Prophet of Truth wrote:Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. (there has never been a true communist government)
This is mostly correct, although there is a bit of a correction I, in my view, must make.
All political isms have one goal. Create a group that can "progress" and live together most fairly and efficiently(or something similar). Then each ism breaks down from there on how to achieve this goal.
The main difference between communism and socialism is the means in which they are achieved. Marx felt the lower classes would rise up and destroy the old and provide a new. However, with socialism in the ideal, there isn't a rebellion/rising up, but rather an ideological shift. More of a passive vs. aggressive means.
Communism doesn't seek to create a "stateless" society, but rather that the "state" is everyone; it's problems come down to logistics and human nature really. In the loosest sense, everyone has equal say in what goes on, which is fairly close to the true defintion of "democracy". Socialism has been so truncated that you have so many kinds and balances, that it boils down to what someone wants to call themselves. But really Socialism redistributes the everyone has an equal say more representationally.
But, yes, in the broadest sense of the word socialism, communism is a type of socialism, and under a narrower definition the two are different. It's all a matter of how you are using the terms. Part of the discrepancy comes from the problem of the meanings of the terms when coined and when and wher now used.
It all becomes sematics and the definitions are all blurry, just look at the 'right" and the "left" /"liberal" and "conservative" in the U.S., both of the main parties exhibit attributes of each. The terms in the U.S. can not be applied easily to any other government, as the U.S. liberals often can be put in the same area as conservatives in other places, and conservatives are ultra-conservative.
The United States is somewhat socialist, more (welfare and social security) so capitalist, whereas European countries are more socialist (same as US plus health care, state owned press, etc.), with some capitalism, yet some are moving towards more privatisation in certain areas (television, press, transportation, resource management, etc.).
The basic problem with these discussions is everyone comes from their own perspectives/definitions and doesn't agree on the terms to be discussed before hand, causing all kinds of deviations and problems. First, set the terms/definitions to be used, then argue from that point on. People may not agree with the defintions used, but at least one can argue based on the first poster's definitions the "idea" behind things.
OMG. do you call that a free society? There are only a few ULTRA conservatives and ULTRA right side economist in the world that will tell u the "free" market make society free and fair.
I don't believe the original post said anything about a"free market society", but rather simply a "free society." Granted, the "free society" shouldn't have been mentioned in a discussion about economic and political theory, but if the original poster meant "free market society", i'd hestiantly agree with you.
Free market - yes, free society - yes.
