Socialism isn’t an all encompassing economic policy. Even under communism, shareholders can still exist.
Socialism in its basics is just the concept of publicly ran companies. How that’s implemented can be all over the board.
Police, firemen, and libraries are examples of socialist industries. But so are the Norwegian oil reserves. TSMC is (or at least was) a socialist company.
Shareholders cannot exist in communism, which requires a stateless, classless, moneyless society with full collectivization of production and distribution. You are confusing socialism, a mode of production, with the government doing stuff. Police, firemen, libraries, Norwegian oil reserves, and TSMC are example of public ownership, not socialism.
Socialism is strictly the public owning businesses. You can have an anarchist socialist business (weird I know) employee owned businesses and/or community stores fall into that sort of a category.
Marxist communism is a stateless society. Effectively socialist anarchy. States that call themselves communist are generally socialist state with a centrally planned economy. Leninism/maoism was basically communist leaders deciding that the populous would never adopt true communism and thus they forced it onto the public.
The united states has socialist programs, they tend to be some of the most popular programs. It’s not really considered a socialist state, though, as government policy over the last 40+ years has been to whittle away and remove those programs at every available opportunity.
Socialism is a mode of production, something to be applied at societal scale, not something you can slice out of a broader economy.
Socialism is characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. Publicly owned assets in an economy where private ownership is principle isn’t socialism, as its used to uphold capitalism.
Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution are collectivized across all of society. There’s no such
Anarchism is, to the contrary of communism, a communalist, decentralized mode of production based on interlinked horizontalist cells with internal ownership.
Marxism-Leninism is just Marxism but with Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and organizational theory, nothing like “forcing” communism on the public. Further, socialist states have never called themselves communist, just that they were governed by communist parties working towards communism through socialism.
Maoism is the belief that certain formulations created by Mao as a Marxist-Leninist within China are universal to all revolutions, such as Protracted People’s War, Cultural Revolution, and the Mass Line.
The US Empire has social programs, but they aren’t socialist. Private ownership is very much principle, and capitalists in charge of the state.
You are assuming there’s just one socialist or communist theory.
I grant that what you are saying are in fact forms of socialism, communism, and anarchism, but they aren’t the only forms. That is why it’s hard to really fully nail down what socialism or communism are.
I’m not assuming that there’s just one socialist or communist theory, though. The PRC, for example, has a socialist market economy, while something like Cuba has larger degrees of public ownership. The bigger problem is that you have a lot of misconceptions of socialism and communism to begin with, which is why I corrected them.
Yeah they do.
Socialism isn’t an all encompassing economic policy. Even under communism, shareholders can still exist.
Socialism in its basics is just the concept of publicly ran companies. How that’s implemented can be all over the board.
Police, firemen, and libraries are examples of socialist industries. But so are the Norwegian oil reserves. TSMC is (or at least was) a socialist company.
Shareholders cannot exist in communism, which requires a stateless, classless, moneyless society with full collectivization of production and distribution. You are confusing socialism, a mode of production, with the government doing stuff. Police, firemen, libraries, Norwegian oil reserves, and TSMC are example of public ownership, not socialism.
Socialism is when the government does stuff.
Communism is when the government does a lot of stuff.
the United States is therefore socialist, and Norway is communist.
Socialism is strictly the public owning businesses. You can have an anarchist socialist business (weird I know) employee owned businesses and/or community stores fall into that sort of a category.
Marxist communism is a stateless society. Effectively socialist anarchy. States that call themselves communist are generally socialist state with a centrally planned economy. Leninism/maoism was basically communist leaders deciding that the populous would never adopt true communism and thus they forced it onto the public.
The united states has socialist programs, they tend to be some of the most popular programs. It’s not really considered a socialist state, though, as government policy over the last 40+ years has been to whittle away and remove those programs at every available opportunity.
There’s a lot wrong with this.
Socialism is a mode of production, something to be applied at societal scale, not something you can slice out of a broader economy.
Socialism is characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. Publicly owned assets in an economy where private ownership is principle isn’t socialism, as its used to uphold capitalism.
Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution are collectivized across all of society. There’s no such
Anarchism is, to the contrary of communism, a communalist, decentralized mode of production based on interlinked horizontalist cells with internal ownership.
Marxism-Leninism is just Marxism but with Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and organizational theory, nothing like “forcing” communism on the public. Further, socialist states have never called themselves communist, just that they were governed by communist parties working towards communism through socialism.
Maoism is the belief that certain formulations created by Mao as a Marxist-Leninist within China are universal to all revolutions, such as Protracted People’s War, Cultural Revolution, and the Mass Line.
The US Empire has social programs, but they aren’t socialist. Private ownership is very much principle, and capitalists in charge of the state.
You are assuming there’s just one socialist or communist theory.
I grant that what you are saying are in fact forms of socialism, communism, and anarchism, but they aren’t the only forms. That is why it’s hard to really fully nail down what socialism or communism are.
For example, Market Socialism is a thing.
I’m not assuming that there’s just one socialist or communist theory, though. The PRC, for example, has a socialist market economy, while something like Cuba has larger degrees of public ownership. The bigger problem is that you have a lot of misconceptions of socialism and communism to begin with, which is why I corrected them.