct itself. But like capitalist countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland I think the capitalist state should correct the market with externalities and via taxes pay for education, healthcare etc. As time goes on I support UBI and we should start that now. Economists are beginning to push cash transfers as the best means of improvement the welfare of citizens. But this is absolutely capitalism, the free market and capital expenditure by individuals is the foundation of the system.
I have no idea why, at times, Americans do not understand the word socialism. Plenty of people in European capitalist countries died to try get out of a socialist system or to avoid it. Yet some Americans say they are socialist. It’s crazy and disrespectful.
In real general terms, communism is about people/state’s ownership of the means of production. Under this system, most private property is nationalized.
Socialism allows for private property and sees the role of the state to redistribute power and wealth among its citizens through some sort of state program.
Also for additional information, Countries/Economies don’t have to be entirely one or the other.
The US has both socialist and capitalist components. The post office system is socialist, so are functions like public roads, and fire and police services. There are also overtly socialist programs in place in things like food stamps, medicare, etc.
Other countries like Canada are the same, but generally have more socialist organizations and programs in comparison (like our healthcare system and electric grids)
I’d argue that having the government provide a service isn’t enough to call something socialist. In “The Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith said that in a free-market economy, the governments role was to provide defence, law and order, and public works (eg. roads and education). If we’re using Marx’s definitions for communism, then surely we have to use Smith’s definitions for Capitalism.
Even if you do exclude those pieces, the US still has socialist organizations and programs that fall outside that definition. I’d argue that even Adam smith is just realizing that socialism is required for certain industries because capitalism has extreme market failures in situations where two or more providers are not economically viable, or in situations where the public good an profit are not aligned.
Florida has a public state insurance company for example. It had to because insurers are fleeing the state.
Texas maintains a publicly controlled electricity distribution organization (Ercort) covering most of the state.
deleted by creator
First off, you may live in a republic. I don’t. Don’t assume everyone is American.
Secondly, your definition of Socialism is too narrow. Socialism isn’t strictly an economic system of who owns things. Social welfare programs are Socialism, but in the political sense. The political movement of Socialism almost always involves wealth redistribution programs like food stamps.
The US is very obviously not strictly a capitalist country. The government owns and controls significant assets including land, resources, and companies which it utilizes to the benefit of the citizenry and would fall under even your definition of Socialism.
Between the federal and state governments, they own around 60% of all the land in the US. https://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf
Fanny and Freddie? FDIC? Government owned Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)? Government owned Hospitals? There’s a number that are owned by State Governments Airports? Liquor Stores? Lotteries? Utilities? Transit Systems? Also lots of them owned by Governments in the US
You are mistaken. Socialism is worker owned means of production. Communism is a theoretical stateless, classless, moneyless society that Marx supposed would eventually form from the conditions of socialism (AKA dictatorship of the proletariat).
Does communism really only have this one meaning defined by marx? At least to me that sounds stoopid to let one guy define something that could be a spectrum
I mean, he wrote the book(s) that started the whole ideology. Why would we want one word to mean a bunch of different ideologies? Pick a new word for the other ideas.
No, there have been many theorists after Marx who added their own thoughts. Marx came up with it though so his influence is great.
Thank you for clarifying that ^^
Wtat i interpret from this is that even though there where others who reinterpreted it the original ideas from marx where so “point on” that it like stayed this way
Your definition of socialism is false. Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. This is incompatible with capitalism, where the means of production are held by those who own capital. In simpler terms, under socialism workers have agency over how their workplace whereas under capitalism that is decided by a CEO/board of directors.
What you’re describing is a social democracy, which is a more socialised version of capitalism.
What do they mean by means of production?
Factories and stuff. In capitalism, a rich person buys the equipment necessary to turn raw materials into useful products, pays workers a set wage to operate that equipment, and then pockets the difference between the cost of raw materials and employee wages, and the sales price of the product. In socialism, the equipment is collectively owned by the workers themselves, who share the difference between the price of raw materials and sales price.
Thanks.
It seems really unintuitive at first. Now that you explain it, I get it
Probably important to also include that personal property is not private property. Private property would be means of production such as farms or factories - they are owned by the workers collectively. You still can have a house, a bed, a refrigerator, a TV, etc.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Socialism would be a country like USSR. What you are on about could easily be a capitalist country like Denmark. I’m a big time capitalist because I think socialism is inherently unstable and prone to have huge huge inefficiencies as seen in the USSR. You need the market to correct itself. But like capitalist countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland I think the capitalist state should correct the market with externalities and via taxes pay for education, healthcare etc. As time goes on I support UBI and we should start that now. Economists are beginning to push cash transfers as the best means of improvement the welfare of citizens. But this is absolutely capitalism, the free market and capital expenditure by individuals is the foundation of the system.
I have no idea why, at times, Americans do not understand the word socialism. Plenty of people in European capitalist countries died to try get out of a socialist system or to avoid it. Yet some Americans say they are socialist. It’s crazy and disrespectful.