• 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!

Socialism vs Communism

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

For the benefit of us ignorant capitalist supporters?

why-are-they-so-afraid-ofa-socialist-economy-because-americans-41590222.png
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

For the benefit of us ignorant capitalist supporters?

why-are-they-so-afraid-ofa-socialist-economy-because-americans-41590222.png
For a start it might be useful to realise that no American politician advocates socialism in any recognisable way, let alone communism. Even the most left wing among them only advocate a mild from of social democracy, of the type we have had in Europe for decades.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

For the benefit of us ignorant capitalist supporters?

why-are-they-so-afraid-ofa-socialist-economy-because-americans-41590222.png
Socialism: You give according your ability and receive according to what you gave, communism you give according your ability and receive according your needs.
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
For a start it might be useful to realise that no American politician advocates socialism in any recognisable way, let alone communism. Even the most left wing among them only advocate a mild from of social democracy, of the type we have had in Europe for decades.

Exactly why we should differentiate between this mild socialism being advocated by leftist politicians in the US and communism.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Socialism: You give according your ability and receive according to what you gave, communism you give according you ability and receive according your needs.

Socialism sounds like capitalism. Is there a difference then between capitalism and socialism?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
For a start it might be useful to realise that no American politician advocates socialism in any recognisable way, let alone communism. Even the most left wing among them only advocate a mild from of social democracy, of the type we have had in Europe for decades.

True for American "socialism".

If you believe in universal single-payer healthcare; a generous welfare state with extensive social coverage; collective bargaining; trade union activism; progressive taxation (including, even, AOC's marginal tax as high as 70% on the rich); free college tuition etc.....but within the context of a regulated market economy, then you are neither a "socialist" nor a "communist" in the technical social-scientific sense.

In Europe, we call such things social democracy (as you note) but even continental conservatives - such as the Christian Democrats or EPP, the EU's centre-right political group which includes Angela Merkel's party in Germany - traditionally espouse a "social market economy". Its ultimately derived from Catholic Social Teaching and was first implemented in post-war West Germany in 1949 by the devout Catholic chancellor Konrad Adenauer:


Social market economy - Wikipedia


The social market economy (SOME; German: soziale Marktwirtschaft), also called Rhine capitalism, is a socioeconomic model combining a free market capitalist economic system alongside social policies that establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state.[1] It is sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy.[2] The social market economy was originally promoted and implemented in West Germany by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1949.[3] Its origins can be traced to the interwar Freiburg school of economic thought.[4]

The social market economy was designed to be a third way between laissez-faire economic liberalism and socialist economics.[5] It was strongly inspired by ordoliberalism,[6] social democratic reformism and the political ideology of Christian democracy, or more generally the tradition of Christian ethics.[7][5] The social market economy refrains from attempts to plan and guide production, the workforce, or sales, but it does support planned efforts to influence the economy through the organic means of a comprehensive economic policy coupled with flexible adaptation to market studies. Combining monetary, credit, trade, tax, customs, investment and social policies as well as other measures, this type of economic policy aims to create an economy that serves the welfare and needs of the entire population, thereby fulfilling its ultimate goal.[8]


This is just 'normal' conservative Christian economics in mainland Europe (outside the UK, where we have evil Toryism but even this ideology holds the NHS - national health service - to be beyond reproach, at least notionally), or 'Blairism' in the UK.

However, it must be noted that the New Testament and early church did advocate actual proto-socialism:


Acts 4:32-35: "No one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them...it was distributed to each as any had need."

In the US, you guys have a caricature of real conservatism called the "Republican Party", which makes normal, sane market politics look like radical socialistic revolutionary rhetoric by comparison. The British Tories are getting there now as well, departing since Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s from the Keynesian postwar consensus:


Post-war consensus - Wikipedia

The post-war consensus is a thesis that describes the political co-operation in post-war British political history, from the end of World War II in 1945 to the late-1970s, and its repudiation by Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher. Majorities in both parties agreed upon it. The consensus tolerated or encouraged nationalisation, strong trade unions, heavy regulation, high taxes, and a generous welfare state.[1]

The concept states that there was a widespread consensus that covered support for a coherent package of policies that were developed in the 1930s and promised during the Second World War, focused on a mixed economy, Keynesianism, and a broad welfare state.[2]


Until Thatcher came to power in 1979, both British political parties - the left-wing Labour and the right-wing Conservatives - believed in these general policies.
 
