• 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?

ronki23

Well-Known Member
I don't really understand the differences between these ideologies but from what I know there's no incentive to get an education or study if your income is going to be the same whatever you do.

How can there be equality in these countries if people who work for the government get more money than the general public?

 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Maoism is based on the ancient Dynasty pyramid dynastic structure rule of China.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't really understand the differences between these ideologies but from what I know there's no incentive to get an education or study if your income is going to be the same whatever you do.

How can there be equality in these countries if people who work for the government get more money than the general public?

People don't always work for money. They work for status. being a respected member of your community is a stronger motivator than gross income.
Other countries produce competent engineers, doctors, lawyers, &c, without extraordinary salaries.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
At the most basic (it would be a very long post to describe the differences); Socialism and Communism are economic theories, with Marxism and Maoism being forms of communism.
The differences between Socialism and Communism can be a headache, and often the two are used interchangeable (it usually depends on the exact type when it comes to who owns what, but public/common ownership is a key theme that differentiates these two from Capitalism). It's much easier to describe the different types, of which Marxism is a type of communism that puts the proletariat (working class) ahead (and due to Marx not giving much of an outline of how to get there or how to run it there are probably as many different schools of Marxism as there are books he wrote), with a goal of a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. Maoism is considered a form of Marxism, but it's very heavily based on a Chinese mindset, compared to the German/Western mindset of Marx. But there is also religious communism, which is typically small groups living communally (as is the set up in many small communes). And there are even some socialist/communist business models where the workers are the owners.
And, also, lots of people work for more than just money. Prestige and respect are also a pretty big motivators.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
People don't always work for money. They work for status. being a respected member of your community is a stronger motivator than gross income.
Other countries produce competent engineers, doctors, lawyers, &c, without extraordinary salaries.

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
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If I was working longer hours or unsocial hours i'd want to get paid more.
You'd want to get paid more, but issue of being paid more is entirely another issue (in my experience, it tends to be a no, or amounts so small it doesn't matter).
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
At the most basic (it would be a very long post to describe the differences); Socialism and Communism are economic theories, with Marxism and Maoism being forms of communism.
The differences between Socialism and Communism can be a headache, and often the two are used interchangeable (it usually depends on the exact type when it comes to who owns what, but public/common ownership is a key theme that differentiates these two from Capitalism). It's much easier to describe the different types, of which Marxism is a type of communism that puts the proletariat (working class) ahead (and due to Marx not giving much of an outline of how to get there or how to run it there are probably as many different schools of Marxism as there are books he wrote), with a goal of a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. Maoism is considered a form of Marxism, but it's very heavily based on a Chinese mindset, compared to the German/Western mindset of Marx. But there is also religious communism, which is typically small groups living communally (as is the set up in many small communes). And there are even some socialist/communist business models where the workers are the owners.
And, also, lots of people work for more than just money. Prestige and respect are also a pretty big motivators.

I heard that for Communism to work you need to generate the money via Capitalism. Is this true?

I've always thought that Socialism would be good with countries where there's a lot of poverty i.e. China or India. If i'm not mistaken South Africa was Communist under Mandela?

I am actually someone who believes in private enterprise and private healthcare but I would like the money from taxation to go toward education- the cost of University in the UK is extortion. America is even worse!

The reason I want healthcare private is you pay only when you need it. Education is not a guarantee to getting a high paying job- you have to do the studying. Why would you pay AND do the studying?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The reason I want healthcare private is you pay only when you need it.
Everyone needs it though, and emergencies are expensive and unpredictable.
I heard that for Communism to work you need to generate the money via Capitalism. Is this true?
It would depend - under Marxism there is no money. In countless communes and villages, there is no money. If your system doesn't acknowledge money, you don't have money.
I've always thought that Socialism would be good with countries where there's a lot of poverty i.e. China or India.
It can. It's also working fine in places like Sweden.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I don't really understand the differences between these ideologies but from what I know there's no incentive to get an education or study if your income is going to be the same whatever you do.

How can there be equality in these countries if people who work for the government get more money than the general public?

