I’m saying it because places like Lemmygrad and Hexbear are outright Communist and they will take it as an insult if you call them socialist.
I’m not talking about the shades of different economic preferences, I’m talking about the extreme cases. In the extreme cases, there are multiple outright Communist communities on Lemmy.
If you are going by theory, sure. But if the word socialism gets used in conversation today, it will probably get interpreted as something like the Nordic model.
That’s what happens when the communists are purged and billions of propaganda dollars are spent over generations to erase their memory: you end up with Newspeak, where people don’t know their asses from their elbows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
Communism is Socialist, there aren’t any Communists that would take offense to being called Socialist. There are Socialists that take offense to being called Communist, because for them, Socialism is the goal itself.
There are Socialists that take offense to being called Communist, because for them, Socialism is the goal itself
Very rare. Those who do dislike being called communists probably aren’t very serious about socialism at all, and probably only want the “social capitalism” of Scandanavian countries.
Yep. And on the flip side, if I call a communist a socialist, it may be true technically, but I’m connotating that they want social capitalism instead of full communism.
And while theory written 100 years ago may have those terms be near equivalent, the meanings of those words have drifted a little since then.
they will take it as an insult if you call them socialist
What a dumb thing to say. Browse those instances and talk to communists/socialists there before you make weird claims about them. Or at least learn about socialism in general first.
It gets touted as a transition state between Capitalism and Communism, by Communists who want to get away from Capitalism, and Capitalists who fear anything that isn’t Capitalist.
But it is a genuine economic philosophy on its own that blends the best parts of Communism and Capitalism in one. At least to my opinion.
Communists believe that socialism is a transitional state from capitalism to communism, but 1) communists aren’t the only socialists and 2) a lot of Americans think milquetoast social safety net capitalist reformers like Bernie Sanders are socialists despite them never calling for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
The original definition is a community where private property is not a thing. Private property is when an individual can control the land, tools, and knowledge people need to survive. Private property is factories, not your toothbrush.
Most pro USSR, PRC, or Cuba leftists believe those countries governments controlling all or the vast majority of private property constitutes communism. Some think these countries are socialist and working their way to communism.
Many anti-communist people don’t really understand how these countries work specifically. All their ideas of what communism is are based on how they view the above communist countries.
Finally right wingers will describe California as communist because they have social programs and higher taxes than some states. Basically if the government is intervening in the market by supplying a service or good directly to a citizen that’s communism.
From what I’ve observed most people lie somewhere on this spectrum of definition.
I was kidding around, and part of the joke is how pointless the definition is:
communism: that the assets held by a body are indivisible across the individuals of that body when the assets in question are required to engage in production.
Thereby any definition of “body”, “asset” and “production” can be used to define specific types and scopes of a communist ideology.
propaganda: a piece or collection of communications that has the primary purpose to persuade.
communist propaganda: a communication to persuade the reader to share the means of production across a collective.
I’ve always seen communism as a subclass of socialism, where socialism is the goal of classless, stateless society in which the public owns the means of production and distribute based on needs. Whereas communism is a way of attaining this goal, characterized by its materialistic focus and being revolutionary.
I know this differs from a lot of other uses for the terminology, but is there really a single definition of socialism that rules over the others (or communism for that matter, and does it even matter since they describe different important things)?
You literally have it backwards. Communism in the context of a definition of society is the classless state. Socialism is the transitory stage (also known as a dictatorship of the proletariat).
Reminder that this is specifically when talking about state/society. If you are mentioning ideology then a communist person or a socialist might have significant diversion of views/goals. Yes, it can be confusing.
As one of the many types of socialism, communism became the dominant political tendency, along with social democracy, within the international socialist movement by the early 1920s.[34]
Excerpt from ProleWiki:
Its modern usage is almost always traced back to Karl Marx’s usage of the term where he introduced the concept of scientific socialism alongside Friedrich Engels. The theory of scientific socialism described communism not as an idealistic, perfect society but rather as a stage of development taking place after a long, political process of class struggle. Marx, however, used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably and he drew no distinction between the two.
Lenin was the first person to give distinct meanings to the terms socialism and communism. The socialism/communism of Marx was now known simply as communism, and Marx’s “transitional phase” was to be known as socialism.
I knew about this. I just do not really think anyone claiming superiority based on “define socialism and communism” as someone to be taken seriously, given that terminology is dependant on context and definitions on a base level are arbitrary if taking an axiomatic approach to theory.
American says communism and means socialism
No, there are outright communists on Lemmy. This is an accurate take.
You’re proving their point. You say “outright” communists, as if socialism isn’t just a transition between capitalism and communism.
I’m saying it because places like Lemmygrad and Hexbear are outright Communist and they will take it as an insult if you call them socialist.
