Click to expand
Latest users (5): dehumanizer, mranldestroyer, pebar, radiserne, syrianassassin, anonymous(12).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#765 - dukeofkenmore (06/15/2012) [-]
Can someone explain the differences between communism, socialism, and fascism?
User avatar #830 to #765 - arisaka (06/15/2012) [-]
I could write a fucking novel about this. I have read Capital volume 1, The communist Manifesto, The Economic and Philosophical manuscripts of 1844, and various texts by Rosa Luxemburg. I think I have the jurisdiction to inform you about communism & socialism.

Socialism is not to be confused with communism. Socialism existed before Karl Marx was writing; it was originally a style of government that separated the government from the church, and favored representative government over monarchy. Its definition has obviously changed over time, becoming closer to what the modern day definition is. By the late 1890’s, socialism was exactly as it is now. There are many different types of socialism. However, the term ‘communism’ started to circulate around the early to late 1820’s. This was generally a pre-Marxian socialist society that was focused more on community and equality. Like socialism, there were different types of pre-Marxian ‘communism.’ There was Christian communism, for example. It was a pretty lose term. However, Marx took it upon himself to create a version of communism that was much more realistic, which he had based off of an analysis of history. And thus, traditional Marxism was born. After Marx had joined the official Communist League, most pre-Marxian communist groups disbanded.
A lot of people tend to think that the Russians were communists, but this is a mistake. What the Russians created was a totalitarian regime, founded on domination and manipulation. We’ve all read animal farm; we know how it worked there, don’t we? There were was still a rich and a poor, and a small majority held power while the rest of society scrambled around with what they were given to live off of. To call that communism is just absurd.
User avatar #831 to #830 - arisaka (06/15/2012) [-]
. How is a society classless, if it is dominated by a group of people who oppress another group? How is a society moneyless, if currency was still being used, and was accumulated in very small concentrations among the few who held power, versus those who didn’t? And how is a society stateless if it is dictated by a single, ruthless leader who ruled with an iron fist? It’s very simple: It isn’t classless, moneyless or stateless.
Vladimir Lenin was the founder of the 1917 Russian Revolution. But Lenin either did not read much Marx or got the completely wrong idea from what he wrote. In fact, most of his ideas came for other socialist thinkers in Russia, not Marx himself; socialists that Marx had denounced. Vladimir Lenin formed a political party in Russia, named “The Bolsheviki.” It was quickly renamed, however, to “The Communist Party,” After Marx’s term in “The Communist Manifesto.” The political programme that the Bolsheviks followed was called Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism, a very unorthodox form of Marxism, if it can even be called that. The only true similarity between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism is the terminology. For example, after the revolution, Lenin said that all of the assets of Russia would be turned over to the Bolsheviks, for the benefit of the working class. Not only does that sound horribly suspicious, but this takes power out of the hands of the people; something Marx would have denounced strongly.
Lastly, Lenin’s ‘revolution’ was hardly that. He used organized peasant soldiers, guns for hire, and even exiles in his ‘revolutionary army.’ They overthrew the government in a very short amount of time. Tsar Nicholas of Russia was actually worried of a bourgeoisie revolution, similar to that of France in the 1790’s, not a socialist one.
User avatar #833 to #831 - arisaka (06/15/2012) [-]
The majority of self-proclaimed communist countries since 1917 have all used Leninism as their base ideology. The entire Soviet-Bloc was built on the Bolshevik programme. Calling any of these “communist states” communist is not only a direct contradiction to Marx; it gives Marxism a bad reputation, a reputation that put true communism on hold for over seventy years.
Marx wanted a society where human beings could be free to live the way they wanted. The goal of the ‘socialist mode of production,’ Marx said, was to ‘satisfy human needs’, whereas in capitalism, it is simply to generate profit. This leads to the exploitation of the worker. Most Marxists agree that the Soviet union, and other countries that followed the ideas of Vladimir Lenin were not communist, but ‘state capitalist’ and ‘state despotic,’ where the government was simply one big business that used its population to generate capital. It seems much more appropriate to me. If Marx were to look at what the Soviet Union, or any other Sino-occupied or Soviet-Bloc country, he would have scoffed and said “try again.”
User avatar #835 to #833 - arisaka (06/15/2012) [-]
Communism is the final stage in historical development. There is a transitionary period to what Marx describes as 'scientific socialism,' in which the working class, as a collective entity, dismantles the foundations of capitalist society and in its wake replaces is. Money is eliminated and things are produced as they are needed because there is no profit to be made.

You make it impossible for exploitation to occur. The state is dissolved and the political power rests on everyone equally; this is called direct democracy. The country is split up into communes, and when a national debate is to be held, regardless of what it is about, everyone has a say in the future of their country. So now you understand that communism is not a political idea; it is born out of the social development of humanity. Just like how capitalists did away with feudalism, the proletarians will do away with capitalism.

Communists also do away with national barriers. We believe that culture is non-exclusive and we are all biologically the same (as in we originate from the same place) and therefore national identity is just something that holds the proletarian back from achieving it's class consciousness.

There, you have a (really, really, REALLY FUCKING) breif description of communism from an actual communist. Remember, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and all those other fucks were Leninist! Not communists!
User avatar #780 to #765 - oxan (06/15/2012) [-]
Just with socialism and communism:

Communism is based upon, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," while socialism is based upon, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Basically, communism expects people to work the best they can and only be given what they need in return. Socialism gives that extra incentive to do well by getting more reward. However, socialism is still very much about removing the gap between rich and poor. Using the new French government as an example, if you earn in excess of 1,000,000 Euros, you're going to be taxed 75% of what you earn. You're still going to earn at least 250,000 Euros, which is absolutely plenty, and then the extra tax can go towards healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.
User avatar #810 to #780 - herecomesjohnny (06/15/2012) [-]
you, uh...said the same motto twice...
User avatar #823 to #810 - oxan (06/15/2012) [-]
Clearly I was having a 'tard moment. Shit.

Communism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Socialism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".

Thanks for letting me know.
User avatar #766 to #765 - lethargus (06/15/2012) [-]
I will explain in a descending order of knowledge.

Okay, imagine you work at a factory. You make coats. You are paid $40 a coat, and the materials cost $24. They sell them for $100. Simple math dictates that there is $36 remaining. This is referred to as "excess wealth". In Capitalism, excess wealth goes to the CEO, the "fat cat".

However, in Socialism that money is given back to the government to be spent on things to better the quality of life; that excess wealth pays for healthcare, education, defense, etc. In this way, everyone still makes money, but there is not such a huge income disparity, and they have superb entitlement programs.

In Communism, wealth is "controlled" by the government and is purposely redistributed to the people. The government controls most things in Communism, and equality is forced.

Finally, fascism. Essentially, there is no limit on the government's power. There is huge expenditures for defense and military budgets. Finally, key segments of the economy are granted cartel status by the state. Think the government in 1984.
 Friends (0)