Communism and Socialism megathread

[United Marxist Nations]

Fascism's history was literally "both sides suck, I'll make my own" yet here you are, eighty years later, saying that these guys actually belonged to one of the two sides. If fascism had a side, it wouldn't be fascism anymore. I am also using the left-right scale to mean that left is closer to socialism and right closer to capitalism.

So basically the idea is:
Socialism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the people
Capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production to serve individual needs
Dictatorship: State ownership of the means of production to serve an individual
Fascism: State ownership of the means of production to serve the state itself

Is this about right?

Not quite,
1) Socialism is (as mentioned above) the social-ownership of the means of production (in Marxist terms, ownership by the working class). Now, state-socialism is the state owning the means of production, but in proper state-socialism, the state only acts as a proxy by which the working class can effectively enforce their ownership (i.e. state owns means of production, workers own state, thus, workers own means of production).

2) Dictatorship is not an economic system.

3) Capitalism is best described simply as the private ownership of means of production with the intent of capital accumulation.


The USSR wasn't state socialist mind you; however, it wouldn't be entirely accurate to call it state capitalism; this is why many (such as Leon Trotsky) use the term "degenerated workers' state", or why I use the term "proto-socialism" to imply that it had characteristics of socialism, but hadn't arrived there. For example, some of the Perestroika reforms (e.g. multicandidate, fair elections) actually had potential to turn the USSR into a socialist state (not all of them though, introducing private ownership was a step back), and this shows that the USSR was actually fairly close to achieving it before.

[Xiahua (Ancient)]

Really?

How often does Fascism embrace globalist capitalism?
How often does Fascism embrace economic immigration?
How often does Fascism embrace private ownership?
How often does Fascism embrace private healthcare?
How often does Fascism embrace enterprise?
How often does Fascism embrace religion?

What's important to keep in mind is that far-right doesn't just describe one's position on the economic scale. Social and cultural scales also come into play. Frankly, the "left-right" political spectrum is good for simplicity's sake, but creates a number of double standards.

Yes. In terms of the political compass, most fascists are center-left when it comes to economics.

Their real extremism lies in their social attitudes. And it's in this respect that fascists are "right-wing".

[Constantinopolis]

Fascism does not reject what makes the right-wing the right-wing. It embraces it more than any other right-wing ideology I know.

Really?

How often does Fascism embrace globalist capitalism?
How often does Fascism embrace economic immigration?
How often does Fascism embrace private ownership?
How often does Fascism embrace private healthcare?
How often does Fascism embrace enterprise?
How often does Fascism embrace religion?

...what makes you think those are important universal characteristics of the right-wing?

There are vast numbers of self-described right-wingers and right-wing political parties that reject globalist capitalism and economic immigration. Also, private vs. public healthcare is not a left-right issue in Europe, and, increasingly, neither is religion.

The only things on your list that can truly be called universal right-wing positions are private ownership and "enterprise", and even those were not necessarily supported by the old-school right-wing in pre-WW2 and 19th century Europe (consider Bismarck, for example).

The American definition of "right-wing" as being basically synonymous with a combination of libertarian economics and social conservatism is simply not true elsewhere.

[Constantinopolis]

And, again: the term "far-right" was pretty much invented to refer to fascists and other similar movements. No one else gets consistently called "far-right" (except when people want to accuse their political opponents of being quasi-fascist).

[Conscentia]

Fascism does not reject what makes the right-wing the right-wing. It embraces it more than any other right-wing ideology I know.

Really?

How often does Fascism embrace globalist capitalism?
How often does Fascism embrace economic immigration?
How often does Fascism embrace private ownership?
How often does Fascism embrace private healthcare?
How often does Fascism embrace enterprise?
How often does Fascism embrace religion?

Whenever those things serve the State.

Those are not the things that make the right wing the right wing. Those are just typical things right-wingers like.

[United Marxist Nations]

I seem to have missed the part where this became the fascist megathread.

[Shigiel]

I disagree, but I'm an adherent to an irrelevant little tendency of communism, so you might just want to ignore me.

Socialism: Social ownership of the means of production (i.e. they're owned by all of society in a classless society).
Capitalism: I agree with you
Dictatorship: Ownership of the means of production by one class, whether it be the workers, the capitalists, or a detached state bureaucracy.
Fascism: Doesn't have a particular economic ideology, but historically it has been capitalism with some regulation.

Socialism has a state. I think its very Marxist purpose was to be the transition stage from capitalism to communism. Communism is the classless, moneyless, stateless society you're describing.

Marx and Engels never mentioned socialism in this context; they spoke of capitalism and communism and the revolutionary transformation of one into the other (the proletarian dictatorship) but no stage called "socialism." I'm not sure quite where the conflation of socialism with proletarian dictatorship came from - I think it originated in Russian social democracy - but it's inaccurate. The means of production are not socialised during a dictatorship of the proletariat, they are "centralised in the hands of the State."

