ANSWERS: 11
  • Communism is the extreme form of socialism. In socialism there is still some private (industrial) property allowed and not everything is ordered by the state. In communism the state dictates everything and all companies are owned or directed by the state. Marx described the way how to grow from socialism to communism, in general that is called Marxism I believe.
  • There are many differences between these three governments, but the biggest differences are: 1. In socialism, people are allowed to own businesses, but when the government decides that the business is to rich, then the government takes the business from you. Communism and Marxism used to mean the same thing, but Communism has changed. 2. In Marxism, everyone works for the greater good for everyone else. Everyone gets equal amounts of everything(food, clothes,electronics,etc). And although the government owns everything, the people still get equal everything. This government has never been used by any country. 3. In communism, everyone works for the greater good for the government. The government owns everything and they get the most and best of everything. Communism was transformed to what it is today by Joseph Stalin. Marxism was created by a man named Marx. He lived in London, in the slums and wanted a better life for everyone. Factoid #12- The Roman Catholic Church helped to save some Nazi's from persacution. They did this so that if communism ever got so big, there would be some government who could stop them. The Roman Catholic Church wanted Nazism over communism.
  • Pure Marxism had three main characteristics. First of all, there was to be no government, no central controlling body allocating resources. If something needed doing then some person or group of people would just do it for the good of all. Second there was to be no private ownership of anything. All things were to be held in common. If you needed something you would just take it. ("From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.") Finally, there would be no religion. Religion was created by the rich and the powerful to keep the lower classes down by pacifying them with the promise of a better existence in the fictional next life if they accepted their lot in this life. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.") Marxism appeals to an innate sense of fairness in people. Nobody has more than anyone else. Everyone works for the good of everyone else. The problem was that Marx could not describe a mechanism by which we get to his utopian society beyond the masses violently overthrowing their oppressors nor did he really understand human nature. Various attempts to get to this Marxist ideal have been made over the decades. These usually start with the creation of a socialist government. People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form. The government owns everything and directs the allocation of all resources. Since the people own nothing they theoretically should learn to do everything for the good of the whole. Eventually, when the people have been properly trained, the government is disbanded and the Marxist utopia is achieved. The problem is that human nature gets in the way. The people in power grow to like having the power. So, they start do things to ensure that they stay in power. ("Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Additionally, there is a very broad lazy streak that runs through much of humanity. People only do as much work as they have to in order to survive. If the government is going to take from Joe and give it to me, then why should I work for a living. Joe then sees his industry going to support me, a lazy bum who doesn't contribute anything myself, and thinks why should I bother. This mentality means that the people never reach a state where the government, even if it were inclined to do so, can step aside. So, the corruption just continues to fester. So, this then is the difference between the three social organizations. Marxism and communism were initially the same thing. However as people tried to institute them, Marxism became the ideal that can never be achieved and communism came to be synonymous with the failed, corrupt, transitional, utrasocialist governments. Socialism is any form of government that takes control of various industries away from the private sector. All governments have some elements of socialism in the mix because there are just some things that the private sector cannot do. The debate is over just how much the government should do.
  • There are two answers on this page that adequately describe Marxism and communism. The belong to Glenn Blaylock, dated Sept. 11, 04 and Bob Blaylock, dated Feb. 22, 04. However, in the answer dated Sept. 11, 04, Glenn Blaylock states: “People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form.” This statement is woefully incorrect, and contributes to the ongoing misunderstanding associated with the use of the term “socialism”. In its purest form, socialism is the process of consensus among a group of people, especially as it concerns society in general. For example: “Do WE need to hire a cop for our small town? If so, how are WE going to fund the salary and expenses for this cop?” The effort to reach a consensus within the group of townsfolk represents socialism in its purest form. To research different ways townsfolk have resolved issues like the one in the example above is something a sociologist would do. In this context, there are many forms of socialism – some of which I list here: Marxist socialism communist socialism democratic socialism republican socialism libertarian socialism egalitarian socialism monarchic socialism dictatorial socialism fascist socialism ideological socialism The phrase “We the People” drips with socialism. The term “government” is a socialist expression. Anyone who votes is technically a socialist. The antithesis of socialism is apathy, or true-to-the-core anarchy. The general misuse of the terms “socialist” and “socialism” serves only to obscure issues and contexts in which these terms are used. As a consequence, these terms are most frequently used to belittle and discredit the ideas of others as well as being employed by certain political groups principally as a scare tactic. Therefore, to answer the original question, Marxism and communism are both one of many forms of socialism. Other than the issue regarding "socialism in its purest form", I find no fault with the answers regarding Marxism and communism given by Glenn Blaylock and Bob Blaylock.
  • Sundex - That is the most dumbest answer I have ever read. If you want to argue for an additional, broader usage for the word "socialism", go ahead. But socialism, to 99% of the people who use it and historically have used it, means public ownership of the means of production. It is achievable tomorrow, the question is whether it is desirable. Communism is often thought of as a stage beyond socialism, sort of a complete gift economy with no money. Whether it is achievable is in question. Marxism is primarily a theory of social change. It says that the progressive immiseration of the working class will lead to a working class revolution that will establish socialism (which will eventually give way to communism). This is often called "scientific socialism", and by teaching that socialism is the inevitable end result of social-historical laws now in motion, it is in contrast to previous forms of socialism, which sought to create socialism through ideology and argument rather than material conditions. It's a handy theory; but it's also flawed. It might have happened, except that the capitalists got wise to it, so now they placate the working class with reforms in order to stop them short of a revolution. In places like America and Europe, the working class has sufficient political power to force a livable minimum wage and at least decent working conditions. Well, the non-immigrant working force anyway. But in developing countries, capitalist firms like Nike literally do keep the working class on a razor's edge of existence, only paying them what they need in order to keep working and to reproduce and make more workers. In these countries, working class revolution is suppressed partially by government violence and partially by the most *minimal* imaginable concessions. In places where the working class is not organized into unions yet, there are no concessions, because there's no danger of a revolution or other working class political action.
  • The term "Communism" is a western term is describe marxism and left ideologies. Everywhere else in the world calls it Marxism or socialism
  • Morphius you are partially incorrect concerning marxism. Marxism is, as u mention, when everyone works for the greater good and shuffle aside own personal greed and issues. Equality and humanity is the marxist core, but this is merely theory and a unforfilled dream of karl marx... Still the governemnt does not exist. The people are good, the state is evil. therefore your statement "And although the government owns everything, the people still get equal everything." is incorrect since the governemnt does not exist. i apologize if my english is bad. my only defence is the fact that im neither from UK or the states.
  • excellent discussion. in the end i believe we should follow gods law as i find it much more efficient and foolproof so far
  • Communism: You have two cows. You give them to the Government, and the Government then sells you some milk. Socialism: You have two cows. You give one to your neighbor. Pure Marxism: No one has two cows. But Marx sponges off his rich friends anyways.
  • 8-10-2017 Same thing but different.
  • There are many differences and variations in these systems but I think their similarities would provide a clearer representation. All three have two things in common. Those are, number 1. Everyone in the society MUST conform to the core dictates of the state surrendering all, including any free thought, to benefit the state and rejecting out of hand anything that might conflict with the core dictates of the state. People are not programmed robots and therefore will at some point exercise free thought and question things whether they like it or not. Number 2, These social experiments have always failed.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy