Hello,
I am a 24 year old male.You have to excuse me if this post makes me sound stupid I have never been into politics and dont know that much about socialism.
I have been reading books that mentioned socialism and communism in them and decided to research them.
I agree with alot of the stuff that socialist believe.
I have a questions though:

What is the difference between socialism and communism?

Socialism is any society where the workers themselves run all existing buisinesses. For example, if you work in a factory, you and the other workers would manage the factory yourselves, there would no boss to tell you what to do. Communism is a form of socialism, where all work is voluntary and money does not exist. Most communists believe such a society would take many decades to achieve, so in the 'lower' phase of communism, the people democratically manage the buisinesses and the workers in each buisiness manage them, but money and wage differences still exist and work is mandatory. It is believed that after many decades people will have changed so much from living in a co-operative properly democratic society that money and mandatory work would simply cease to exist, because people would have changed so much they would no longer be necessary. Note, those who want to reform the current system are not real socialists because their method ultimately goes nowhere. Also North Korea, China, etc are not Communist because these countries are dictatorships and communism implies democracy.


Hope this answered your question.

I have to interject. First, under both socialism and communism there would still be managers. There would not, as the follow up response suggested by a lack of managers to "tell us what to do." The most important aspect of socialism is that the industries, services, etc.. would be to benefit all humanity, not to enrich a small portion of the populace. That said, there are many varying forms of socialism and the term is quite elastic. For instance, many socialist parties consist of social democratic messages, which stress reform--in this manner they are more in line with liberal. Moreover, many realms of socialism advocate revolution--insisting that society is so flawed that only a new beginning can bring about a humane world.

'I have to interject. First, under both socialism and communism there would still be managers.'

I know but the manager would be recallable, so they would be more an elected representative than a boss. So the manager would carry out the will of the workers rather than the will of themselves or some higher authority.

'There would not, as the follow up response suggested by a lack of managers to "tell us what to do."'

Well they wouldn't be giving orders, they would be carrying out the will of the people. They could not do anything else because they would be recalled as soon as they did.

T'he most important aspect of socialism is that the industries, services, etc.. would be to benefit all humanity, not to enrich a small portion of the populace.'

Agreed. This would be achieved by having a very real democracy instead of the artificial democracy of capitalist systems.


'That said, there are many varying forms of socialism and the term is quite elastic. For instance, many socialist parties consist of social democratic messages, which stress reform--in this manner they are more in line with liberal. Moreover, many realms of socialism advocate revolution--insisting that society is so flawed that only a new beginning can bring about a humane world.'

My definition of socialism anyway is any society where the workers themselve rule. I don't think the social democratic reformist parties are true socialists, they just want a 'kinder' capitalism as opposed to genuine socialism, your point about them having more to do with liberalism is correct. I think there would have to be a revolution because those in power will always fight back against their power being taken from them.

You're right. That post does make you sound stupid!