Last edited:

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

Socialism developed as an ideology out of the French Revolution of 1789. For most of the 19th century, Socialism, Communism and Anarchism were interchangeable concepts. However, following the Paris Commune (1871) the Anarchist split away in rejecting Marx's belief in the need for a state after a revolution. In 1917, the general trend was that Communists supported the Russian Revolution and the Socialists were those who opposed it or were critical of it. Socialists often attacked the Russian revolution as contrary to various ethical principles such as being anti-democratic, inhumane, etc.

The rest of the 20th century consisted in solidifying these divisions, with Anarchists conducing experiments in Ukraine and Catalonia in opposition to communists, and whilst communists established one-party rule in the USSR, eastern Europe and china, as Socialists continued to support multi-party systems in the west (particularly after world war II).

There are two major issues with this. The first is that Marxists used "socialism" to refer to the lower stage of Communist society. So the USSR was in the socialist stage of communism rather than "full communism".

The second issue is based on major disagreements over the nature of the state. Marxists defined state in terms of which class was ruling and therefore insisted that "socialism" and "anarchism" were ultimately capitalist in nature because they continued to perpetuate traditions of individual rights and representative democracy characteristic of capitalist economies in which there was decentralisation of control and competition. Whilst communism was based on centralisation of political and economic power and the triumph of state planning and social engineering over individual rights. This creates a huge amount of theoretical ambiguity over what is "socialism" and what is "capitalism" because of the level of disagreement amongst socialists, communists and anarchists themselves.

In the west however, we conventionally use "socialism" to refer to anything related to the state. This is why you get people debating if Fascism or Nazism was left-wing (because it insisted on big government) or right-wing (because it insisted on hierarchical or class divisions in society). This definition virtually eliminates any distinction between socialism and communism by treating any expansion of government as the road to a totalitarian dictatorship (irrespective of whether someone intends to build a totalitarian or democratic regime).

So the definition of socialism changes quite radically depending on who you are talking to.
 
Last edited:

leov

Well-Known Member
Socialism sounds like capitalism. Is there a difference then between capitalism and socialism?
As I said, only rewards of one's labor. Communism implies NEW communist consciousness that allows different kind of distribution when one is fully provided while working according one's ability. It is higher economic and moral basis of society.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
This creates a huge amount of theoretical ambiguity over what is "socialism" and what is "capitalism" because of the level of disagreement amongst socialists, communists and anarchists themselves.

Indeed, socialism predates the "Communist Manifesto," an 1848 pamphlet by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by a few decades. There are many forms of non-Marxian socialism, such as Utopian socialism and anarchism (among many others).

Whilst this is all very accurate, historically speaking, academic parlance has a relatively simple means of distinguishing the plurality of 'socialisms' from the diverse 'marketeerisms':

Do you believe that private ownership should be abolished and the means of production made public property / social ownership?

If not, then you're not a "socialist" (in the technical sense employed among social-scientists) but a social democrat / social marketeer at best imho. (Anarchist socialists still believe in the abolition of private ownership (alongside hierarchical authority and the state), unlike anarcho-capitalists).
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Indeed, socialism predates the "Communist Manifesto," an 1848 pamphlet by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by a few decades. There are many forms of non-Marxian socialism, such as Utopian socialism and anarchism (among many others).

Whilst this is all very accurate, historically speaking, academic parlance has a relatively simple means of distinguishing the plurality of 'socialisms' from the diverse 'marketeerisms':

Do you believe that private ownership should be abolished and the means of production made public property / social ownership?

If not, then your not a "socialist" but a social democrat / social marketeer at best imho. (Anarchists still believe in the abolition of private ownership).

That's a fair working definition for a western democracy. It's the same way as you could define all Christian denominations are ultimately coming from Christ's teachings. But there are a huge number of denominations originating from that one position, some overlapping whilst others wildly antagonistic and hostile to each other.

