[Negotiator]

I recently heard of a person who called himself communist who defined socialism or social democrats as "has given up to believe a socialist society can work, and therefore tries to make a more human society out of capitalism".

Likewise, communists are, according to this person, "people who want to overcome capitalism and create a socialism, i.e. a society without supression or exploitation".

I am utterly confused how such a socialist or social democrat would differ from a modern liberal, like, at all. Liberalism doesnt want to overcome capitalism either, after all.

Can anyone enlighten me ?

[ccdan]

the terms liberalism (in english speaking countries), "modern liberalism" and "social liberalism" refer to the same thing as the term "social democracy" which is a form of socialism where private properties and businesses are allowed, but the state can have considerable influence over economy in certain situations(eg. it can intervene in many cases) and wealth tends to be redistributed through high taxation...
the opposite of modern/social liberlism is classical liberalism/libertarianism (and not conservatism, how many tend to believe)

communism is an extreme form of socialism, where the private property is abolished and no companies can exist, everything being controlled by the state... in reality, nowadays communist states with absolutely no private property and absolutely no private businesses no longer exists(even north korea had to make some concessions)... also, pure, stateless communism, never existed

[Ombrageux]

Modern liberalism is an American term to describe what in Europe is called Social Democracy. Social Democrats are Socialists who have given up. They don't use the term in North America because the Purges after WW1 and WW2 made it extremely dangerous for one's career and livelihood. There is still a stigma attached to the term.

[Cartertonian]

...tries to make a more human society out of capitalism.

Sounds like an ideology I could identify with...

But then, I could also subscribe to, 'tries to make a more human society out of socialism', as well, if you see what I mean.

[DanDaMan]

I am utterly confused how such a socialist or social democrat would differ from a modern liberal, like, at all. Liberalism doesnt want to overcome capitalism either, after all.

Can anyone enlighten me ?

Modern Liberals, because they are incompetent at critical thinking, think they can have all of their American freedoms and liberties within socialism. They are, of course, wrong. That then means the socialist is not the delusional one of the two.

I would like to add that it's not the Modern Liberals fault that they are incompetent objective thinkers. It's the government run public education system that did it to them.

[Nattering Nabob]

I would like to add that it's not the Modern Liberals fault that they are incompetent objective thinkers. It's the government run public education system that did it to them.

DDM...did you attend private schools?

[DanDaMan]

I would like to add that it's not the Modern Liberals fault that they are incompetent objective thinkers. It's the government run public education system that did it to them.

DDM...did you attend private schools?

No. I went to school almost thirty years ago in a county/state system that taught the difference between democratic and communist systems. It was a blue county in the election.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
I went to school almost thirty years ago

Sweet Jesus on a popsickle..

It hits you just how long ago when you run out of fingers and toes to add it all up.

[Metal Gear]

As stated above, socialists consciously work towards a goal, but liberals just talk about human rights and entitlement.

[Negotiator]

Oh I see.

Thats quite an enlightening answer, thank you very much.

So the communist I talked about was actually wrong, there is a difference between social democrats and socialists.

But then, I could also subscribe to, 'tries to make a more human society out of socialism', as well, if you see what I mean.

According to said person, a socialism, i.e. "a society without supression or exploitation", has never been managed to build. It would be quite human already, I guess, if they manage to. According to said person, it would have to be a democracy, too.

[Sceptic]

That's rather easy to answer:

Socialism is about the democratisation of the work place and (for some people) the process that moves towards communism.

Communism is the society wherein all means of production are in the local ownership of the community and production for exchange is abolished (all goods and services are produced for the specific purpose of use); communism is the end result. Communism specifically favours the gift economy over exchange (whether barter or by money).

For Marx, though, there was hardly any difference between socialism and communism.

Modern liberalism (not classical liberalism) has absolutely nothing to do with either ideology; it is about wealth redistribution, welfare, social security, etc. It maintains the capitalist mode of production as the only method of production, hence it is a capitalist ideology. Modern liberalism was born from ideas of the enlightenment period and the French Revolution which promoted equality, liberty and solidarity.

I wouldn't pay much to your friends emotional definitions; 'communism is the end of all suppression and exploitation'... seriously?

'the terms liberalism (in english speaking countries), "modern liberalism" and "social liberalism" refer to the same thing as the term "social democracy" which is a form of socialism where private properties and businesses are allowed, but the state can have considerable influence over economy in certain situations(eg. it can intervene in many cases) and wealth tends to be redistributed through high taxation...'

Social democracy has a more authoritarian social stance than modern liberalism/social liberalism.

Liberals also have a fetishism for incorporating more democracy into government whereas social democrats are content with representative democracy (and rightly so, in my opinion). Having said that, social democrats also used to have the goal of Marxian socialism in mind, but established through the correct procedures, rather than a violent pseudo-revolution. Economic democracy is an integral part of social democracy.

[CounterChaos]

As stated above, socialists consciously work towards a goal, but liberals just talk about human rights and entitlement.

Oh really? I would call it educating and reminding that the modern industrial society and the system within is not of the natural world and that human beings are. I would call it putting pressure on the hijacked social sectors that could care less about the human condition by reducing the human experience to a statistical analysis. I would call it caring about the disenfranchised and battling for those who don't have the ability to battle themselves. Peace

[daft punk]

Marx and Engels actually didn't call themselves socialist, but the words have changed over the years. They referred to a lower stage of communism followed by a higher one. Later, Lenin and Trotsky called the lower stage socialism. Nowadays, Marxists just call it all socialism. The word communist is not used any more as Stalinism gave it a bad name.

Before socialism you have to have a transition from capitalism, socialism cannot be established overnight. No country has ever become socialist or communist.

Social democracy originally meant socialism, and the social democratic parties were Marxist. The Bolsheviks were actually a faction of the Social Democratic Party. The party split and the other section was the Mensheviks.

The German Social Democratic Party leaders sold out the 1919 revolution, and gradually social democracy has come to mean trying to reform capitalism as opposed to scrapping it. A good example of a social democratic party would be the Labour Party in Britain, before Blair took over.

[ralfy]

For capitalist democracies, the first deals with issues concerning gender rights, free speech, etc. The second usually refers to public ownership of various means of production.

[Aidand]

The difference is redundant because socialism, social democracy and liberalism have lost their more economic elements where the commanding heights would be controlled by the government. This sort of thing really died out in the 1980s with the rise of neoliberalism. Both agree with the insight that we need to make inequalities fairer. Origonally socialists/social democrats wanted to incrementally achieve socialism as well but liberals just wanted comparative improvments in Justice through state intervention to acheive it. I think that distinction has gone the way of the dinosaurs too. So today the distinction is pretty redundant. Socialists have become more like modern of social liberals. I wouldn't really agree that liberals are socialist sell outs. I think they have their own history which was heavily influenced by socialism as they responded to it. Liberalism has its own geneology though through people like John Stuart Mill who believed that the state should intervene to positively enforce rights.