[The New Sea Territory]

Marx and Engels never mentioned socialism in this context;

Marx and Engels not only made up their own definition for a state, but also are not the arbiters of all socialism.

[Constantinopolis]

What do you think of Mutualism?

Like with all the other economic proposals coming from the anarchist tradition, I've never understood how a mutualist society is supposed to work - who, precisely, decides what is going to be produced and by what method, who decides on building new factories and workplaces, and how can the whole thing be enforced.

I know how a state-planned economy operates. I also know how a capitalist market economy operates. But I do not see how you can have a modern industrial economy in which every group of workers can essentially do as they please, not constrained by either the state or the market.

[The New Sea Territory]

Like with all the other economic proposals coming from the anarchist tradition, I've never understood how a mutualist society is supposed to work -

Did you just not read then?

who, precisely, decides what is going to be produced and by what method, who decides on building new factories and workplaces, and how can the whole thing be enforced.

Democratic assemblies. Mutualism also features market competition between worker cooperatives.

I know how a state-planned economy operates. I also know how a capitalist market economy operates. But I do not see how you can have a modern industrial economy in which every group of workers can essentially do as they please, not constrained by either the state or the market.

So, you're saying communism can't exist?

[United Marxist Nations]

Like with all the other economic proposals coming from the anarchist tradition, I've never understood how a mutualist society is supposed to work -

Did you just not read then?

who, precisely, decides what is going to be produced and by what method, who decides on building new factories and workplaces, and how can the whole thing be enforced.

Democratic assemblies. Competition between worker cooperatives.

I know how a state-planned economy operates. I also know how a capitalist market economy operates. But I do not see how you can have a modern industrial economy in which every group of workers can essentially do as they please, not constrained by either the state or the market.

So, you're saying communism can't exist?

He may be using the lay definition of state and not the Marxist definition there.

[Constantinopolis]

Marx and Engels not only made up their own definition for a state

Indeed, they did make up their own definition of a state, and for this reason I'd like to point out to everyone here that it is possible to have a "stateless society" in the Marxist sense which still features a thing that everyone else would call a state.

In the Marxist definition, a state is an institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others. Therefore, if we have no institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others, then we are in a stateless society (in the Marxist sense), even if there is still an institution that passes laws, enforces traffic regulations, and plans the economy.

He may be using the lay definition of state and not the Marxist definition there.

Yes, that is what I did.

[Shigiel]

Marx and Engels never mentioned socialism in this context;

Marx and Engels not only made up their own definition for a state, but also are not the arbiters of all socialism.

Arkolon mentioned Marxism specifically in their post. And the Marxist definition of the state is certainly better than the Weberian one.

[The New Sea Territory]

Marx and Engels not only made up their own definition for a state

Indeed, they did make up their own definition of a state, and for this reason I'd like to point out to everyone here that it is possible to have a "stateless society" in the Marxist sense which still features a thing that everyone else would call a state.

In the Marxist definition, a state is an institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others. Therefore, if we have no institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others, then we are in a stateless society (in the Marxist sense), even if there is still an institution that passes laws, enforces traffic regulations, and plans the economy.

Sure, in the Marxist sense, but not in the sense that the state does not exist. If a state exists, a political hierarchy exists, thus, not communism.

This last bit assumes that a state is necessary for law and economic planning.

[The New Sea Territory]

Marx and Engels not only made up their own definition for a state, but also are not the arbiters of all socialism.

Arkolon mentioned Marxism specifically in their post.

Ok.

And the Marxist definition of the state is certainly better than the Weberian one.

...no, it really isn't. It tries to label a society that undeniably has a state -a socialist country- a stateless society.

[United Marxist Nations]

Indeed, they did make up their own definition of a state, and for this reason I'd like to point out to everyone here that it is possible to have a "stateless society" in the Marxist sense which still features a thing that everyone else would call a state.

In the Marxist definition, a state is an institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others. Therefore, if we have no institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others, then we are in a stateless society (in the Marxist sense), even if there is still an institution that passes laws, enforces traffic regulations, and plans the economy.

Sure, in the Marxist sense, but not in the sense that the state does not exist. If a state exists, a political hierarchy exists, thus, not communism.

This last bit assumes that a state is necessary for law and economic planning.

The Marxist sense is what is important for Marxists, which both Const and I are.

[Constantinopolis]

Indeed, they did make up their own definition of a state, and for this reason I'd like to point out to everyone here that it is possible to have a "stateless society" in the Marxist sense which still features a thing that everyone else would call a state.

