• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Differences between Socialism, Marxism,Communism and Maoism?

One thing to keep in mind about all of these systems (socialism, communism, etc.) is that they largely came about as reactions against capitalist systems which had become far too corrupted, unjust, tyrannical, and/or just plain broken that they collapsed on their own. This is certainly what happened in both Russia and China prior to their communist revolutions.

If capitalism had been all that it's cracked up to be, the conditions in these and other countries would never have gotten so bad as to become an impetus for revolution in the first place. People aren't motivated to revolt if conditions are good and they're treated fairly. That's what many capitalist ideologues routinely fail to recognize.

China wasn't really capitalist though.

Until the 1911 revolution it practiced a kind of Chinese feudalism, and after that some kind of state corporatism until the communist revolution.

Even Russia had only replaced the feudal system of serfdom 50 or so years before its revolution.

The inequality and poor living conditions in these societies were not really the result of capitalism, but pre-modern economic models/societies.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Money is a motivator.

If I was working longer hours or unsocial hours i'd want to get paid more.

wealth-artisan-maslow-hierarchy-of-human-needs.jpg

Maslov's hierarchy is a decent starting place to understand motivation science. Dan Pink's book "Drive" has a really pragmatic take on motivation that boils down to durable, robust motivation needs: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. You can't really understand motivation until you understand the continuum of motivators from extrinsic (carrot and stick) types of motivators, to intermediate types of motivators (e.g. I identify as a rock climber, and us rock climbers go to the gym, so I'm motivated to go to the gym), to the most durable type of motivation, purely intrinsic (e.g. when I'm in the moment of being expert, and all my skill is in use, I'm in the flow state).

Any political system that disregards motivation science won't work in the long run.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
All "societies" are social(ist) -- to varying degrees.

As soon as we began living in groups we had to curb our perfect freedom to conform to the needs of the group, for mutual benefit.

Group living requires a social contract. Societies vary, however, in what aspects of life are modified to what degree, to meet the needs of the group; in the degree various aspects are shared for group benefit, and which are arrogated by individuals.

It's not that capitalist economies are entirely anti-social(ist), Capitalism is just a hierarchical social system in which large sections of the economy are diverted from general benefit to the benefit of a small class of individuals.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
China wasn't really capitalist though.

Until the 1911 revolution it practiced a kind of Chinese feudalism, and after that some kind of state corporatism until the communist revolution.

Even Russia had only replaced the feudal system of serfdom 50 or so years before its revolution.

The inequality and poor living conditions in these societies were not really the result of capitalism, but pre-modern economic models/societies.

Be that as it may (I won't quibble over definitions right now), I would say that their systems were closer to capitalism than they were to socialism. And the common thread is the inequality and poor living conditions. Whenever things get that bad, then people have a tendency to get restless and support more radical ideas for change.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
So how does Socialism, Marxism and Communism differ?

I was told Leninism and Maoism are the same, and Bolshievism and Stalinism are the same.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
One thing to keep in mind about all of these systems (socialism, communism, etc.) is that they largely came about as reactions against capitalist systems which had become far too corrupted, unjust, tyrannical, and/or just plain broken that they collapsed on their own. This is certainly what happened in both Russia and China prior to their communist revolutions.
That really depends. In the Gospels, Jesus basically modeled a communist lifestyle that he instructed his followers to live. It's not the same Marxist Communism that was in response to the abhorrent conditions faced by the working class during the height of Industrialism, nor the same that was a response to corruption in Russia, China, Cuba, or Nicaragua. We also practiced what can be described as socialism and communism during our earlier hunter/gather and semi-nomadic/agriculture days. Modern concepts of it are very much a response to Capitalism and corrupt regimes, but the basic ideas are rather quite ancient.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Be that as it may (I won't quibble over definitions right now), I would say that their systems were closer to capitalism than they were to socialism. And the common thread is the inequality and poor living conditions. Whenever things get that bad, then people have a tendency to get restless and support more radical ideas for change.
That too is rather iffy as one of Lenin's plans for Russia was increasing industry and manufacturing to better the nation economically. Basically going from feudalism to a strange merger of capitalism and communism. And it's largely the same in China, where the peasantry of their feudalism played a massive role in their Revolution. The Latin American Communist Revolutions were pretty much fueled by Capitalism and brutal regimes, but that wasn't the case everywhere. But inequality (it tends to be severe inequality), and poor working and living conditions of those making the gears of society turn are a common theme (the Hammer and Sickle of the Soviet Union represented workers with the hammer and peasantry with the sickle, as the stereotypical tools of those classes).
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That too is rather iffy as one of Lenin's plans for Russia was increasing industry and manufacturing to better the nation economically. Basically going from feudalism to a strange merger of capitalism and communism. And it's largely the same in China, where the peasantry of their feudalism played a massive role in their Revolution. The Latin American Communist Revolutions were pretty much fueled by Capitalism and brutal regimes, but that wasn't the case everywhere. But inequality (it tends to be severe inequality), and poor working and living conditions of those making the gears of society turn are a common theme (the Hammer and Sickle of the Soviet Union represented workers with the hammer and peasantry with the sickle, as the stereotypical tools of those classes).

