You’re stretching the realities here with your assertions. The vast majority of what the government does is in the interest of workers. It could be better, absolutely, but it’s a far cry from some dystopian corpo-state. The government could move towards more positive worker benefits, but a lot of those workers won’t actually vote for them if they did because people aren’t entirely rational. So we’re essentially getting what we deserve right now.
Profit-bound but still owned by the state would still be socialist. There’s no requirement that the means of production not generate profit to qualify as being owned by the workers.
So you’re a Social Democrat, got it. Those are pretty out of fashion over here and gave up pretending wanting to achieve Socialism long ago. Sorry, but I don’t really think that what you’re talking about is Socialism, it’s liberal reformism.
It makes me someone who treats them as economic systems, usually referred to as an economist.
Have fun being morally outraged by my proposal, but at least it’s grounded in reality. Humans are not capable of making or maintaining a full Marxist communist state. Our desires are limitless, reality is finite.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:
You have a horrible understanding of socialism, communism, and social democracy, that frankly makes things more confusing.
If two people get together and put all of their earnings into a pot together, then each take out what they need. That’s a type of communism. It’s also usually called a family.
Marxism/Leninism are specific type of communism as well, that reach well into the political space as well as the economic.
What you’re trying to do right now, imposing your own singular view of what communism can be, is the same as saying Catholicism is the only type of Christianity just because it’s the most well known.
There’s a whole wikipedia article detailing dozens of variations of Communism, from Marxism to variations on Marxism, to variations independent of Marxism. Just because he did a lot of thinking on the whole thing doesn’t mean he’s the only one who gets to define the word.
You seem like you’re suffering from a bad case of Dunning-Kruger. You’ve been explained very basic terms multiple times, but you keep repeating your completely wrong understanding undeterred, with brazen authority.
The fact of the matter is that Marxism-Leninism is what communism means for 99.9% of historical practice. Someone trying to describe sharing as “communism” when OP is talking about actual modes of production and distribution is missing the forest for the trees. Marx didn’t define communism, he created an ideology that better understands how to actually achieve it and why it is historically compelled, what gives him validity is that the only socialism that has actually existed at scale in real life has come from Marxism-Leninism.
You clearly didn’t read the links either. There are actively practiced forms of communism listed in there. You’re the ones just being so narrowminded about it’s definition.
For most of historical practice, gay meant happy. We decided to use it for something else only recently in terms of language. That’s how language works.
Canada
You’re stretching the realities here with your assertions. The vast majority of what the government does is in the interest of workers. It could be better, absolutely, but it’s a far cry from some dystopian corpo-state. The government could move towards more positive worker benefits, but a lot of those workers won’t actually vote for them if they did because people aren’t entirely rational. So we’re essentially getting what we deserve right now.
Profit-bound but still owned by the state would still be socialist. There’s no requirement that the means of production not generate profit to qualify as being owned by the workers.
So you’re a Social Democrat, got it. Those are pretty out of fashion over here and gave up pretending wanting to achieve Socialism long ago. Sorry, but I don’t really think that what you’re talking about is Socialism, it’s liberal reformism.
I want Communism for Land, Socialism for Necessities, and Capitalism for Luxuries.
I don’t think that puts me into any of the existing labels to be quite honest.
It makes you someone who doesn’t understand what those terms mean, so a modern liberal.
It makes me someone who treats them as economic systems, usually referred to as an economist.
Have fun being morally outraged by my proposal, but at least it’s grounded in reality. Humans are not capable of making or maintaining a full Marxist communist state. Our desires are limitless, reality is finite.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:
You have a horrible understanding of socialism, communism, and social democracy, that frankly makes things more confusing.
You have a horrible understanding of reality.
If two people get together and put all of their earnings into a pot together, then each take out what they need. That’s a type of communism. It’s also usually called a family.
Marxism/Leninism are specific type of communism as well, that reach well into the political space as well as the economic.
What you’re trying to do right now, imposing your own singular view of what communism can be, is the same as saying Catholicism is the only type of Christianity just because it’s the most well known.
There’s a whole wikipedia article detailing dozens of variations of Communism, from Marxism to variations on Marxism, to variations independent of Marxism. Just because he did a lot of thinking on the whole thing doesn’t mean he’s the only one who gets to define the word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies
You seem like you’re suffering from a bad case of Dunning-Kruger. You’ve been explained very basic terms multiple times, but you keep repeating your completely wrong understanding undeterred, with brazen authority.
Are you saying that I made up an entire Wikipedia article with dozens of variations of Communism?
That page has existed for 2 years, not sure I’m playing that long of a game to win an argument on Lemmy.
It’s like you’re intentionally just ignoring everything I show you because it doesn’t conform to your world view.
The fact of the matter is that Marxism-Leninism is what communism means for 99.9% of historical practice. Someone trying to describe sharing as “communism” when OP is talking about actual modes of production and distribution is missing the forest for the trees. Marx didn’t define communism, he created an ideology that better understands how to actually achieve it and why it is historically compelled, what gives him validity is that the only socialism that has actually existed at scale in real life has come from Marxism-Leninism.
You clearly didn’t read the links either. There are actively practiced forms of communism listed in there. You’re the ones just being so narrowminded about it’s definition.
For most of historical practice, gay meant happy. We decided to use it for something else only recently in terms of language. That’s how language works.