I also wouldn't rely on that to understand your questions. It does hint at some things not often known, such as Stalin sabotaging what Lenin was building up, but there is no mention of Khrushchev beginning to bring forth needed reform, nor does it include that Gorbachev's way to "handle real power" was basically to just throw in the towel, give up, call it quits, and let it all crumble without trying to soften the blow. But the video is interesting in that it highlights the fact that Marxists who have been in power have not agreed much beyond "proletariat = good, bourgeoisie = bad." (this is probably due to Marx having not laid out much of a plan) Would have been interesting for Marx and Trotsky to have made an appearance.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I heard that for Communism to work you need to generate the money via Capitalism. Is this true?
Socialism means different things to different people.
Wealth/money is generated by workers. In Capitalism the employer, who generates none of the wealth himself, pockets most of the profit, returning only enough to retain the workers.
In socialism the workers are also the owners, and share the wealth amongst themselves, as well as any management and organizing that would normally be done by the owner.
I am actually someone who believes in private enterprise and private healthcare but I would like the money from taxation to go toward education- the cost of University in the UK is extortion. America is even worse!
The reason I want healthcare private is you pay only when you need it. Education is not a guarantee to getting a high paying job- you have to do the studying. Why would you pay AND do the studying?
Why can't the tax money go for both?
The US government spends >$6,000 per individual on healthcare, and citizens still have to pay insurance costs, co-pays, out-of-pocket charges and pharmaceutical charges on top of that. The UK, till recently at least, covered everyone at half that cost, with no insurance charges, no co-pays, &c. Everyone got the care they needed and never saw a bill. It was like our socialized, US police or fire services.
Only in the US does anyone ever go bankrupt from medical costs.

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.

Taxes for college needn't be an "expense." Historically, the GI bill -- in which the government paid for the education of returning, WWII G-Is -- returned a 7:1 profit on the investment, over 20 years, from taxes alone -- to say nothing of the other social benefits of an educated populace.

When you privatize everything, deregulate, and raise the pursuit of profit to be the measure of all things, it's not surprised that there are a thousand fingers in every pie, and costs become extortionate.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't really understand the differences between these ideologies but from what I know there's no incentive to get an education or study if your income is going to be the same whatever you do.

How can there be equality in these countries if people who work for the government get more money than the general public?


It's not your key point, but are you really suggesting the only reason to educate yourself is money?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It can. It's also working fine in places like Sweden.

I sometimes find people tagging countries as 'Socialist' or 'Capitalist' when all countries are a mix of various systems.

Not suggesting you're doing this, just that your post reminded me of that.

So Sweden is more Socialist than Australia, which is more Socialist then the US. However it's less Socialist than Finland.

The trick isn't in working out which camp is right (extremism always seems the wrong answer, based on my experience), but rather what and how is the most effective blend.

Plenty here would disagree with me. Of course, they're allowed to be wrong.

(Supposed to be a smilie sticking out his tongue here, but it won't render!!)
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
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

It's a motivator because of the choices and access it provides.
That hasn't been universally true through history, though.

Maslov's pyramid is timeless and spans cultures (at least in theory). Money, and it's relationship to that pyramid does not.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I don't really understand the differences between these ideologies but from what I know there's no incentive to get an education or study if your income is going to be the same whatever you do.

How can there be equality in these countries if people who work for the government get more money than the general public?

Please, go and learn about what these various systems actually imply. It's not that hard, their main ideals are indicated by the system-labels, themselves. Just because the Chinese leaders call themselves "socialist", or "communist", or whatever, does not mean that they are. Totalitarian dictatorships never call themselves totalitarian dictatorships, even though that is how they function, and therefor what they are. We call ourselves a "democracy", and yet we have become a full-on oligarchic plutocracy. Our elections have become nothing more than a sham intended to create the illusion that the people have control of the machinations of the government. And yet every candidate we are allowed to vote for is an actively participating plutocrat. And anyone who is not, is effectively barred from running for office.
 
Last edited:

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Education is not the same as an apprenticeship or training, leading to work.
Education is worthwhile for its own sake. It seems that most people who study at university actually find work in an entirely different Area.
In Socialist and Communist countries that is no different.
Education in such countries is at least as good as in capitalist ones.
There have been times in China under Mao and the cultural revolution when the intelligentsia were purged. this had a devastating effect on China and set them back for years, this has now been corrected.
It is easier to find examples of poor regard for education and bad schooling in the USA.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I heard that for Communism to work you need to generate the money via Capitalism. Is this true?

I've always thought that Socialism would be good with countries where there's a lot of poverty i.e. China or India. If i'm not mistaken South Africa was Communist under Mandela?

I am actually someone who believes in private enterprise and private healthcare but I would like the money from taxation to go toward education- the cost of University in the UK is extortion. America is even worse!

The reason I want healthcare private is you pay only when you need it. Education is not a guarantee to getting a high paying job- you have to do the studying. Why would you pay AND do the studying?

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.
 
Top