Marxism,Communism and Socialism
 

I was just reading the thread about surpuls value and it got me thinking about definitions. I believe when Karl Mark first came up with his theory of goverment he called it communism, then some of his followers called it marxism. So communism and marxism is the samething I THINK. What is socialism though? I know that that Nazis were socialist (national socialst working party or something like that) and they hated the communist. But I also remember reading one time were Lenin stated that a communist state was the utipo that he wanted to achieve and that socialism was the method to get there. So he was saying that russia was also socialist. Someone want to help me out on this one?

That's a really good question, and I have no idea what the answer is.

If any bright spark out there is going to enlighten us, then maybe they could also seperate Leninism and Trotskyism from those three, please.

[Maybe you'd have more luck with this on the Politics board.]

well true communism is supposed to have NO leaders... where all the people of the state work together to bring about a better place for all.... really great idea but impossible to achieve.... which is where socialism comes from..... its a form of government that has officials that regulate people to try and achieve a similiar thing to the above... the problem is that of course all people are curroptable.... which is why socialism/communism sux.... and the others are just their respective leader's versions of socialism....

at least I am pretty sure that is the case

Communism is more general and implies the communal ownership of goods, land, and capital. Socialism is a version of Communism in which the management of those resources and the distribution of wealth is controlled by the government. That is based on a 1973 copy of Webster's New Ideal Dictionary that I keep on my desk. As I recall, communism is an economic theory, and socialism is a political theory. Both are well intentioned, but fail to accept the reality of human nature. They reward only the lowest common denominator and do not lead to advancement of ideas or technology.

greytone

could you elaborate on that? what do you mean when you say they only reward the lowest common denominator?

if any deep questions remain, heres the manifesto that karl marx wrote.
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
Keep in mind Marx was a german, and died before the russian revolution. Something that often bothers me in school is that people assume that the form of communism that formed in russia is the same as Marx' idea of it.

com·mu·nism
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Marx·ism
1. The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

I believe that communism and marxism are used somewhat interchangeably, but Marxism is solely Karl Marx' take on communism, and his sole beliefs

Marxism

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/marx.html

http://www.marxists.org

Communism

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1/prin-com.htm

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...s/marxism.html


Socialism

http://www.worldsocialism.org/

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/

cheers ART

I mean that in a system like this, most people achieve only what they have to to get by. This is true in capitalism for some, but there, an incremental increase in production leads to an incremental improvement in quality of life. Work a little harder, bet paid a little more. In communism, work you ass off, and your neighbors and you all share in the increased production to the point that your share is not worth the extra work you have to put in.

thanks for the clarification. I see what your saying.

Aye, And that (IMO) is the key problem with communism. Of course the key problem with capitlism is that some people don't work their asses off at all yet get to share in the increased production.

According to Marx, people wouldn't work their asses off--they would do what they would naturally do regardless. He believed that human nature was fulfilled by producing (or creating). Thus, a farmer would happily farm all day at his (or her) leisure as long as all other needs were met (house payment, electricity, etc.). Marx would argue that our capitalist society has created a false dichotomy between "work" (how we make our living) and "leisure" (the time we are not working). Absent commodity fetichism and owners stealing surplus labor, people would conduct themselves in ways that fulfilled them--that is, there would be no segregation of work from leisure as they would become synonymous because people would be freed to reach their species-being.

There are somethings i d like to clearify
1. There is nothing wrong with communism, what is wrong is human nature.
2. Communism is both a economical theory and a political idology
3. Democracy sux. U americans always say that bs about freedom and the right to vote for ones ruler. Thats pure bull when it is the elctoral colledge system the select the president not the people

Actully democracy is okay its just overbearing. Republics (which is what America really is if you think about it) suck. In a true democracy there would be a public vote for every single decision the goverment makes. A republic is more along the lines of putting trusted people to make the smaller decisions for us.

-

<b>Capitalism</b> = "I am entitled to what <i>I</i> earn by virtue of my hard work, innovation, intelligence, and merit."

<b>Socialism</b> = "I am entitled to what <i>you</i> have and I will use the government to get it from you."

The foundation of Socialist thinking--those who succeed are the cause of others' failure.

Never forget, the government can't give you anything unless it first takes it from someone else.

Communism cant work, because it doesn’t take into account human nature. Capitalism does, which is why the American economy is so much stronger than the rest of the worlds.

