Socialism vs Communism

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:44 pm

Just to make it clear in this I am going to be talking ONLY about the idealized versions of each, not the on-ground, in-action, real versions such as Israel and China.

Socialism = We the righteous (those who have rights), being more virtuous and better than the commoners deserve to rule over them with more privilege and wealth. Common laborers have only the rights we grant to them as we see fit. We are the good and their god to speak their reality into truth.

Communism = We the entire population share equal impoverishment. We all have equal authority - none. We all love each other equally - to death. We are the good. There is no god, no reality, and no truth.

Isn't that the reality of these ideals?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:47 pm

I'm gonna take a different tack here.

Rather than explain to you what these terms mean and why, let's examine your definitional formulations.

Let me begin with a question:
If you're not deriving Socialism and Communism from what you call the "on-ground, in-action, real versions", from where are you arriving at the "reality of these ideals"?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:54 pm

Silhouette wrote:If you're not deriving Socialism and Communism from what you call the "on-ground, in-action, real versions", from where are you arriving at the "reality of these ideals"?

Frankly I mostly had you in mind. Of course you will deny the negative side of those ideals, but the floor is yours to make corrections if you like.

PLEASE make them short posts. I am often on a phone and at work.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:09 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:If you're not deriving Socialism and Communism from what you call the "on-ground, in-action, real versions", from where are you arriving at the "reality of these ideals"?

Frankly I mostly had you in mind. Of course you will deny the negative side of those ideals, but the floor is yours to make corrections if you like.

PLEASE make them short posts.

I will try to be brief...

When I said I'm going to take a different tack, I meant it when I said I wanted to examine your definitional formulations.

At this point I'm not interested in denying anything, I was just after an answer to the question I posed - if you have one?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:16 pm

Silhouette wrote:At this point I'm not interested in denying anything, I was just after an answer to the question I posed - if you have one?

Then I need clarification of your question. You say "reality of these ideals". I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:22 pm

Silhouette wrote:I will try to be brief...

When I said I'm going to take a different tack, I meant it when I said I wanted to examine your definitional formulations.

At this point I'm not interested in denying anything, I was just after an answer to the question I posed - if you have one?


He may or may not go there for you.

I have been attempting to get him to focus not so much on what he believes about socialism and Communism but on the extent to which he is convinced that unless others share his own assessment, they are wrong.

The psychology of objectivism. The belief that morally and politically one is able grasp the objective truth about any "ism". And that this truth is rooted logically and epistemologically in a philosophically rational assessment. And that rationality itself is the root of all virtue.

And not in the manner in which I construe the "self" here in my signature threads.

I would be more than willing to explore this part with him on another thread.

But he won't go there with me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38688
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:34 pm

I guess that I am of the Plato school where ideal and real are distinct from each other. There is no "reality of the ideal" because that is like saying "the black of the white". So what did you actually mean?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:06 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Then I need clarification of your question. You say "reality of these ideals". I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.

I took it from your opening post when you asked "Isn't that the reality of these ideals?"

Please go by your intended meaning when you said it.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:26 pm

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Then I need clarification of your question. You say "reality of these ideals". I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.

I took it from your opening post when you asked "Isn't that the reality of these ideals?"

Please go by your intended meaning when you said it.

What I meant was that there is a meaning to those named ideals and a reality/truth to that intended meaning. The ideals themselves have no reality to them but the concepts are actual concepts that have real communication and language intent.

For example
Wikipedia wrote:Communism is a philosophical, social, political, economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.

That embolden part is where the effect of "equally impoverished" and "authority - none" come from.

I don't know what else to tell you.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:02 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:What I meant was that there is a meaning to those named ideals and a reality/truth to that intended meaning. The ideals themselves have no reality to them but the concepts are actual concepts that have real communication and language intent.

Right - so you have briefly laid out a meaning to each of these named ideals in your opening post.
When you say a "reality/truth to that intended meaning" - are you referring to what you call the "on-ground, in-action, real versions", or "real communication and language intent" that results from ideals (in spite of them having no reality)? I suspect probably the latter, but just making sure.

obsrvr524 wrote:For example
Wikipedia wrote:Communism is a philosophical, social, political, economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.

That embolden part is where the effect of "equally impoverished" and "authority - none" come from.

So the definitions you outline in your opening post are grounded in the themes of "equally impoverished" and "authority - none" that you detect as inevitably emerging from the Wikipedia quote?

You draw attention, through emboldening part of the quote, to the notions of "absence of social classes, money and the state", and I assume you see a direct correlation between these notions and the interpretation of "equally impoverished" and "authority - none". Is that a fair assumption?

