this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
36 points (92.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35317 readers
853 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

OP, if you take nothing else away from this conversation, it is that different people have different notions of what exactly the word "socialism" refers to, which in practice makes it a useless word to use in the context of discussing public policy because you just end up with groups talking past each other. In the most extreme case, if someone thinks you are proposing "socialism", then they might abruptly stop listening to what you are actually saying and assume that what you are actually proposing is to turn over the entire country to a corrupt authoritarian government because that is what the word "socialism" means to them. For this reason, should you find yourself in a discussion about public policy, it is generally better to be very specific about exactly what policies you are saying are good or bad and why you think they are good or bad without resorting to using what are in practice ambiguous and loaded terms like these. (Just to be clear, I am not saying that this state of affairs is reasonable, just that this is how it is at the moment.)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

In real general terms, communism is about people/state’s ownership of the means of production. Under this system, most private property is nationalized.

Socialism allows for private property and sees the role of the state to redistribute power and wealth among its citizens through some sort of state program.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You are mistaken. Socialism is worker owned means of production. Communism is a theoretical stateless, classless, moneyless society that Marx supposed would eventually form from the conditions of socialism (AKA dictatorship of the proletariat).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Does communism really only have this one meaning defined by marx? At least to me that sounds stoopid to let one guy define something that could be a spectrum

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I mean, he wrote the book(s) that started the whole ideology. Why would we want one word to mean a bunch of different ideologies? Pick a new word for the other ideas.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, there have been many theorists after Marx who added their own thoughts. Marx came up with it though so his influence is great.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Thank you for clarifying that ^^
Wtat i interpret from this is that even though there where others who reinterpreted it the original ideas from marx where so "point on" that it like stayed this way

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your definition of socialism is false. Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. This is incompatible with capitalism, where the means of production are held by those who own capital. In simpler terms, under socialism workers have agency over how their workplace whereas under capitalism that is decided by a CEO/board of directors.

What you're describing is a social democracy, which is a more socialised version of capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do they mean by means of production?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Factories and stuff. In capitalism, a rich person buys the equipment necessary to turn raw materials into useful products, pays workers a set wage to operate that equipment, and then pockets the difference between the cost of raw materials and employee wages, and the sales price of the product. In socialism, the equipment is collectively owned by the workers themselves, who share the difference between the price of raw materials and sales price.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks.

It seems really unintuitive at first. Now that you explain it, I get it

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Communism is socialism, but socialism is not communism. Socialism is the counter part to capitalism, and communism is a form of socialism. I found this video very helpful when I had the same question.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

It depends a lot on what you actually mean by socialism and communism because these words can have very different meanings to different people and ideology.

As a very broad baseline, socialism is the socialization of the means of production, as opposed to the current privatization of those means. Now there are a lot of ways this could be done, and thus a lot of ways to define socialism. Some socialists want a strong State that can enforce strict rules of ownership, others want no State at all and a free cooperation between individuals, with a lot of variations in between. An anarchist, a communist, a social-democrat would all consider themselves socialists, even when they actually have very distinct ideologies.

Now communism, at least in its most recognizable form, is basically the end state of socialism in the Marxist ideology specifically. It designates a stateless, classless society in which each person contributes according to their ability and receives according to their needs. It's basically the end goal theorized by Marx that has never been achieved yet in History.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lots of people has great answers here. I would love to explain a bit of the reasoning behind these production relations in very crude and hand-wavy terms.

At the time of Marx, people see the economy consists of two major inputs, labour and means of production (land, machinary, tools, etc), with machinary and tools (things that can be produced and enables production) called capitial.

In a capitalistic society, like its name suggest, capital is a valuable resource. That means people owning these capital, aka capitalist, can make money just by renting these capitals without contributing labor.

However with the productivity increase, it was theorized that capitals will lose its value, hence enabling workers to collectively own the means of production. At that stage, only labour will be valuable resource, hence the compensation will be directly tied to the value of labour a worker can provide.

Finally, when the productivity is way over the capacity of consumption, communism is achieved. Human will no longer fight for resource, since the amount of resource can fullfill the need of any individual. Thus the society will be able to distribute resource simply by need.


However like other has said, there are many means of achieving these ideals, not necessarily by pure market changes or by a authoritarian state.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Jesus people just provide some basic sources.

Marx defined socialism as: "...Socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis."

— Capital III, translated by Ernest Untermann, Charles H. Kerr & Co., Chicago 1909, p. 954

To understand Marx's definitions you have to realise he was writing mostly in response to the Paris Commune uprising and therefore saw 'communism' as the practical application of a theory of socialism. However, the terms and their meaning were radically reshaped by Lenin, Mao and Stalin.

— The Paris Commune: First Proletarian Dictatorship, Revolution, Vol. 3, No. 6, March 1978.

In March 1918 the Bolshevik Party was renamed the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) in order to distinguish it from Social Democratic parties in Russia and Europe and to separate the followers of Lenin from those affiliated with the nonrevolutionary Socialist International.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, but Marx didn't invent socialism. The Commune itself was massively inspired by Proudhon's socialist ideas. Even before that, Saint-Simon's socialism influenced some factions that took part in the French Revolution.

All that to say that yeah, nowadays Marxism is the main socialist ideology, but it's not the only one

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hi. I'm definitely not an expert on the subject but I had a teacher in highschool who taught us about this and this is what I remember.

Communism is an utopia, is a system that goes against human nature therefore it'll never work. It has never worked, the so called communist countries are actually socialist.

First, in communism there's no government. You as an individual who is aware that lives in a community you do everything for the "greater good" of the community. So if you're very good at singing and dancing but the community needs let's say potatoes then you, by your own choice you go to the farm and produce potatoes. Now once you have all your potatoes you say:

Ok, I have a wife and a kid, that's a family of 3 so I'll take only 3 potatoes. My buddy Rick who has a wife and 4 children, that's a family of 6 so he takes 6 potatoes.

Again it goes against human nature, since when we plant something we consider everything we harvested ours.

Now socialism is just one step back but a huuuuge step back where a government exists.

So a random guy comes in and say:

Hey people of the community since we are not ready just yet to give to the community from our hearts, I'll act as a government and dictate what you do and how to distribute what you produce.

Billy I know you are very good at singing and dancing but we don't need entertainment, we need potatoes so get your lazy ass up and go to the farm!

Billy since you have a family of 3 then you get 3 potatoes.

My cousin Rick, I know he has a family of 6 but give him 20 potatoes because I'm the government, I decide how much everyone gets.

So socialism is very prone to corruption.

There you have it. Again I'm not an expert here, everyone is welcome to correct me. I'm just regurgitating what a highschool teacher taught us.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Eh your teacher does not know what they're talking about in the slightest.

Socialism does not have to be centrally planned. For example, you could have market socialism by just making every company a worker cooperative.