Can you deny communism, but still be for socialism?

>just Bilbo me

Depends if that Socialism has a National in front of it.

socialism in the traditional sense is simply supposed to be the way to organize society to bring about a post scarcity scenario to usher in stateless classless communism

So no, in the traditional Marxist sense you can't but idk I'm not a Marxist maybe I'm wrong

Socialism is where the mean of production is controlled by the workers. In Marxist thought it exists as a transitional state between capitalism and communism.

Social democracy is simply a democratic government which values social support through welfare programs, etc, within a capitalist economic framework.

You would be one of the said retards, see above.

>simply supposed to be the way to organize society to bring about a post scarcity scenario to usher in stateless classless communism
The post-scarcity bit wasn't part of the original idea, but it's now a common facet of it because more people are starting to think it's actually possible.

Define "socialism"
Define "communism"

IMO social democracy is the biggest meme of all time. It's definition is literally
>anything that isn't anarcho capitalist or socialist

If you're a pragmatist and think ideological purity is a spook, yes.

Delegating this to a post made on another site by a friend of mine. Labour Party (UK) activist, incredibly well-read.

>Socialism is like Liberalism or Conservatism in that it is a very broad term that encompasses a very wide range of political tendencies and movements, many of which have almost nothing in common with each other. At its most basic it denotes support for the transfer of political and economic power from elite groups into the hands of the common people and the subsequent creation of a more egalitarian society. The term became more restrictively applied during the 20th century than had previously been the case and tended to denote support for the policies of various Socialist parties (much as had long been the case for Liberalism and Conservatism) many of which were explicitly Marxist or Marxist influenced and/or influenced by other forms of Utopian Modernism. In the West the Cold War led to the abandonment (gradual in some cases, very sudden in others) of the Marxist and/or Utopian legacy by the various Socialist parties and the subsequent diffusion of the term, a process hastened by the political and intellectual turmoil of the late 1960s and the emergence of the New Left. In the East the term was used to describe the society and system of government created by the various Communist regimes, while in the Third World it typically (though not entirely) denoted a form of enthusiastic Modernist folly. The collapse of the Soviet Union has ultimately meant (though it has taken a while) that we're back to where we began, almost.

(1/2)

>The term Communism has two principle uses, one of which was rendered entirely archaic by the other. In the 19th century it was often used to denote any society in which goods and property were held in common, and this is what Marx meant when he used it. After the October Revolution it came to denote exclusively the political and economic system established in the Soviet Union and support for that system or (in the West) support for a tragically idealised version of that system. I believe that these days it mostly denotes clinging to a failed future of the past.

(2/2)

Not today /pol/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
>By the early 1940s, over 500 companies in key German industries had been nationalized, mostly accomplished through the creation of the Reichswerke Hermann Göring in 1937.[4] Multi-national industries in occupied territory were particularly targeted for state ownership, where the Reichswerke absorbed approximately “50 – 60 per cent” of heavy industry in Czech and slightly less in Austria.[5] Göring industrial empire was a major attempt towards “restricting private industrial capitalism and substituting a ‘völkisch’, state-run industrial economy.”

Not seeing the socialism in this. Socialism advocates for worker ownership, not state ownership.

>"""""""""""""""""""Socialist""""""""""""""""""""""""

Tell your mate that Rosa Luxemburg wants to have a chat with him

Yeh yeh "no truuuuu soceeeelizmmm!!1!!111!!"

Wow, great rebuttal!

_donald

...

...

NEVER BEEN TRIEDtm

Sure though I am more interested at the disconnect you have.

Newfag™

lel this

Seems very postmodern.

Thank you. I wish Veeky Forums was a bit better read, otherwise they'd already know the broad spectrum of ideologies that term socialism covers and the fact Communism is not a synonym for Marxism-Leninism.

Individualist anarchists were socialists and absolutely despised communism for instance.

It's not. Socialism historically just referred to any ideology that was concerned with the problems of labour.

>socialism is defined as worker ownership of the means of production
>claims Nazi Germany was socialist because it took control of the means of production
>point out that state control of the means of production is not worker control of the means of production
>Yeh yeh "no truuuuu soceeeelizmmm!!1!!111!!"
I assume you think that North Korea is a democratic republic?

>mfw /pol/fag thinks state ownership is worker ownership

The socialism present is in the fact it's using a collective mechanism to address the grievances of labour.

State ownership can be considered a form of worker control, if you consider the state to represent the worker.

That said I would say there is a big difference with Nazi Germany in that their reasons for nationalizing weren't about bettering the worker's conditions or addressing social inequality but instead for entirely nationalistic reasons.

>States nationalize their industry during war

Wow, such an argument. Really makes you think.

...

EXACTLY.

Fucking exactly. If you had half the people who can read well understand what socialism is, then forget about having threads like these. I swear, just a cursory read through most economics texts or political science text would have told you there are infinitely many forms of socialism. The very idea that someone would create a thread based on the idea of socialism being communism is just borderline academically retarded.

>instead of actually addressing their arguments I'll just post a /pol/ image

Not them but you're pathetic.

>Socialism
>In economics texts
aha hahahahahhah hahahah only if it's getting btfo or is actually just sociology

Worker ownership is not present in Venezuela. It is an oppressive state that controls the economy.

>if you consider the state to represent the worker.
Which cannot be automatically assumed desu and something else altogether to prove

>worker control of the means of production
>literal dictatorship of the proletariat
>not truuu socializzmmm!1!1!!!!

>socialism has many forms
>that's not socialism, that's actually state capitalism
>you hate socialism? I guess you hate x government program

>state represents workers

J.S. Mill's Principles of Political Economy has a whole chapter on different socialist systems.
Schumpeter has a book titled Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.

