this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
1424 points (93.3% liked)
Memes
44124 readers
1435 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When you own the means of production it's literally yours. I don't understand the issue.
Big difference between communism and socialism.
That's correct, but I'm not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I'm just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn't really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker's paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn't been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I'm not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and "communism" was just catchier to say than "supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly". Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became "communism", which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled "un-american". This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn't moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of "the state will take away the stuff you own" turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I'm very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
Not quite! What you're describing is "social democracy" — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. "Socialism" means worker control of production. If we want to be accurate with our terms, "Nordic socialism" should really be called "Nordic social democracy."
"Communism" is more of a dream for the future. It refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need and no one is exploited. "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability." No nation has seriously attempted this, because if you overthrow your rich capitalist overlords and then immediately dissolve your state, the next day you'll be bombed and invaded and the rich capitalists will be right back in power. That, and also all successful socialist revolutions have occurred in very poor countries, and their first priority after the revolution is usually to rapidly develop and industrialize, which tends to require a strong central power.
In practice, when a state labels itself "communist" it means they are committed to achieving a communist future, and in the meantime to fending off capitalists while developing their economies, institutions, and cultural norms. The authoritarianism of post-revolutionary communist states is meant to serve those purposes.