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.
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.