Erik Jonker
U.Lancier@ErikJonker what now: socialist or communist? Those are mutually exclusive. But I don't expect any of the Republicans to have an understanding about the definitions or implications. I don't even expect them to care.
Bernd@Ulan_KA @ErikJonker
That depends very much on your definition of either term, and I don't think there are globally binding definitions. In many, however, socialism is a subset, or sometimes a necessary precursor to, communism. Marx himself did not make a clear distinction.
I don't recall any definition that makes them really mutually exclusive.
That depends very much on your definition of either term, and I don't think there are globally binding definitions. In many, however, socialism is a subset, or sometimes a necessary precursor to, communism. Marx himself did not make a clear distinction.
I don't recall any definition that makes them really mutually exclusive.
@hopfgeist @ErikJonker you can't distribute wealth by need (Communism) *and* by individual contribution to production (Socialism), even both systems demand common, not individual ownership of production means (which is in contradiction to Capitalism).
Surplus is owned by society in Communism but owned by those contributing to its production in Socialism, while in Capitalism the workers are paid the minimum possible to force them out of their rights to their productivity.
Neither Communism, nor Socialism and even not Capitalism are necessarily associated with political systems, Democracy is possible with all 3 of those ownership and distributional systems (the 3 are socioeconomic science terms, not political ones - Marx himself wasn't a politician, but a die-hard scientist).