I’m not talking about the shades of different economic preferences, I’m talking about the extreme cases. In the extreme cases, there are multiple outright Communist communities on Lemmy.
Do you have any
evidenceto support this testimony?I don’t get why you’re being downvoted. There’s a great comment by Cowbee (I think) that explains why this is a thing.
There are people who are explicitly self-proclaimed Communists on Lemmy.
This isn’t some “Healthcare is communism!!!1” thing.
It’s probably the idea that Communists take offense to being called Socialist. The opposite is true, as Communism is a maximally Socialist position.
If you are going by theory, sure. But if the word socialism gets used in conversation today, it will probably get interpreted as something like the Nordic model.
That’s what happens when the communists are purged and billions of propaganda dollars are spent over generations to erase their memory: you end up with Newspeak, where people don’t know their asses from their elbows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
A lot of the users on those instances also has usernames or pronouns which includes “commie”
I think it is because some people think that socialism is a kind of communism, when that take wouldn’t be accepted by a lot of communists here.
Communism is Socialist, there aren’t any Communists that would take offense to being called Socialist. There are Socialists that take offense to being called Communist, because for them, Socialism is the goal itself.
Very rare. Those who do dislike being called communists probably aren’t very serious about socialism at all, and probably only want the “social capitalism” of Scandanavian countries.
Yep. And on the flip side, if I call a communist a socialist, it may be true technically, but I’m connotating that they want social capitalism instead of full communism.
And while theory written 100 years ago may have those terms be near equivalent, the meanings of those words have drifted a little since then.
What a dumb thing to say. Browse those instances and talk to communists/socialists there before you make weird claims about them. Or at least learn about socialism in general first.
Principles of Communism
Chris Harman - How Marxism Works
It gets touted as a transition state between Capitalism and Communism, by Communists who want to get away from Capitalism, and Capitalists who fear anything that isn’t Capitalist.
But it is a genuine economic philosophy on its own that blends the best parts of Communism and Capitalism in one. At least to my opinion.
Communists believe that socialism is a transitional state from capitalism to communism, but 1) communists aren’t the only socialists and 2) a lot of Americans think milquetoast social safety net capitalist reformers like Bernie Sanders are socialists despite them never calling for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
the hardest test for any American
How would you define communism? I hear so many different definitions and find it hard to differentiate which one is accurate.
The original definition is a community where private property is not a thing. Private property is when an individual can control the land, tools, and knowledge people need to survive. Private property is factories, not your toothbrush.
Most pro USSR, PRC, or Cuba leftists believe those countries governments controlling all or the vast majority of private property constitutes communism. Some think these countries are socialist and working their way to communism.
Many anti-communist people don’t really understand how these countries work specifically. All their ideas of what communism is are based on how they view the above communist countries.
Finally right wingers will describe California as communist because they have social programs and higher taxes than some states. Basically if the government is intervening in the market by supplying a service or good directly to a citizen that’s communism.
From what I’ve observed most people lie somewhere on this spectrum of definition.
I was kidding around, and part of the joke is how pointless the definition is:
communism: that the assets held by a body are indivisible across the individuals of that body when the assets in question are required to engage in production.
Thereby any definition of “body”, “asset” and “production” can be used to define specific types and scopes of a communist ideology.
propaganda: a piece or collection of communications that has the primary purpose to persuade.
communist propaganda: a communication to persuade the reader to share the means of production across a collective.
American says communism and means conservative democrat or Trump Republican, depending on who is saying it.
AES barely even registers, except for the occasional “Why don’t you move to Vuvuzela!”
Why isn’t anyone defending AEC countries?
Nobody actually wants to be Estonia anymore
I’ve always seen communism as a subclass of socialism, where socialism is the goal of classless, stateless society in which the public owns the means of production and distribute based on needs. Whereas communism is a way of attaining this goal, characterized by its materialistic focus and being revolutionary.
I know this differs from a lot of other uses for the terminology, but is there really a single definition of socialism that rules over the others (or communism for that matter, and does it even matter since they describe different important things)?
Are you American?
No, why do you ask?
You literally have it backwards. Communism in the context of a definition of society is the classless state. Socialism is the transitory stage (also known as a dictatorship of the proletariat).
Reminder that this is specifically when talking about state/society. If you are mentioning ideology then a communist person or a socialist might have significant diversion of views/goals. Yes, it can be confusing.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
Excerpt from ProleWiki:
I knew about this. I just do not really think anyone claiming superiority based on “define socialism and communism” as someone to be taken seriously, given that terminology is dependant on context and definitions on a base level are arbitrary if taking an axiomatic approach to theory.
Ah yes, that’s perfectly valid, the terms will be different on context (which is why I specified the state context).