5 ms·

> Capitalism is to free markets what communism is to socialism Would you explain this a bit more?

jrs235 9y ago
I believe OP is trying to say that capitalism and communism pertain to who owns [the] property while free markets and socialism pertain to who/how/what gets produced.
chewz 9y ago
Socialism is about class solidarity and more equal redistribution of capital gains mostly via democratic process. Communism (or bolshevism and maoism) on the other hand is about exclusive small cadre party pretending to represent entire working class and seeking total control over society using all means including terror. Free market is about leveling play field and equal access to marketplace for all actors big or small. Capitalism on the other hand is about maximizing control over markets and maximizing rent seeking.
- vslira 9y ago
  The problem is that none of your definitions reflect how these terms are read in some academic circles. Which is not saying that you're wrong, I'm just pointing out that probably each person/group has a different view on what "Capitalism", "Socialism", "Communism", "Fascism" etc mean.
  - _jal 9y ago
    > The problem is that none of your definitions reflect how these terms are read in some academic circles That can't be helped. There are people who regard anything more collectivist than a volunteer fire department as communism. All you can do is define your terms and try to argue only with intellectually honest people.
    - smokeyj 9y ago
      Defining government is always a fun one. The cognitive dissonance alone makes it worth it.
      - chewz 9y ago
        "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself" - Ibn Khaldun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun
- smokeyj 9y ago
  > Socialism is about class solidarity I thought it was about workers owning the means of production.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    It is. The highest form of class solidarity is plain old-fashioned class freedom, the freedom for the working class to decide when to work, how to work, what to work on. Socialism is economic democracy.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Your definitions of Socialism and Communism are almost entirely false and lacking in any reference to the founders of the movement, their usage in the disciplines of philosophy, political philosophy and sociology, and historical meaning. Socialism since its inception was never about redistribution of capital gains, it was about the ownership of society's means of production by the working class, i.e those who survive mostly or entirely from the sale of their labour-power. This definition stretches back to even before Marx, as does Communism. Your definition of "Socialism" is what it is thought of in the US, i.e Socialism is where the government spends money on social programs which it acquires via heavy taxation. This, as many point out, is actually social democracy, a form of economic management practiced most notably in Scandinavian countries. So if what I have said is true, you may ask: What is the purpose of the word "Communism"? The truth is that 19th century authors used the term "Socialism" and "Communism" interchangably; this can be seen in Marx and Engels, Bakunin and Oscar Wilde's works. Although they were separated into higher and lower stages, the practice of calling the lower stage as "Socialism" is an invention of Vladimir Lenin who sought to describe his country as "state Socialist" in an effort to convince people of the idea that the means of production were communally owned by the working class. Communism is further not about party control; the idea of the vanguard party again originates from Lenin; but here we must make a distinction - Lenin did not seek to modify what his theoretical predecessors meant by "Communism", he sought to create a model of praxis, that is, to ask and answer the question of: How is Communism achieved? Lenin's own idea to this was the usage of the vanguard party, which is a group of highly educated Communist intellectuals which guides the masses of the working class toward revolution and Communism. You are conflating Communism with praxis (thus making a category error) and further conflating that specific Leninist praxis with Communism in general. The evidence that this is a conflation rests in two facts: there exist and have existed through history democratic