what is the difrence betwen socialism and communism?
154640
Communism is extreme socialism. Marx's idea was to conquer the world for the deserving people (the workers).  This was a truly terrifying prospect for anyone with any brains and gave rise to the fascist alternative socialist system, which was national rather than international.  This system worked miraculously well in Italy and Germany, while the pure Marxist system seems to have been a bust everywhere.\nIn China the Communist Party has realised this and specifically and unequivocally announced that it will pursue a policy of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics".   In a big country like China, where not everyone is Han Chinese, this can only be expressed as National Socialism.   Does anyone have the cheek to argue with me?
910242
My understanding (from my college days), is that communism is a political system, and socialism is an economic system.\n\nSo socialism contrasts with capitalism.\n\nOnly those of us on the very far left in the US are socialists; most democrats and liberals are not -- though some believe in SOME socialism (such as Social Security and welfare for the poor, medicare, and other things).\n\nCompared to civilized countries, we don't really have much of a left here.\n\nWell, I guess the progressives are fairly left, and that's a growing group.\n\nBut most Americans, including liberals and democrats, are capitalists, with liberals and dems having slight socialist leanings.\n\nNo democrats or liberals are communist, as far as I know.\n\nThere is a communist party in the US, but it's tiny.
440233
Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. In the latter case, the issue of who controls the state is crucial. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]\n\nHistorically, the ideology of socialism arose with the rise of organized labor, and the socialist political movement has found most of its support among the urban working class and, to a lesser extent, the peasantry. This has led to socialism being strongly associated with the working class and often identifying itself with the interests of workers and the "common people". In many parts of the world, the two are still strongly associated with one another; in other parts, they have become two distinct movements.\n\nPure socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system that serves the interests of the wealthy and exploits the majority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would reward hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend economic and cultural opportunities to all.[3]\n\nSocialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. There are some common themes, however. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently social beings that require social interaction and the companionship of others in order to survive and develop both physically and mentally[4]. Individuals cannot maintain their humanity if they are separated from the rest of society for too long. Thus, socialists believe that the individual and society are inseparable, and they reject individualistic schools of thought which assert that society is the voluntary creation of individuals who chose to interact with each other.[5]\n\nMarxism is an ideology which has had a powerful influence on socialist thought. For over 50 years, from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the 1970s, the majority of socialists were Marxists of one kind or another. This has not been the case for several decades, but Marxist ideas - particularly notions of class struggle - are common themes across a broad range of modern socialist groups. Marxism itself continues to be a strong current in the broader socialist movement.\n\nMany Marxists, past and present, use the term socialism to refer to the form of society that is supposed to replace capitalism and later develop into communism.\n\nWithin the socialist movement, there are several different ideas on how to create a socialist society and economic system, and what form this society will take. As a result, the movement has split into several different and sometimes opposing branches, which are discussed further below.
266696
another short summary:\ncapitalism and democracy good, communism bad
350231
Socialism is an economic system whereby the wealth created by the whole of society is redistributed evenly amongst the populace, ensuring that all are equally rewarded for the work everyone does.\n\nCommunism is a political contruct by which socialism is the main economic form.  In a communist society, a single political party controls the government, there are no real elections, and the populace is kept complacent by a bloated government machine that provides for all of the people.  Socialism is the dominant economic form to ensure the people are deluded into theinking they are taken care of.  \n\nExamples of socialist societies - France, Sweden, England\n\nExamples of Communist societies - Former USSR, China, Cuba
176814
If you believe that "communism is as communism does," and you use those shoddy tyrannies as the only possible socialist models, than the answer is no. On the other hand, if you consider the basic proposals of communism (actually socialism), then it gets more interesting. \n\nFirst let's get rid of the sillyness that equates socialism with tyranny. That's a little like saying that because Pinochet was dictatorial and pro-capitalist, then capitalism is dictatorial. And even though it's true that the democratic socialist movements were invariably short-lived, it's also true that their lives were most often cut short by their opponents - e.g., from Allende to Pinochet,  from Arbenz to a succesion of military dictators, etc. In short, there is nothing in socialist theory that prohibits democracy - in fact, many of its proponents have made the case that democracy is necessary in order to have the deliberation necessary to create a productive society. And capitalism, the real opposition to socialism, has done very well under a plethora of dictatorial forms, thank you very much.  \n\nThat being said, I do agree with the writer who implies that perhaps our species is not ready to deliberate on its own economic future. As a whole, we may not be intellectually or ethically equipped to get much past our present dismal state of quasi-anarchy. There's the "rub." Just as the population of the Soviet Union was told, "don't worry about the economy ... the party will look after it," capitalist regimes say, "don't worry about the economy, the 'invisible hand' and the captains of industry will look after it."
453106
Capitalism is an other word for greed. Communism is about sharing, neither work very well in its entirety. However some socialism in a mix with capitalism would work if you could get the capitalist to see that it would restore order to a chaotic society.