The split between "evolutionary" socialism and "revolutionary" communism after 1917 was similar to the split between Catholics and Protestants in Christianity in that they shared common origins, but are different destinations. From a distance, defining it in terms of social versus private ownership is "ok", but the deeper you get involved in the controversies the inadequacies of that definition will begin to show up.

Religious varieties of socialism, communism and anarchism do exist but have sought to distance themselves from those terms particular in the 20th century given the history of state-sponsored persecution of religious believers in communist countries. The relationship between Socialism, Communism and Religion is another major area of dispute within the far left.

[Edit: Marxism-Leninism as Soviet style communism attempted to become an all-encompassing worldview, and so that actually made everything subject to dispute as a "total" ideology. Philosophy, Art, Science, Music, Logic, Politics, Economics, Language, literally everything. There is very little that isn't disputed amongst communists and socialists if you look hard enough.]
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
That's a fair working definition for a western democracy.

If I may ask, do you think that 'socialism' - however defined in its manifold applications - is compatible with a free market economy?

I would personally say no (as would most Western academics in the field of political science).

It would be difficult for me to consider any political ideology within the context of a market economy as "socialistic", however regulated it may be.

And I say that as someone sympathetic, on the basis of New Testament / Patristic principles, to socialisation as an ideal.

To most continental Europeans, I think anything involving the survival of a market economy and the institution of private ownership is marketeerism (not necessarily 'capitalism' but certainly a market economy and we would strictly distinguish that from socialism. In America, the terminology and definitions are completely different).

Your posts are very informative in this regard and I ask only out of interest / for personal edification!
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Ok, so as I see it, the American ideal for socialists is a capitalist economy with governmental regulation of healthcare, education and welfare. Pretty much we have that already don't we? Or what else do you feel needs to be done?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
There are so many different kinds of socialism that the word has very little meaning without qualification. State control of the means of production is only one form. Democratic socialism or social democracy is quite another as noted above.

But to illustrate how broad the word 'socialism' has become, take, for example, libertarian socialism:
It advocates a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production (socialism).[47] They propose that this economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Adherents propose achieving this through decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale private property and enterprise (while retaining respect for personal property). Libertarian socialism tends to deny the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, viewing capitalist property relation as a form of domination that is antagonistic to individual freedom.[48]
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok, so as I see it, the American ideal for socialists is a capitalist economy with governmental regulation of healthcare, education and welfare. Pretty much we have that already don't we? Or what else do you feel needs to be done?
We do not have that. We have privatized healthcare, higher education and a trivially small social welfare which is not a viable source of living income for those who need it. And getting smaller all the time.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok, so as I see it, the American ideal for socialists is a capitalist economy with governmental regulation of healthcare, education and welfare. Pretty much we have that already don't we? Or what else do you feel needs to be done?

America has not yet implemented any of the distributive reforms that European social democrats / social marketeers introduced from the 1940s - 1960s.

You'd first need universal single-payer healthcare, stronger trade unions (perhaps even with collective bargaining ("workplace democracy")), much better subsidised or even free tuition (as here in Scotland, where tuition fees are free) and far more extensive social welfare, before even getting to the level of being a real social democracy / social market economy.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If I may ask, do you think that 'socialism' - however defined in its manifold applications - is compatible with a free market economy?

I would say no (as would most Western academics in the field of political science).

It would be difficult for me to consider any political ideology within the context of a market economy as "socialistic".

And I say that as someone sympathetic, on the basis of New Testament / Patristic principles, to socialisation as an ideal.

I've almost religiously tried not to take position on these things but to try to "explore" what happened and what is possible to try and take it all in. This works fine for almost anything other than a Soviet-style communist as they value ideological purity in ways that are pretty shocking to western sensibilities (e.g. getting killed for even the slightest and obscure deviation from the party line as a kind of blasphemy or heresy).