And in turn, from "equally impoverished" and "authority - none", you infer the following extended details laid out in your opening post:
1) an attitude of righteousness and virtuousness of a ruling class over commoners that justifies relative social and material boons over them, the dictatorship of values and truth over them, and an inequality of rights (for Socialism), and
2) equality in love - to death, atheism, no reality, and no truth (for Communism).

That is to say:
1) no social class/money/state -> equally poor with no authority -> justified hierarchy and oppression as judged by those at the top of that hierarchy for Socialism, and
2) no social class/money/state -> equally poor with no authority -> unwavering equality of love, no God, no reality and no truth for Communism.

To be fair, you only referenced a quote about Communism as your source, and not one about Socialism - but am I being fairly representative of your source (Wikipedia quote) and how it progresses to your conclusion (your opening post definitions)?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:11 pm

All of that seems close enough.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:23 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:All of that seems close enough.

Would you like to provide an origin source for Socialism as you did for Communism?

Or are you happy to have "no social class/money/state -> justified hierarchy and oppression as judged by those at the top of that hierarchy" seeming close enough to your thought process when it comes to your definition of Socialism?
In your estimation, do you see any conflict between no social class (from the quote) and oppressive hierarchy (from your definition)?

And for Communism, are you happy that "no social class/money/state" (from your quote) necessarily results in "uniformity in love, atheism, no reality/truth" (from your definition)?
That is to say, there is a necessary direct correlation between social/economic/political conditions and emotion/theology/ontology?
In your estimation, do you see any conflict between the reality and truth of no social class (from the quote) and no reality/truth (from your definition)?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:44 pm

Silhouette wrote:In your estimation, do you see any conflict between no social class (from the quote) and oppressive hierarchy (from your definition)?

I see them as distinctly different.

And I am happy with what I provided, yes.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 19, 2020 10:53 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:In your estimation, do you see any conflict between no social class (from the quote) and oppressive hierarchy (from your definition)?

I see them as distinctly different.

And I am happy with what I provided, yes.

You see "no social class" (from the quote you provided) and "oppressive hierarchy" (from the definition you provided in your opening post) as "distinctly different"?

If I have that right, then you are "happy with the definitions you provided" being "distinctly different" to the quote you're basing them on?

So to my question 'where are you arriving at the "reality of these ideals"?' you answer with a quote that is "distinctly different" from your definitions?

Please correct me if this sounds to me like you're happy that the definitions of the opening post are "distinctly different" to the quote you're basing them on.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:02 pm

Silhouette wrote:You see "no social class" (from the quote you provided) and "oppressive hierarchy" (from the definition you provided in your opening post) as "distinctly different"?

If I have that right, then you are "happy with the definitions you provided" being "distinctly different" to the quote you're basing them on?

I need for you to provide detail on that one.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:11 pm

I have stolen enough time from work, wife, and wealth for today. - Break.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:28 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I have stolen enough time from work, wife, and wealth for today. - Break.

Adjourned :D I'll summarise as follows, for you to mull over in the meantime:

obsrvr524 wrote:I need for you to provide detail on that one.

I am understanding that "I see them as distinctly different" applies to "no social class (from the quote) and oppressive hierarchy (from your defintion)" being distinctly different.

My initial question was 'from where are you arriving at the "reality of these ideals"?'
This question asks about where you're getting your definitions in your opening post when, as you said, you are not getting them from what you call "on-ground, in-action, real versions". You provide the Wikipedia quote as where you're getting your definitions from.

The Wikipedia quote references "no social class" and your definitions in your opening post reference "oppressive hierarchy".
So you appear to be saying that the quote you provided is distinctly different from your definitions - on account of the former stating "no social class" and the latter stating "oppressive hierarchy".

It would follow that your defintions are distinctly different from the quote you provided to base your definitions on, meaning the definitions do not follow from the quote.

Please feel free to correct me whenever you're ready if I have misunderstood.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:15 am

Silhouette, you seem to be conflating the provided socialist description with the provided communist description.

How do you describe the difference between socialism and communism? What is in one but not the other?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:56 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Silhouette, you seem to be conflating the provided socialist description with the provided communist description.

How do you describe the difference between socialism and communism? What is in one but not the other?


Statehood and all the complexities that come with it.

Communism has no statehood, socialism does.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11098
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:01 am

Ecmandu wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Silhouette, you seem to be conflating the provided socialist description with the provided communist description.

How do you describe the difference between socialism and communism? What is in one but not the other?


Statehood and all the complexities that come with it.

Communism has no statehood, socialism does.

