SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

I hate how a lot of people get this confused. >.<

Communism is an equal, classless society and an advanced and was never achieved in Soviet Russia or China, (even according to Lenin, Stalin and Mao, the leaders of the countries).

Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need, which is perhaps Marx's most famous quote."

Socialists and communists existed before Marx. Marx is the single most-'respected' 'authority' and reference point, but the words "socialism" and "communism" still have various shades and applications, because of the diversity amongst those calling themselves "communist" and "socialist."


So in other words, socialism is "the way" to get to communism (according to state socialists).

You could be a communist (someone who advocates an equal, classless society) and not believe in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and see that dictatorship brings no equality! It is almost always oppressive and exploitative for those at the bottom, but not for those at the top.

For example, I (an anarchist) could be described as someone who advocates an equal, classless society. In fact, I believe that liberty and equality should HAVE to coexist in order to have the other.

For example, how can you have an equal, classless society when there are dictators (who are unequal in the sharing of power and money) and a state (which becomes a class of it's own, the rulers).

Viva Liberty!

Quote :

Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule.

A little anarchism (/liberty/equality =p) rubbing off on you there, Pandemic? But seriously.. I, like many others, work fine and usually more productively while not being watched over like a baby or a criminal.

The word "exploiding" is diffrent in a commie vieuw.

I mean the boss of let's say, a big hotdog company is now very rich and has like 20 hotdog shops.
He gets the profit of other things that workers do, but he worked VERY hard for making it so far.

Also no-one FORCES workers to work.

(Don't get me wrong, i'm middle class )

CoolKidX wrote:

The word "exploiding" is diffrent in a commie vieuw.

I mean the boss of let's say, a big hotdog company is now very rich and has like 20 hotdog shops.
He gets the profit of other things that workers do, but he worked VERY hard for making it so far.

Also no-one FORCES workers to work.

(Don't get me wrong, i'm middle class )

Jesus fucking Christ.. The word doesn't change. lol
The way of getting RID of exploitation changes. I completely disagree with the Marxist ("commie vieuw").



"He gets the profit of other things that workers do, but he worked VERY hard for making it so far."

It doesn't matter how hard he works, work effort of a CEO has nothing to do with the amount of exploitation he does.



"Also no-one FORCES workers to work."

No one is directly forcing workers to work for undemocratic rulers who have all the say.
They're participating in such oppressive, undemocratic environments so they won't have to live even more horrible lives or perhaps die.

Even if the amount of "rags to riches" stories of capitalism were as great as supporters of capitalism claim (let's say they are!), it's not seeing the bigger picture:

If it is possible for someone to move from the lowest position of an authoritarian system to the highest position, it is still unethical because it is an authoritarian system. If it were possible to go from homeless person to dictator within a fascist system, fascism would still be wrong. If it were possible to go from slave to slave master, it would STILL BE WRONG.