On paper, what you're saying makes alot of sense. If you are thinking about a "pure" socialism in the abstract it is going to involve the government owning and controlling everything on behalf of society. This works fine if you are a western academic, but not if you are a communist party member trying to implement these ideas. In practice, this isn't what happened and socialist and communist movements fluctuated on the degree to which they used state control and markets depending on the circumstances. Even under Stalin people still had "personal property" in terms of owning objects of consumption (e.g. house, car, toothbrush, clothes) and Stalin praised monetary incentives to increase labour productivity. The Soviets spent a great deal of time shifting between degrees of state planning and more decentralised market transactions, particuarly in agriculture where co-operatives (rather than state ownership) were the norm. You can see this in the contrast between North Korea's overwhelmingly state system and China's heavy emphasis on the market economy today, even as both a nominally ruled by communist parties adhering to roughly the same ideology.

For Western politics, Tony Blair's "New Labour" was based on the idea of a "third way" that could achieve socialistic objectives (such as better healthcare and education) whilst using capitalist methods (markets, monetary incentives, etc). This idea dates back at least as far as the 1950's with the controversy over Anthony Crossland's "The Future of Socialism". In the book Crossland tries to separate Socialism as a set of moral values from state ownership and this led to battles over "clasue IV" in the labour party constitution that committed it to the "nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange". What's going on in the UK labour party right now could be interpreted in the light of who is the "true" socialists; Jeremy Corbyn with his program for nationalisation, or Tony Blair with the "third way" of "new labour" with all its privatisation and deregulation.

The Soviets had something of a similar dispute when they took power. When the Bolsheviks took power in 1917 they introduced "war communism" and made efforts to eliminate markets and money, introducing food rationing in major cities and "conscripted" people in to "labour battalons" so there would be strict military regimentation and labour discipline in the work force. Bluntly, it didn't work and so they then introduce the "New Economic Policy" which accepted a greater extent of Market transactions With the rise of Stalin, the New Economic policy was brought to an end, but echos of it persist in the market reforms in China. So the debate on "is china socialist" today depends on whether you think markets make it capitalist or not.

None of this covers religious forms of socialism which may be more relevant to your interests. But I hope it's suggesting there is a universe of possibilities in how society can be re-designed or re-invented without capitalism. As capitalism is taken to be self-evidently "natural" or "realistic" that's always been the part that intrigued me.
So, I can give you plenty of information if you want to know but I'll let you make up your own mind. :D
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
We do not have that. We have privatized healthcare, higher education and a trivially small social welfare which is not a viable source of living income for those who need it. And getting smaller all the time.

Do you think there is a way to accomplish this without increasing taxes?

My concern is often money is asked for by the government to benefit these things but ends up going for something else.

I don't mind taxes so much as the fear that the government will spend the money is ways that will not benefit the public. Once the government has their hands on the money there is no gurantee that they will do the right thing with it.

For me, the government seems every bit as greedy as these big corporations.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
None of this covers religious forms of socialism which may be more relevant to your interests. But I hope it's suggesting there is a universe of possibilities in how society can be re-designed or re-invented without capitalism. As capitalism is taken to be self-evidently "natural" or "realistic" that's always been the part that intrigued me.

Another fantastic and informative post, thank you! Please keep 'em coming.

On the religious forms of socialism that interest me.....

My religious tradition is very hostile to 'capitalism' (as anything even notionally based around the teachings of Jesus has to be) but has equally distanced itself from 20th century 'state-socialism' of the Communist variety because of Marxist-Leninist appropriation of the term for the purposes of state-imposed atheism, a material determinist dialectic / reading of history, planned economics involving forced collectivisation, cultural nihilism, genocide, denial of individual liberty and autonomy and class warfare achieved through means of revolutionary violence.

All of these are anathema to Christian doctrine, which is why postwar European Catholics pursued the foundation of social democracies / social market economies from the 1940s onwards, in opposition to the Soviet Bloc and American capitalism. Pope St. John Paul II wrote in 1987, in his encyclical letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: “The tension between East and West is an opposition… between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction… This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism.”

The Vatican approved of the the British Labour Party in the 1930s:


Socialists who do not profess atheistic materialism and do not fight against religion, freedom and public morality, as for example the English Socialist party of Laborites, are not condemned by the Church

( Vatican, L’Osservatore Della Domenica, May 24th 1931 ).

