Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Socialism is when the government takes over all these private companies and controls them. And that's what these countries that call themselves "communists" have done.
Communism doesn't rely on the government. The workers own the means of production.
Collecetive ownership is socialism. The people own the companies, the government regulates somewhat.
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Communism is no government necessary, the state disappears:
Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the
Quote:
The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism
"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production"
"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production"
How did what I describe not fit this definition?
You said that collective ownership was communism only, I said that actually starts under socialism.
Communism differs from socialism mainly in that the need for a state disappears. Which is why those "communist" governments really aren't communist, they were usally some form of a socialist dictatorship.
ETA: I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just a little nitpicky about this. LOL. I'm enjoying the discussion.
You said that collective ownership was communism only, I said that actually starts under socialism.
Communism differs from socialism mainly in that the need for a state disappears. Which is why those "communist" governments really aren't communist, they were usally some form of a socialist dictatorship.
ETA: I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just a little nitpicky about this. LOL. I'm enjoying the discussion.
Ok. I see what you mean. What I meant is that under socialism, the government is needed to keep ownership collective. Under communism, it is not, because the wealth inequality and class divisions have diminished.
Ok. I see what you mean. What I meant is that under socialism, the government is needed to keep ownership collective. Under communism, it is not, because the wealth inequality and class divisions have diminished.
Cool beans. I agree with that statement!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