310950
Believe me, you could go to some of the Socialist-Communist websites and watch them debate this. But you would probably kill yourself before your figured out the answer.\n\nSince it involves a complex economic and political philosophy, there is no simple answer. But the following is a pretty good examination of the central themes of Marxism:\nhttp://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html\n\nStalinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism\n\nHere is a lengthy article on Stalinism vs. Leninism:\nhttp://www.marxist.com/Theory/celia_hart_controversy.html
1124946
What an excellent question! If anyone has called you a Socialist Bimbo for asking this question, please ignore them. Chances are that they probably don’t have a good understanding of the concept anyway, and they are only calling you names because they’ve heard that “Socialism/Communism is bad”. I doubt that they could give you a satisfactory explanantion. It speaks volumes about your character that you’re actually trying to learn something. We really need to see more questions like this on Answers.com.\n\nSocialism is a particular type of socio-economic doctrine which advocates social control over the distribution of wealth and property. Basically, rather than having private ownership of the means of production, there is collective, social control.\nThis stands in stark contrast to Capitalism. Capitalism is a socio-economic doctrine which advocates private ownership of property and over the means of production. You can think of these different doctrines as being on a continuum with zero social control of property on the far left and absolute social control on the far right.\n\nOn the far left, you would have Capitalism, and next you would find “Mixed economies”. The United States is actually not a Capitalist country anymore, we are really a mixed economy where there is some social control of propery. Think of things like public parks, which are collectively owned.  As you continue to the right, you will find Socialism, and finally, you will find Communism where the “State” owns everything. There is absolutely zero private property in a Communist economy.\n\nSo that’s the basic breakdown, and now I will quickly explain the problems with “State” ownership of property. Imagine for a moment that you live in a Communist country. The government owns everything including property and businesses. You wake up in the morning and go to work, just like you might here in the U.S., but there is one key difference. In a Communist system, the government owns everything; they get your paycheck at the end of the week. Even if you are the hardest worker in the entire country, they take your whole paycheck. They also collect everyone else’s paychecks throughout the entire country and then they decide the best way to spend “their” money.\n\nMore than likely they will give you some of it back. They will give you enough for food and water, and perhaps even some for medicine if you need it (if there is any money left). That might not sound too bad to you. Everyone has at least the bare neccesities. But there are some serious problems with the system. Imagine that one of your coworkers is extremely lazy. He reports to work just like you, but he doesn’t lift a finger. Actually, imagine that he doesn’t even show up at work; he just sleeps in. At the end of the week, he’ll get exactly the same amount of money that you will. Why should you keep working?\n\nYou probably think that it isn’t fair for him to get paid the same amount when he isn’t doing anything, so the next day when you go in to work you don’t do anything either. Or perhaps you just sleep in too. Don’t worry though, at the end of the week, you’ll still get paid. Whether you work or not, you get paid the same amount. Do you see how this causes a problem? It removes all of the incentive for people to work, and pretty soon everyone is either not working or doing a halfhearted job. It turns out that Communist countries are extremly poor for this reason. \nIf instead, you don’t pay people who don’t come to work they’ll learn that they need to work if they expect money. Also, when you allow people to be paid more for working harder, you give them an incentive to put in extra effort. This is what capitalism is based on.\n\nThere are a range of Socialist movements, each with their own positions on how much social ownership the governement should have. Some Socialists are indistinguishable from Communists, while others lean closer to a “Mixed Econo
435403
The fundamental error of communism was that it failed to recognise exactly what the human person is; any reorganisation of human society is bound to fail if there are errors in its most basic premise. Communist philosophy does not see the individual as an end in himself but merely as a component of something greater. Progress, or the raising of human happiness, cannot be attempted at the unwilling expense of the life or liberty of the individual.  Capitalism will ultimately fail for the the same reason. It will be sustained longer because it usually goes hand in hand with some kind of respect for the freedom of the human person.\n\nFinally, both are materialisms and entirely neglect the spiritual aspect of human beings. A political philosophy not grounded in a holistic anthropology is doomed from day one. Please, don't take this as a plug for any religion, but simply as something I perceive and which time alone will cofirm or negate.
241891
Socialism is a general term for a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is different from the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.
165304
Share w them what u have learnt. \n\nTell them communism is utopian.\n\nTell them socialism is somewhere between communism and capitalism. It promotes REAL democracy, save the environment, doesn't need people to work like a dog... etc./
92434
socialism is the step before communism per lenin. under this paradise-utopia there is no incentive to better yourself or work hard as the govt sets what you earn, work hard/no more pay...try to make a little $ under the table and go to the nice forced labor-reeducation camp! don't get sick there! the govt sets all prices, what is made, where it goes. therefore shortages and low quality, ever see a commie block car? ever see trabants and lada's for sale here?\nthe lucky ones at the top live like fat pigs, have their own stores with imported luxury goods, you get to stand in line for hours for lousy bread and potatoes. i  KNOW as my wife is bulgarian and lived under the wonder of socialism until she was 18 yrs old. she (and her father, mother, sister) was also forced to share a cruddy small 2 bedroom concrete apartment with another family of 4 strangers. like to use newspaper for toilet paper? want to spend a months pay for a pair of vinyl chinese shoes or a new nylon coat?. the upside is you do not need to plan your future, it is done for you, and enjoy your free 3rd world medical care.
585317
They are opposing governmental systems.\n\nI believe Capitalism is better for the economy and usually there is more freedom under Capitalism.\n\nCommunism is a system without God, that the leaders are greedy for power and usually oppress the people denying many rights because supposedly the Communist government leaders know best how their people should live.\nMost Communist systems violate human rights including freedom of speech and freedom of religion.\n\nBut at the same time Capitalism when it is done without God and taken to an extreme also leads to greed and the oppression of the poor.\n\nAs a Christian I would rather to be under a Capitalist system with hopefully Capitalists who are not extreme and believe in God.
1001254
Communism is a political ideology that wants a classless, religionless, and stateless organization based on collective ownership.  \n\nCommunitarianism enforces the idea of civil society, which refers to the totality of voluntary civic and social institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the structures of a state.
366994
Marxism was a form of Communism.  Just as there are degrees of Capitalism, there are degrees & styles of Communism.  \n\nRead the Wiki on this for more:
53733
Communism as such means a political party in favour of the working class. It was party formed by the workers to oppose the rich or the wealtheir. The working class has always been oppressed under the rich factory owner who used to utilise them.\n\nJust like any other countries, there are labor union for companies, but in kerala, the communist party being very strong and supporting to the workers, there you can see many workers union for 90% of the factories and companies. This in a way was/is to support the interest of the workers.