This is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI argued:


firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents


EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS

by Pope Benedict XVI

January 2006

"Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics...In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness."​


Pope John Paul II stated in Laborem Exercens that he supported “ socialisation versus collectivisation”:


Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981) | John Paul II

The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism. At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism and by the political systems inspired by it...

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production

The many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church take on special significance: proposals for joint ownership of the means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and/or profits of businesses…

Merely converting the means of production into State property in the collectivist system is by no means equivalent to “socializing” that property .

It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which man’s work is properly remunerated in the system. Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole ethical and social order, namely, the principle of the common use of goods

Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure the life and health of workers and their families play a part here. The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge…


See:

"…In Quadragesimo Anno Pope Pius XI referred to the liberal theory of uncontrolled competition as a ‘poisoned spring’ from which have originated all the errors of individualism. The French hierarchy, commenting upon the same pope’s letter on communism, stated: 'By condemning the actions of communist parties, the Church does not support the capitalist regime. It is most necessary that it be realized that in the very essence of capitalism that is to say, in the absolute value that it gives to property without reference to the common good or to the dignity of labor there is a materialism rejected by Christian teaching…"

- U.S. Bishops, Pastoral Letter (1980) 62.


This is what Catholic doctrine teaches.

I think the Catholic tradition (and many American Catholics are in denial about this) is actually closer to being 'libertarian-socialistic' in ethos, in that it doesn't hold private property to be an absolute right but a qualified one subject to the universal destination of goods / common good and supports limited government through our belief in natural rights. See my thread from March 2018 on the Church Fathers views on economics:


"Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them"?


St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446)

Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs

St. Ambose (De Nabuthe, c.12, n.53, cited in Populorum Progressio of Paul VI):

You are not making a gift of your possessions to poor persons. You are handing over to them what is theirs. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.


Jesus as presented in the gospel tradition criticised all hierarchical relationships based upon power, privilege & exploitation (like anarchism) but combined this with freedom of the will/non-compulsion (like libertarianism) and communal property ownership with redistributive welfare based upon need (like socialism) in a non-statist ecclesiastical form.

In the US, some elements of this philosophy were enunciated and put into practice by Servant of God Dorothy Day and her Catholic Worker Movement:

Celebrating the life of Dorothy Day: Catholic, Anarchist, Socialist

Dorothy Day - Wikiquote


Dorothy Day (8 November 189729 November 1980) was an American journalist turned social activist. A pacifist, anarchist and a devout member of the Catholic Church, she advocated distributism and was a co-founder, with Peter Maurin, of the Catholic Worker movement. She authored several books and spoke often in public about faith and social justice.

It is only through religion that communism can be achieved, and has been achieved over and over.
  • From Union Square to Rome (1938)

Marx... Lenin... Mao Tse-Tung... These men were animated by the love of brother and this we must believe though their ends meant the seizure of power, and the building of mighty armies, the compulsion of concentration camps, the forced labor and torture and killing of tens of thousands, even millions.
  • "The Incompatibility of Love and Violence," Catholic Worker (May 1951)
We need to change the system. We need to overthrow, not the government, as the authorities are always accusing the Communists 'of conspiring to teach [us] to do,' but this rotten, decadent, putrid industrial capitalist system which breeds such suffering in the whited sepulcher of New York.
  • "On Pilgrimage," Catholic Worker (September 1956)
We also know that religion, as the Marxists have always insisted, has, too often, like an opiate, tended to put people to sleep to the reality and the need for the present struggle for peace and justice.
  • "Month of the Dead," Catholic Worker (November 1959)
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
Ok, so as I see it, the American ideal for socialists is a capitalist economy with governmental regulation of healthcare, education and welfare. Pretty much we have that already don't we? Or what else do you feel needs to be done?
Healthcare is not universal, education is not universal, and public welfare is not universal. And worse then that, they are deliberately designed to be 'poverty traps' that punish anyone who dares to try and escape them by earning ANY amount of income.
 
Top