Socialists who not only used the terms "Socialism" and "Communism" interchangably as I have already mentioned but who sought to establish Communism not via representation of the working class themselves but via the normal methods of parliamentary democracy. An example of this praxis in use is various Socialist parties which compete in local and national elections in Europe and elsewhere. Further, there exist today several varieties of Communism, within academia the meaning of Communism can be stretched much father than you may have anticipated; Badiou writes, "where there is a State, there is Communism to oppose it". This is known as the Communist hypothesis. On to the definiton of capitalism, the main factor is the private ownership of social means of production. By this I mean that the majority apparatus used to produce goods which society exchanges and uses are owned by individuals who seek to make a profit. This is echod by Smith, Ricardo, Marx and Keynes. Other factors which contribute to the definition include the predominant usage of wage labour and the goal of capital accumulation.
- repsilat 9y ago
  > maximizing control over markets and maximizing rent seeking. This is typically called "crony capitalism" -- it's a "false calitalism". To the capitalist faithful, rent seeking and monopolies tend to result from impurities in the system (usually government intervention) and tend to iron themselves out without that intervention. A little starry-eyed for me, but worth understanding the viewpoint.
  - chewz 9y ago
    'Crony capitalism' in opposition to something like 'self-restraining capitalism'? :) I would very much like to see such a creature.
    - repsilat 9y ago
      In theory as opposed to _unrestrained_ capitalism. As the idea goes, abusive monopolies get out-competed. The logic goes that money will inevitably buy power, so a government of limited purview (but unlimited strength to check market excesses within that purview) is best. I take your point, though -- that "No True Scotsmen" capitalism, like actual factual communism, is an ideal that has never been achieved, and that incentives will always render it imperfect. It does empirically seem a rather safer ideal to aim for, though.
- iamcasen 9y ago
  What you're describing is despotism... not communism. For the love of all that is holy, please learn what communism is! "...which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state" Absence of social classes, money, and the state. That is the key of the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
ep103 9y ago
You kinda got a response already, but: Socialism was born from the belief that democratic forms of government aren't possible so long as there is wealth inequality, as the rich will simply hijack the government to serve their interests. Socialism, then, is a large bucket of political beliefs all concerned with different methods by which to keep a vibrant economy, while ensuring that all people are relatively equal, or at least equal enough monetarily that the government can be truly democratic, for some definition of democracy. Communism was born of the belief that the previous type of society was not possible to achieve without an organized group taking the reigns and instituting such a society. But of course, people rarely step down from power once achieving it, so instead you usually wound up with small groups of people dictatorially running countries and doing as they pleased, in the name of 'socialism.' Free market ideology is born of the belief that decentralized economic planning is a way of bringing enlightenment thinking to economic matters, and, more simply put, that thousands or millions of people making small economic decisions will ultimately be more efficient, fair, and rewarding for society as a whole than small groups of people attempting to make such decisions for everyone on their behalf, from far away (literally, or metaphorically). In this analogy, the author is implying that capitalism is similar to free markets, as communists are to socialism. A small group of people, who acting in the name of the previous ideology, ultimately come to concentrate power among themselves at the expense of everyone else. These people paying lip service to the original ideology they were supposed to be a part of, while actively acting against it and ensuring it does not exist for the wider population.

