[jmpeer]

As the topic states, what is the most basic definition of socialism and communism?

Just by looking at the words, I would assume socialism is a relative change in the basis of social relations, as with government, property, or religion, and communism is a form of socialism in which socially valuable property, like industry, is owned by the public through the state (or not, if you're against the state...).

To me, this makes sense considering how they've been used interchangeably and how there are a variety of additional, though maybe less popular, types of socialism than communism.

But I'm here for learning, not asserting, so what do you think?

[Vera Politica]

The fundamental idea behind Marxian socialism is the rational organization of the economy. In particular, it is the socialization of distribution (following capitalism's socialization of production) and replacing the profit mechanism with a need mechanism. That is, have social need direct the character of the production process and distribution.

[setyoursights]

Some communists hide under the mantel of socialism which a lot of the members of the public interpreting it as social democracy. While some socialists hide under the mantel of communism to deceive us communists. But all in all, there is no difference as long as you conform to Karl Marx's blueprint in his Communist Manifesto. Communist Party of Canada has started with their own 2 collective farms. By the year 2020, we will own 1/4 of all homesteads in Ontario. More power to Miguel Figueroa!!

[chanakyan]

socialism -is like a hat that has lost its shape because everybody wears it(Joad). blah...blah...
According to Scumpeter....it's defined as -that organization of society in which means of production are controlled ,&the decision on how&what to produce &who is to get what r made by public authority instead ob privately- owned&managed firms.

[Kman]

The government running the whole economy.

[ThePublicOpinions]

Socialism or communism (the terms are interchangable) can be defined as state ownership of the means of production. Some may argue the term should be properly 'worker ownership of the means of production' but in reality, and in practice, this has meant state ownership.

[Sceptic]

The government ruining the whole economy.

This was what I read for a second

[Wolfman]

The government running the whole economy.

Some Socialists/Communists are actually quite happy to allow for certain forms of small business to continue to exist.

Socialism or communism (the terms are interchangable)

Only if you're going to say that Libertarian and Republican are interchangeable too.

can be defined as state ownership of the means of production. Some may argue the term should be properly 'worker ownership of the means of production' but in reality, and in practice, this has meant state ownership.

And which "in practice" Socialist/Communist state are you talking about?

[ThePublicOpinions]

China, CCCP, Cuba, Cambodia

[Wolfman]

Not one of them is Socialist, unless I can call the US Capitalist, and use it to show how incredibly shitty Capitalism is.

[The Immortal Goon]

All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. There are several ways that this has been proposed. I would dare argue that the majority of socialists would argue that while socialist regimes and systems have developed (in that they strive for socialism), a socialist system never has (part of capitalism is that the means of production are global; and thus socialism would necessarily need to be global as well).

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat, and through their liberation, the collective ownership of production and the end of economic classes.

[ThePublicOpinions]

Ah the no true scottsman defence. The problem with socialism is it tends towards slave labour camps, oppression, state violence. This leads socialists to denounce every experiment in socialism, assuring us that next time it will be different (it won't).

[Kman]

I would dare argue that the majority of socialists would argue that while socialist regimes and systems have developed (in that they strive for socialism), a socialist system never has (part of capitalism is that the means of production are global; and thus socialism would necessarily need to be global as well).

That is such a bullshit copout excuse, there is no theoretical and economic reason for why socialism needs to be global in order to be tried, that is just an excuse commies use when their experiments keep failing over and over and over and over again.

Please explain to me why exactly socialism needs to be global in order to work, tell me why it needs to be in place on every continent in order to function (and dont give me some weak excuse that it needs to be global just like capitalism because A) capitalism does not need to be global and B) that still doesnt explain why socialism needs to be global).

[Wolfman]

Ah the no true scottsman defence. The problem with capitalism is it tends towards slave labour camps, oppression, state violence. This leads socialists to denounce every experiment in socialism, assuring us that next time it will be different (it won't).

This statement is just as accurate.

[ThePublicOpinions]

Except advocates of capitalism don't denounce 19th century America, or Botswana, or Hong Kong. Nor have there ever been slave labour camps or gulags or mass purges in capitalist societies.