What are you even talking about you fucking.

Yes.

It can't be automatically assumed, but one could make a convincing argument for it in many cases. Not every state represents their workers, no matter how much they may claim to do so.

It's almost like one might be discussing these matters with several different people who have different definitions of these terms.

>political science
rofl you fucking.

> In Marxist thought it exists as a transitional state between capitalism and communism.

No more than capitalism exists as a transitional state between feudalism and socialism.

More like
>worker don't control of the means of production
>it's socialism anyway because that's what they call themselves!!!!!!

it's almost as if socialism is a mystical ideology that is in every way perfect, can not fail, and has never been tried.

I should make my own ideology. I'll call it anonism and it's sole principle is that it is absolutely flawless and every time it fails it's actually nottrueanonism

Please define socialism.

Marx didn't fucking claim ownership of the word (nor communism for that matter) you goddamn retard. He defined his terms as an academic is expected to, but he was just doing so to maintain consistent meaning and terminology within his work.

Both of those are economics books.

If you are between the ages of 18-20 leave

NEVER BEEN TRIED

NOT TRUE SOCIALISM

Does anonism have a definition that is very easy to check empirically yet people call anonists things that objectively doesn't fit that definition? If that is the case, it's a good analogy.

>but still be for socialism?

communism = international socialism =||= national socialism

The socialism that most European countries had was national socialism lite. It worked for decades, but now it's going to crash because the open borders transitioned it to international socialism.

>it's almost as if socialism is a mystical ideology that is in every way perfect, can not fail, and has never been tried.

No. It's been tried several times in several different forms. Social democracy, Marxism-Leninism, and Maoism all spring to minds as attempts at socialism.

Is there an award for most butthurt poster on Veeky Forums? I'd like to nominate you for it.

Ebin meem, sure showed me.

...

And the retarded post of the day award goes to...

If it doesn't have abolishing private property as it's only overarching goal, it certainly isn't Communist.

I am glad that we agree since some people take that for granted. Usually a democratic element is the bare minimum needed to convince me that the workers own the state.

Even if that is possible, one must admit a large gov can be cumbersome in being the only one to cater to every worker's specific needs

Funnily enough, what actually occurs under anonism is that it has a number of branches so that each follower of anonism can actually jump ship to another branch each time a branch of anonism fails so we can claim that it's nottrueanonism

>social democracy
>socialism

but user, what about the abolition of the state, classes, money, and worker control of the means of production?

Please define socialism, and cite your definition.

The social democrats were fundamentally driven by socialist aims, and many SocDem groups had their roots as Marxist organizations. The fact they sought to achieve their aims through parliamentary democracy doesn't change the fact they were indeed socialists.

Why doesn't Veeky Forums read more?

>social democracy
>literally just capitalism with a welfare state

Socdem is a gateway drug to socialism desu

>what actually occurs under anonism is that it has a number of branches so that each follower of anonism can actually jump ship to another branch each time a branch of anonism fails so we can claim that it's nottrueanonism
So you think that it's not that you are debating with multiple people but rather with one that constantly changes his definition of socialism? Kinda silly.

That's what it eventually became, but that wasn't the initial aim. Hence why I described it as an attempt.

Funny note, Bakunin made a correct guess on that in how parliamentary attempts to establish Marxist socialism would go.

>what about the abolition of the state, classes, money, and worker control of the means of production?

Sure, these things matter. But the source of all the so-called problems that Marxists and Communist whine about is private property.

The problem is that property is power. And if you abolish private property, you will leave a power vacuum.

And that power vacuum will be filled by the State.

>And the retarded post of the day award goes to...

Not an argument, try again...

Except that communists want to abolish the state, and the state is the entity that protects private property in the first place.

>Except that communists want to abolish the state

So communist societies have no leaders?
Who assigns the work, temporary property,... if there is no (central) authority to do so. Who protects the communist "rules"?

>I don't want the gulags, just fuck my economy and society up

>So communist societies have no leaders?
Yes, in a theoretical communist society (which has never existed as far as we know).

>Who assigns the work, temporary property,... if there is no (central) authority to do so. Who protects the communist "rules"?
The workers govern themselves. This has happened before in history, at least with a general populous controlling the state, not necessarily the means of production.

>Except that communists want to abolish the state,

So why have they never done so when they have achieved power in a country?

A better question would be why are you calling them communists if they didn't do so.
They're leninists.

Authoritarian communists think the state will "wither away" after you increase it's power and force citizens to obey it's laws. This is contrasted by anti-authoritarian communists who advocate for a more immediate dismantling of the state. They are called anarchists.

Judging by the behavior of the common anarchist, it's highly likely they would destroy absolutely everything if they got power, not just the state.

Oh, you're one of those guys.

uh excHUSE me you're forgetting MARKET socialism where money can exist, and class is reduced not eliminated

>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production

Worker control through the state

Gee I feel bad for you ninnies though. I love arguing with socialists. Their arguments are literally just "that's not true socialism!11!!!!" for every case of attempted socialism and thereby show that socialism is LITERALLY impossible to implement. It's hilarious to watch people try to defend such a doomed ideology that lefty parties nowadays are all liberal capitalists

We're talking about communism, not socialism.

But since you brought up, fuck market socialism.

Which would be?

Market socialism is a perfectly valid form of socialism. It's pretty much only hated by people who are socialist or communist because they are anti-capitalist.

socialism is a catch-all term for an alternative to exploitative capitalism. The utopian socialists such as Fourier, Saint-Simone and Owner called themselves socialists before Marx appeared on the scene. Proudhomme and Blanc also called themselves socialists

Market socialism can still be anti-capitalist, especially with libertarian socialists.

Define perfectly valid