That is what I meant also. The "hierarchy" that you pointed to (in this case merely an upper and lower cast) would be a part of a socialist state, not a communist society.

Again from Wiki
Wikipedia wrote:Socialism - The major characteristics of socialism (particularly as conceived by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune of 1871) are that the proletariat would control the means of production through a workers' state erected by the workers in their interests. Economic activity would still be organised through the use of incentive systems and social classes would still exist, but to a lesser and diminishing extent than under capitalism.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:26 am

I think what Observer is saying is that "the absence of social classes, money and the state" leads to poverty, lack of freedom and death. And depending on how he interprets "the absence of social classes, money and the state", that might be true. But what's the proper way to interpret that statement? Should we take it literally and assume that "the absence of social classes" means "equality", "the absence of state" "lawlessness" and "the absence of money" "lack of economy"? It would be useful if he went a little bit deeper into his argument.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Tue Oct 20, 2020 8:30 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Silhouette, you seem to be conflating the provided socialist description with the provided communist description.

I did offer you the opportunity to refer to a quote about Socialism in addition to your one about Communism:

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:All of that seems close enough.

Would you like to provide an origin source for Socialism as you did for Communism?

From the above quote you seemed to be satisfied with my attempts to relate your definitions back to the the single Wikipedia quote that you provided about Communism, but I did want to be more fair - and it turns out that you've later provided another about Socialism too, giving me the opportunity to do so - so thank you for that.

obsrvr524 wrote:How do you describe the difference between socialism and communism? What is in one but not the other?

As I stated at the start of the thread, I'm going to take a different tack and fully examine your definitional formulations first. Once we're each satisfied with a fair representation of how you're building your definitions then maybe we can think about getting to my descriptions of the difference - I have actually covered this in other threads though so you ought to already know the answer to your question already, but this has not gotten us anywhere so far. Hence my new tack.

To the quote in question, that you provided about Socialism:

Wikipedia wrote:Socialism - The major characteristics of socialism (particularly as conceived by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune of 1871) are that the proletariat would control the means of production through a workers' state erected by the workers in their interests. Economic activity would still be organised through the use of incentive systems and social classes would still exist, but to a lesser and diminishing extent than under capitalism.

To again focus on what you have emboldened, I can amend my model of your reasoning as follows:

1) Socialism: social class/incentive systems -> justified hierarchy and oppression as judged by those at the top of that hierarchy for and
2) Communism: no social class/money/state -> equally poor, no authority, uniformity of love, no God, no reality and no truth.

How is this looking now?
I've left the latter basically the same as what you've already said is close enough - but feel free to change your mind or object to any small alterations in wording that I've made along the way so far.
At this point it might be an idea to think about how you'd explain/further back up in more detail the transition from "no social class/money/state" to "equally poor, no authority, uniformity of love, no God, no reality and no truth." Do you simply regard the progression from the above arrangement of social/economic/political conditions to the above attitudes towards emotion/theology/ontology as self-evident, or is there more to it than that?

The former I've amended in light of your Socialism quote. Personally it seems a little lacking, but let me know if there's either more to it that you want to add, or if you regard it as sufficiently self-evident and complete as it is.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:21 am

So your new tact is to just repeat what I said and then ask me if that is what I said?

Isn't a tactic supposed to have a goal to achieve?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby Silhouette » Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:39 am

obsrvr524 wrote:So your new tact is to just repeat what I said and then ask me if that is what I said?

Yes.
How else will I know that you know that I am on the same page as you?
If I know that you know that I am on the same page, we can walk somewhere in the same direction without scrapping. Scrapping is all we've achieved in the past - don't you want to finally get somewhere?

obsrvr524 wrote:Isn't a tactic supposed to have a goal to achieve?

Yes.
I want to "steelman" your arguments so that we can successfully emerge in agreement with regard to the degree of validity of your opening post.

You ask the question "Isn't that the reality of these ideals?"
a) that was just rhetorical.
b) you asked the question in good faith and genuinely want to explore it.

Take your pick.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Socialism vs Communism

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:49 am

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:So your new tact is to just repeat what I said and then ask me if that is what I said?

Yes.
How else will I know that you know that I am on the same page as you?
If I know that you know that I am on the same page, we can walk somewhere in the same direction without scrapping. Scrapping is all we've achieved in the past - don't you want to finally get somewhere?

I think that the first time would have been enough. What you are doing is more like walking behind me asking over and over, "Is this the direction you are walking? Am I still walking behind you? Is this the path you are on?"

Let me suggest that you take a picture of the Opening Post. When you wonder if that it what I said, read it. Maybe that will last longer?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]