Lenin's plan was to implement some measure of capitalism (New Economic Policy) as a necessary step towards preparing the country for the socialist order. But he didn't really live long enough to see it through.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Lenin's plan was to implement some measure of capitalism (New Economic Policy) as a necessary step towards preparing the country for the socialist order. But he didn't really live long enough to see it through.
Yeah. It would have been interesting to see how Soviet Russia would have turned out had Lenin lived longer and Stalin not taken over. Or anybody other than Stalin taking over after Lenin. And it's unfortunate, because what the world knows as Communism is from the twisted machinations of Stalin's mind.
 
Yeah. It would have been interesting to see how Soviet Russia would have turned out had Lenin lived longer and Stalin not taken over. Or anybody other than Stalin taking over after Lenin. And it's unfortunate, because what the world knows as Communism is from the twisted machinations of Stalin's mind.

Probably not greatly different as Stalin just picked up where Lenin left off. Gulags, man-made famines, purges, the red terror, etc were features of the Lenin regime.

If Lenin had ruled for another 30 years, he'd likely be seen in a comparable manner to the way we see Stalin as he was equally brutal and ruthless.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Love the way all the Usual Suspects who love to throw these terms around as generic epithets are avoiding a thread that will expose their ignorance.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
So how does Socialism, Marxism and Communism differ?

I was told Leninism and Maoism are the same, and Bolshievism and Stalinism are the same.
For anyone who is interested, here is my take.

Socialism is a term for a very broad set of political ideas, principles and beliefs. It's use is so varied and vague that it means different things to different speakers and can amount to just about anything.

For the most part a modern socialist political party or movement stands on a platform of redistribution (generally by taxation and selective nationalisation), workers rights (via unionisation though having workers representation on boards and worker equity share are becoming popular), and reliable access to health care, housing, welfare, and work. Internationalism, opposition to imperialism and war, and a recognition of the class struggle going on in every society are common.

I'm a socialist because I support the right of workers and working class a whole to organise and negotiate collectively. I really want a market economy with a higher proportion of cooperatives and worker owned companies - supported by legislation and tax policy that prefers local, worker owned enterprise. Also the public ownership of public goods (including land, energy, transport etc) and a redistributionist economic policy and a guarantee to every member of society of decent housing, health care and education.

In a more narrow sense socialism can also refer specifically to the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers. This is where Marxism become relevant. Marxism is the political theory that history of society is really just the history of class struggle and that each advancement of society (revolution etc) has come about through the victory of one class over another i.e. the capitalist mode of society came about through the victory of the bourgeoisie over feudalism and the land-owning aristocracy. The Marxist analysis concludes that the capitalist class will create a new class that will in turn overthrow the capitalists, seize the means of production and end the class war for good. That class is the proletariat or the workers. The person who subscribes to this idea is a Marxist.

The history of the adoption and "implementation" of Marxism is another messy story but if I had to shorten it I'd say this, Marxism is like a prophetic fairytale and trying to implement it as policy is bound to be a complete disaster.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Only in the US does anyone ever go bankrupt from medical costs.

Not true. Drugs are not covered by the state in Canada. Extreme conditions will eat assets until one hits poverty status or claims bankruptcy. The state will then step in with a standard bureaucrat outlook of basic funding which the citizen must follow outside of a court battle. Medical costs are in the top 5, 3rd I think, causes of bankruptcy filing in Canada. Look up Roger Foley for an example in which medical costs and conditions can destroy a person financially.

A state healthcare system does reduce the risk of bankruptcy due to medical procedures and normal GP care. No doubt about that in my view.


As for education, it didn't used to be expensive here in the US. Back in my day you could pay your way through most colleges with a Summer job, and many state colleges had free of heavily subsidized tuition.

Guaranteed loans from the state (Fed) probably didn't exist then. The Fed pool of money distorts the relationship between the customer (student) and the business (school) which will create price distortions. People will pay based on a subjective (no uniform standard used by all) assessment when it comes to assigning value of the product. For example convenient stores. The prices are higher than normal stores.

A lot of the issues are due to the public system feeding the private system. Something Dems created.
 
Top