In the Marxist definition, a state is an institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others. Therefore, if we have no institution that enforces the rule of one class over the others, then we are in a stateless society (in the Marxist sense), even if there is still an institution that passes laws, enforces traffic regulations, and plans the economy.

Sure, in the Marxist sense, but not in the sense that the state does not exist. If a state exists, a political hierarchy exists, thus, not communism.

This last bit assumes that a state is necessary for law and economic planning.

Again, it all depends on how you define "the state".

Some kind of centralized political organization is necessary for law and economic planning. You may or may not call that organization a "state" depending on your definition.

And as for communism, because I don't like to get entangled in semantic debates about what does or does not count as a "state", I define communism as a classless society without private property which operates according to the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I don't think it matters whether or not it has a "state".

[Conscentia]

Sure, in the Marxist sense, but not in the sense that the state does not exist. If a state exists, a political hierarchy exists, thus, not communism.

This last bit assumes that a state is necessary for law and economic planning.

Defining the state as "political hierarchy" is supremely vague.

[Shigiel]

Arkolon mentioned Marxism specifically in their post.

Ok.

And the Marxist definition of the state is certainly better than the Weberian one.

...no, it really isn't. It tries to label a society that undeniably has a state -a socialist country- a stateless society.

Socialism is by necessity global, but nitpicking aside, why does socialism undeniably have a state?

Sure, in the Marxist sense, but not in the sense that the state does not exist. If a state exists, a political hierarchy exists, thus, not communism.

This last bit assumes that a state is necessary for law and economic planning.

Again, it all depends on how you define "the state".

Some kind of centralized political organization is necessary for law and economic planning. You may or may not call that organization a "state" depending on your definition.

And as for communism, because I don't like to get entangled in semantic debates about what does or does not count as a "state", I define communism as a classless society without private property which operates according to the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". I don't think it matters whether or not it has a "state".

Surely a state (by the Marxist definition) cannot exist in a classless society?

[The New Sea Territory]

Sure, in the Marxist sense, but not in the sense that the state does not exist. If a state exists, a political hierarchy exists, thus, not communism.

This last bit assumes that a state is necessary for law and economic planning.

Defining the state as "political hierarchy" is supremely vague.

Not saying that is the definition of a state, but that all states have a political hierarchy.

Ok.



...no, it really isn't. It tries to label a society that undeniably has a state -a socialist country- a stateless society.

Socialism is by necessity global, but nitpicking aside, why does socialism undeniably have a state?

...a socialist country. Not necessarily socialism. A country is a sovereign state (or an occupied one), thus, places like China, the Soviet Union or Vietnam were obviously states.

Socialism without a state would be communism, mutualism, collectivism, syndicalism, or primitivism. All of these are forms of anarchism.

[Constantinopolis]

Surely a state (by the Marxist definition) cannot exist in a classless society?

Correct. By the Marxist definition. But most people don't use the Marxist definition, so it's best to avoid confusion by not talking about the "state" at all - one way or the other - when discussing communism. At least that's my opinion.

[Conscentia]

Defining the state as "political hierarchy" is supremely vague.

Not saying that is the definition of a state, but that all states have a political hierarchy.

So? Political hierarchy and communism aren't mutually exclusive, provided this hierarchy doesn't constitute a class and isn't a state.

[Shigiel]

Defining the state as "political hierarchy" is supremely vague.

Not saying that is the definition of a state, but that all states have a political hierarchy.

Socialism is by necessity global, but nitpicking aside, why does socialism undeniably have a state?

...a socialist country. Not necessarily socialism. A country is a sovereign state (or an occupied one), thus, places like China, the Soviet Union or Vietnam were obviously states.

None of these were socialist societies or even proletarian dictatorships. And in the case of the USSR, this was precisely because socialism was attempted in one country.

Socialism without a state would be communism, mutualism, collectivism, syndicalism, or primitivism. All of these are forms of anarchism.

All socialists have the end goal of a system in which the means of production are owned by everyone rather than one class and therefore there is no class system and no need for a state. Anarchists just want to abolish the state right away rather than setting up a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Shigiel]

Surely a state (by the Marxist definition) cannot exist in a classless society?

Correct. By the Marxist definition. But most people don't use the Marxist definition, so it's best to avoid confusion by not talking about the "state" at all - one way or the other - when discussing communism. At least that's my opinion.

Ah, I see. Good idea.

[Old Tyrannia]

Really?

How often does Fascism embrace globalist capitalism?
How often does Fascism embrace economic immigration?
How often does Fascism embrace private ownership?
How often does Fascism embrace private healthcare?
How often does Fascism embrace enterprise?
How often does Fascism embrace religion?

For the last one, some fascist leaders were very religious, such as Francisco Franco.

Franco was not a fascist. A better example might be Corneliu Codreanu, founder and leader of Romania's Iron Guard.