[The Immortal Goon]

That is such a bullshit copout excuse, there is no theoretical and economic reason for why socialism needs to be global in order to be tried, that is just an excuse commies use when their experiments keep failing over and over and over and over again.

False. There was a theoretical and economic reason for why socialism needed to be global in order to be tried long before there was any experiment started, let alone one that failed:

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

Lenin added a fair bit of tinkering with the expansion of imperial capital, but really that simply solidified an actual socialist system in Russia would have to be international in scope:

...the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries. As you know, we have done very much indeed in comparison with the past to bring about this condition, but far from enough to make it a reality.

The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is, holds state power, and the majority of the peasant population. Agreement is a very broad concept which includes a whole series of measures and transitions. I must say at this point that our propaganda and agitation must be open and above-board. We must condemn most resolutely those who regard politics as a series of cheap little tricks, frequently bordering on deception. Their mistakes have to be corrected. You can’t fool a class. We have done very much in the past three years to raise the political consciousness of the masses. They have been learning most from the sharp struggles. In keeping with our world outlook, the revolutionary experience we have accumulated over the decades, and the lessons of our revolution, we must state the issues plainly—the interests of these two classes differ, the small farmer does not want the same thing as the worker.

Later, the Stalinists attempted to say that they had socialism in one country - but this was theoretically in possible to begin with, and clearly not true in retrospect.

Please explain to me why exactly socialism needs to be global in order to work, tell me why it needs to be in place on every continent in order to function (and dont give me some weak excuse that it needs to be global just like capitalism because A) capitalism does not need to be global and B) that still doesnt explain why socialism needs to be global).

1. Capitalism is a global and expansionist system.
2. Socialism fixes the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system. Thus, it must replace it.

Except advocates of capitalism don't denounce 19th century America, or Botswana, or Hong Kong. Nor have there ever been slave labour camps or gulags or mass purges in capitalist societies.

--Edit--

Originally I spammed some horrible pictures of things that have been done in the name of capitalism, mostly starvation, crushing workers, the expansion of markets, the treatment of colonial people (including one or two pics of beheaded Angolans with their own castrated penises in their mouths) but this isn't that kind of website.

So really, I'll just say that slave labour has - historically - been endemic to capitalism - recently here and here for instance. Of course, historically it's really difficult to separate slavery and capitalism, especially in the US.

Gulags existed in any number of capitalist countries. Explicitly, or in the form of reservations of groups of people that refused to accept the capitalist form of private property - like most Native Americans.

Regardless, there's no reason for capitalists to put their hands over their eyes and pretend it's been utopia for the entire world since capitalism. Doing so is like holocaust denial.

[Wolfman]

Except advocates of capitalism don't denounce 19th century America, or Botswana, or Hong Kong. Nor have there ever been slave labour camps or gulags or mass purges in capitalist societies.

To add to what TIG has said, actually, yes, plenty of your kind have pretty much said that the slave holders in the early to mid 1800s were Socialists, not Capitalists. It's like you've never read a damn history book or something.

[KurtFF8]

I like what Pete Seeger said which is similar to what is being discussed:

At any rate, today I'll apologize for a number of things, such as thinking that Stalin was merely a "hard driver" and not a "supremely cruel misleader." I guess anyone who calls himself a Christian should be prepared to apologize for the Inquisition, the burning of heretics by Protestants, the slaughter of Jews and Muslims by Crusaders. White people in the U.S.A ought to apologize for stealing land from Native Americans and enslaving blacks. Europeans could apologize for worldwide conquests, Mongolians for Genghis Khan. And supporters of Roosevelt could apologize for his support of Somoza, of Southern White Democrats, of Franco Spain, for putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Who should my granddaughter Moraya apologize to? She's part African, part European, part Chinese, part Japanese, part Native American. Let's look ahead.

[springheeljim]

Another reason why socialism (as used interchangeably with communism by Marx) couldn't exist in one country is that there would be no state and no armed forces. If it was established, it wouldn't be around long before foreign interests came and installed whatever kind of system they saw as appropriate, for their own economic reasons.

[KurtFF8]

Well one definition of socialism is merely worker ownership. (This became a commonly accepted usage of the term long after Marx of course). This could conceivably easily exist in one country. The withering away of the state, however, doesn't seem plausible in one country.