Oh, jeez, thanks Mojo. Is that the Oxford Dictionary definition or Webster's Unabridged?

This is going to sound harsh, but I don't think your post warrants a longer response. If those are really your considered opinions, then please try and think a little beyond the cliches and falsehoods that some proponents of capitalism weave. There's a whole world of thoughts and possibilities out there and you may just find you enjoy looking at some of them.

Websters - Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
<b>1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods</b>
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
<b>3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done</b>

<b>4thTimeLucky</b> -
So tell me how my opinions are “cliches and falsehoods that some proponents of capitalism weave”? And then tell me where these societies are in a better way of life than capitalist societies? On paper, Marxism,Communism and Socialism, might work. But in reality they don’t. (except in Star Trek) Go read or rent 1984

i think of socialism as a mixture of communism and free markets.

Socialism will not use the government to get it from you. They will use the revolution to get it from you and then the new government will own the means of production.

That is not the foundation of socialist thinking. If it were then it would, almost by definition, be self-defeating: anyone who succeeded in achieving a succesful socialist state would - according to this supposed founding principle - cause the citizens of that state to be failures, but then it wouldn't be successful!
The foundation of socialist thinking is that the means of production and the state's resources belong to all the citizens of the state and not the rich and powerful minority.



Do you really think that socialist thinkers like Marx wrote three volume tracts like Das Capital without thinking about human nature? In fact the whole of socialist thought is about human nature. It says that power accumulates and an elite will try and subjugate the masses. Arguably this is what happened in America...

What is the use of a "strong economy" if it doesn't benefit the majority of the people in that economy?

With regard to your latest post, I was not arguing in favour of socialism, I merely wanted to point out the simplicity and inaccuracy of your post.

If you want to get into a debate about how Cuba has one of, if not the, best health care system and medical research industries in the world and has proved to be a relatively prosperous country, all in the face of a relentless economic and political war waged by the biggest economy in the world, then we can do. But that wasn't why I said what I did.

4thTimeLucky Quote: "Cuba has one of, if not the, best health care system and medical research industries in the world and has proved to be a relatively prosperous country"

I AM INTERESTED IN WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION ON CUBA. P.M. THE LINK TO ME OR THE BOOK INFO.

I have no problem with someone starting at the bottom and working their way to riches. And if they do that and now that group of 2% controls 40% of the property I wouldn't have problem with it. The problem comes from the fact that rich people have rich kids who eventully have rich kids and they use their riches to remain rich (as a rule) Which is the problem with capitalism. You have a large number of rich people who did nothing more then be born rich. And ALOT of poor people who made no crime other then being born poor.

No reason to shout. Here's a book you can start on:
Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs, by Noam Chomsky. The whole book is relevant to current affairs but chapter 6: Cuba and the US Government: David vs. Goliath will start you in the direction 4thTimeLucky was going.

would be socialists checkout my post at Political Philosophy...in this forum

w/o a little bit of socialism, the poor would always remain poor w/o the ability to work their way up.

I am an official CO by the government but I was for the Iraq War...hoped for weeks that it would happen...nothing is simple

the poor without govt help have more self esteem...govt just has to do less of covering the asses of the rich

Hahahahaha - wasn't shouting, I couldn't figure out how to edit the html so only part of his quote posted. Figured the caps would differentiate my text from his. Last time all this funky stuff showed up on the page. I need to learn html code. Hahahaha that was funny.

Oh yeah, thanks for the book reference.

lol, no problem :). Here's a few articles you can check out online:

Why Conservatives Should Like Cubaand

Branding Cuba: La Vida Nike

socialism isn't bad in moderation. In fact, we in the Netherlands have a bit of socialism in our political system. That's the part that takes care of the sick with universal healthcare and insurance; it's the part that gives equal access to education to everyone; it's the part that gives unemployed people some money so they might survive until they get a new job; it's the part where it's not all about me, me, me, but also about you, and you, and everyone else.

In a pure capitalist society (if such a thing is even possible), the rich would get richer, and the poor would always remain poor. In theory, everyone would have equal access to the market of CEOs, and everyone would have a chance of becoming rich. In reality, it is obvious that the rich would have a much better chance of getting well-paid jobs in postitions of power, while the poor would not (for lack of education and lack of friends in high places, amongst others).

l