I believe OP is trying to say that capitalism and communism pertain to who owns [the] property while free markets and socialism pertain to who/how/what gets produced.

chewz 9y ago

Socialism is about class solidarity and more equal redistribution of capital gains mostly via democratic process. Communism (or bolshevism and maoism) on the other hand is about exclusive small cadre party pretending to represent entire working class and seeking total control over society using all means including terror. Free market is about leveling play field and equal access to marketplace for all actors big or small. Capitalism on the other hand is about maximizing control over markets and maximizing rent seeking.

vslira 9y ago
The problem is that none of your definitions reflect how these terms are read in some academic circles. Which is not saying that you're wrong, I'm just pointing out that probably each person/group has a different view on what "Capitalism", "Socialism", "Communism", "Fascism" etc mean.
- _jal 9y ago
  > The problem is that none of your definitions reflect how these terms are read in some academic circles That can't be helped. There are people who regard anything more collectivist than a volunteer fire department as communism. All you can do is define your terms and try to argue only with intellectually honest people.
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    Defining government is always a fun one. The cognitive dissonance alone makes it worth it.
    - chewz 9y ago
      "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself" - Ibn Khaldun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun
smokeyj 9y ago
> Socialism is about class solidarity I thought it was about workers owning the means of production.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  It is. The highest form of class solidarity is plain old-fashioned class freedom, the freedom for the working class to decide when to work, how to work, what to work on. Socialism is economic democracy.
ue_ 9y ago
Your definitions of Socialism and Communism are almost entirely false and lacking in any reference to the founders of the movement, their usage in the disciplines of philosophy, political philosophy and sociology, and historical meaning. Socialism since its inception was never about redistribution of capital gains, it was about the ownership of society's means of production by the working class, i.e those who survive mostly or entirely from the sale of their labour-power. This definition stretches back to even before Marx, as does Communism. Your definition of "Socialism" is what it is thought of in the US, i.e Socialism is where the government spends money on social programs which it acquires via heavy taxation. This, as many point out, is actually social democracy, a form of economic management practiced most notably in Scandinavian countries. So if what I have said is true, you may ask: What is the purpose of the word "Communism"? The truth is that 19th century authors used the term "Socialism" and "Communism" interchangably; this can be seen in Marx and Engels, Bakunin and Oscar Wilde's works. Although they were separated into higher and lower stages, the practice of calling the lower stage as "Socialism" is an invention of Vladimir Lenin who sought to describe his country as "state Socialist" in an effort to convince people of the idea that the means of production were communally owned by the working class. Communism is further not about party control; the idea of the vanguard party again originates from Lenin; but here we must make a distinction - Lenin did not seek to modify what his theoretical predecessors meant by "Communism", he sought to create a model of praxis, that is, to ask and answer the question of: How is Communism achieved? Lenin's own idea to this was the usage of the vanguard party, which is a group of highly educated Communist intellectuals which guides the masses of the working class toward revolution and Communism. You are conflating Communism with praxis (thus making a category error) and further conflating that specific Leninist praxis with Communism in general. The evidence that this is a conflation rests in two facts: there exist and have existed through history democratic Socialists who not only used the terms "Socialism" and "Communism" interchangably as I have already mentioned but who sought to establish Communism not via representation of the working class themselves but via the normal methods of parliamentary democracy. An example of this praxis in use is various Socialist parties which compete in local and national elections in Europe and elsewhere. Further, there exist today several varieties of Communism, within academia the meaning of Communism can be stretched much father than you may have anticipated; Badiou writes, "where there is a State, there is Communism to oppose it". This is known as the Communist hypothesis. On to the definiton of capitalism, the main factor is the private ownership of social means of production. By this I mean that the majority apparatus used to produce goods which society exchanges and uses are owned by individuals who seek to make a profit. This is echod by Smith, Ricardo, Marx and Keynes. Other factors which contribute to the definition include the predominant usage of wage labour and the goal of capital accumulation.
repsilat 9y ago
> maximizing control over markets and maximizing rent seeking. This is typically called "crony capitalism" -- it's a "false calitalism". To the capitalist faithful, rent seeking and monopolies tend to result from impurities in the system (usually government intervention) and tend to iron themselves out without that intervention. A little starry-eyed for me, but worth understanding the viewpoint.
- chewz 9y ago
  'Crony capitalism' in opposition to something like 'self-restraining capitalism'? :) I would very much like to see such a creature.
  - repsilat 9y ago
    In theory as opposed to _unrestrained_ capitalism. As the idea goes, abusive monopolies get out-competed. The logic goes that money will inevitably buy power, so a government of limited purview (but unlimited strength to check market excesses within that purview) is best. I take your point, though -- that "No True Scotsmen" capitalism, like actual factual communism, is an ideal that has never been achieved, and that incentives will always render it imperfect. It does empirically seem a rather safer ideal to aim for, though.
iamcasen 9y ago
What you're describing is despotism... not communism. For the love of all that is holy, please learn what communism is! "...which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state" Absence of social classes, money, and the state. That is the key of the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

ep103 9y ago

You kinda got a response already, but: Socialism was born from the belief that democratic forms of government aren't possible so long as there is wealth inequality, as the rich will simply hijack the government to serve their interests. Socialism, then, is a large bucket of political beliefs all concerned with different methods by which to keep a vibrant economy, while ensuring that all people are relatively equal, or at least equal enough monetarily that the government can be truly democratic, for some definition of democracy. Communism was born of the belief that the previous type of society was not possible to achieve without an organized group taking the reigns and instituting such a society. But of course, people rarely step down from power once achieving it, so instead you usually wound up with small groups of people dictatorially running countries and doing as they pleased, in the name of 'socialism.' Free market ideology is born of the belief that decentralized economic planning is a way of bringing enlightenment thinking to economic matters, and, more simply put, that thousands or millions of people making small economic decisions will ultimately be more efficient, fair, and rewarding for society as a whole than small groups of people attempting to make such decisions for everyone on their behalf, from far away (literally, or metaphorically). In this analogy, the author is implying that capitalism is similar to free markets, as communists are to socialism. A small group of people, who acting in the name of the previous ideology, ultimately come to concentrate power among themselves at the expense of everyone else. These people paying lip service to the original ideology they were supposed to be a part of, while actively acting against it and ensuring it does not exist for the wider population.