Can I get a leftist to qualify this idea?

[Kidblop]

Hello I'm kidblop. Im trying to understand socialism and communism. I was talking with a friend mine and she said that the best examples of working socialism can be found in scattered places like the paris commune. from what i understand socialism is a political and economic system where the workers and people have power with a state they use to their advantage over everything and communism is where there isn't a state.

my friend said the closest examples of political socialism are in switzerland and sweden and the best examples of economic socialism is the economy of Yugoslovia under Tito when it was run by the workers instead of the state. can anyone qualify this?

she also said under communism every decision would be made under a frame of democracy, autonomy, with both of these becoming increasingly irrelavent because workers' councils and individuals would make most decisions without resorting to democracy. She said there wouldn't be money because people would have work places where everyone enjoys working and that hours would be reduced to something near 2 to 4 hours a day. the difference between delegates and representatives is that representatives have a separate vote in matters while delegates are told to do something by the people directly. Like wash the TV instead of "do what you want." can anyone qualify this?

thanks.

 

[Mathematician]

Socialism, when viewed from the perspective of a Marxist, would be the stage in development when the workers seize control of the state and use it to democratize the means of production. Classes still exist (small business owners), but for the most part the proletariat, or wage laborers, would be the main force in production and decision-making. The republican system would be slowly dismantled to allow for better representation by the working class - around 85% of the population for developed countries. Whereas now the bourgeoisie control the media, property, and the means of production, under socialism it would fall on the workers.

Communism is the conclusion of past history. Technology would produce abundance in almost field, negating the need for a state and possibly money. It is the end of existing history because classes are eliminated. Decision-making is completely democratized; there are no longer corporations that allow for the bourgeoisie to make fortunes. Small businesses are inoperable due to the productive forces of workers' councils and the lack of need for money. Everyone has a similar approach to the economic and political organization of society.

the difference between delegates and representatives is that representatives have a separate vote in matters while delegates are told to do something by the people directly. Like wash the TV instead of "do what you want." can anyone qualify this?

Yes. Representatives make decisions for the people. Under communism the people will make all the decisions for themselves.

is the economy of Yugoslovia under Tito when it was run by the workers instead of the state. can anyone qualify this?

Tito's administration applied syndicalism to its operations. The workers were a strong force in economic matters. Although Yugoslavia ran on a market economy, most firms were cooperatives. Only small businesses were allowed to employ people through a non-democratic system. I would say it's socialist; the only principle missing from the economy was a lack of unemployment. The state should have picked up anyone needing work and utilized them for infrastructure or education programs.

my friend said the closest examples of political socialism are in switzerland and sweden

They're still bourgeoisie republics, but the systems in place are very progressive.