4 ms·

Reading some speeches by Mao helped me to understand the meaning of "socialism" better. Communism is just the end goal that can only be achieved once humanity i

by edbob 6y ago

Reading some speeches by Mao helped me to understand the meaning of "socialism" better. Communism is just the end goal that can only be achieved once humanity is "perfected". Socialism is the means of perfecting humanity in order to eventually achieve communism. We call it Communist China, but it never achieved communism in this sense and was always merely socialist, even under Mao. This article is similar to how Mao described communism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society If it helps anyone, communism is an eschatological state similar to the "New Heaven and New Earth" of Christianity, while socialism is the prelude to it, the "Thousand-Year Reign" of Christ.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I've heard some devout communists echo this, but I wonder if this is the political science definition or if someone created a new definition in order to move the goalposts. With respect to the standard PoliSci definition, I recall being taught that Communism is "the public owns everything" and Socialism is "the state owns everything", and I'm still not super clear on what the difference is. Assuming what I was taught was actually correct, what does it mean for the public to own something in a way that is distinct from state ownership?
- edbob 6y ago
  Not my beliefs, but trying to accurately represent the ideas: Having a state is only necessary during the socialist phase. When society is perfected and true communism is achieved, the state is unnecessary. What Mao refers to as socialism seems to be equivalent to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, which involves the gradual abolishment of the capitalist elements of society (including people). When capitalism and class have been fully abolished, the state is supposed to wither away on its own. Thus, the public "owns" the means of production but there is no state to own anything. The idea of common ownership has a long history and I think that it's a valid concept here, even if it's awkward considering that what we normally mean by "own" is more or less the opposite of what it means in common ownership. This StackOverflow answer has more detail: > Communists who agree with what Lenin wrote in "The State and Revolution" and what Marx and Engels wrote, believe that the state will "wither away" when what Lenin calls "class antagonisms" vanish. The state emerged as a tool for class control, and they believe it will fade away as there is no class to dominate or be dominated by another. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9359/what-is-the-difference-between-communism-and-anarchism https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9359/what-is-th... It seems obvious to me that people will oppress one another quite readily whether there are class differences are not. I can't make any sense of how Marxism is supposed to actually work—it sounds like a religion where supernatural help is needed to achieve godliness, but without any god that could actually provide that help. Perhaps the ideas themselves are supposed to be powerful enough to overcome human nature.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > When society is perfected and true communism is achieved, the state is unnecessary. I mean, "the public" still has to make decisions on the allocation of resources, goods, etc. Is the idea that every little decision is put before the whole community to vote on? Everyone spends all day voting on everything? Even assuming the Magic Wand of Communism absolves us of our selfish tendencies, is it also going to make us all experts in medicine, energy, engineering, etc? Or do we regress to agrarianism or worse? If the answer is "we elect people to manage our medicine, energy, engineering, etc", how does that differ from a state? I understand this isn't your idea to defend, but I think there are problems with the idea of "statelessness" even if people are cured of all selfishness.
    - edbob 6y ago
      > In social relations between people certain voluntary social norms will have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfill a freely accepted agreement. Anarchism is not no government. Anarchism is self-government (or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the members of every association freely make the rules of their association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honor a voluntary agreement shall be deprived of its benefits. > Punishment for violation of agreements is balanced by the inalienable right to secede. The right of groups and individuals to choose their own forms of association is, according to Bakunin, the most important of all political rights. The abrogation of this right leads to the reintroduction of tyranny. You cannot secede from a jail. Secession will not paralyze the association. People with strong, overriding common interests will cooperate. Those who stand more to lose by seceding will compromise their differences. Those who have little or nothing in common with the collectivity will not hurt the association by seceding, but will, on the contrary, eliminate a source of friction, thereby promoting general harmony. This the most reasonable-sounding explanation of the concept of "free association" in anarchism and communism. It definitely glosses over the lessons of much of human history. https://web.archive.org/web/19980206141952/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/miscon.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980206141952/http://flag.black...

by edbob 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

I've heard some devout communists echo this, but I wonder if this is the political science definition or if someone created a new definition in order to move the goalposts. With respect to the standard PoliSci definition, I recall being taught that Communism is "the public owns everything" and Socialism is "the state owns everything", and I'm still not super clear on what the difference is. Assuming what I was taught was actually correct, what does it mean for the public to own something in a way that is distinct from state ownership?

edbob 6y ago
Not my beliefs, but trying to accurately represent the ideas: Having a state is only necessary during the socialist phase. When society is perfected and true communism is achieved, the state is unnecessary. What Mao refers to as socialism seems to be equivalent to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, which involves the gradual abolishment of the capitalist elements of society (including people). When capitalism and class have been fully abolished, the state is supposed to wither away on its own. Thus, the public "owns" the means of production but there is no state to own anything. The idea of common ownership has a long history and I think that it's a valid concept here, even if it's awkward considering that what we normally mean by "own" is more or less the opposite of what it means in common ownership. This StackOverflow answer has more detail: > Communists who agree with what Lenin wrote in "The State and Revolution" and what Marx and Engels wrote, believe that the state will "wither away" when what Lenin calls "class antagonisms" vanish. The state emerged as a tool for class control, and they believe it will fade away as there is no class to dominate or be dominated by another. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9359/what-is-the-difference-between-communism-and-anarchism https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9359/what-is-th... It seems obvious to me that people will oppress one another quite readily whether there are class differences are not. I can't make any sense of how Marxism is supposed to actually work—it sounds like a religion where supernatural help is needed to achieve godliness, but without any god that could actually provide that help. Perhaps the ideas themselves are supposed to be powerful enough to overcome human nature.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > When society is perfected and true communism is achieved, the state is unnecessary. I mean, "the public" still has to make decisions on the allocation of resources, goods, etc. Is the idea that every little decision is put before the whole community to vote on? Everyone spends all day voting on everything? Even assuming the Magic Wand of Communism absolves us of our selfish tendencies, is it also going to make us all experts in medicine, energy, engineering, etc? Or do we regress to agrarianism or worse? If the answer is "we elect people to manage our medicine, energy, engineering, etc", how does that differ from a state? I understand this isn't your idea to defend, but I think there are problems with the idea of "statelessness" even if people are cured of all selfishness.
  - edbob 6y ago
    > In social relations between people certain voluntary social norms will have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfill a freely accepted agreement. Anarchism is not no government. Anarchism is self-government (or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the members of every association freely make the rules of their association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honor a voluntary agreement shall be deprived of its benefits. > Punishment for violation of agreements is balanced by the inalienable right to secede. The right of groups and individuals to choose their own forms of association is, according to Bakunin, the most important of all political rights. The abrogation of this right leads to the reintroduction of tyranny. You cannot secede from a jail. Secession will not paralyze the association. People with strong, overriding common interests will cooperate. Those who stand more to lose by seceding will compromise their differences. Those who have little or nothing in common with the collectivity will not hurt the association by seceding, but will, on the contrary, eliminate a source of friction, thereby promoting general harmony. This the most reasonable-sounding explanation of the concept of "free association" in anarchism and communism. It definitely glosses over the lessons of much of human history. https://web.archive.org/web/19980206141952/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/miscon.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980206141952/http://flag.black...