It makes me someone who treats them as economic systems, usually referred to as an economist.
Have fun being morally outraged by my proposal, but at least it’s grounded in reality. Humans are not capable of making or maintaining a full Marxist communist state. Our desires are limitless, reality is finite.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:
You have a horrible understanding of socialism, communism, and social democracy, that frankly makes things more confusing.
If two people get together and put all of their earnings into a pot together, then each take out what they need. That’s a type of communism. It’s also usually called a family.
Marxism/Leninism are specific type of communism as well, that reach well into the political space as well as the economic.
What you’re trying to do right now, imposing your own singular view of what communism can be, is the same as saying Catholicism is the only type of Christianity just because it’s the most well known.
There’s a whole wikipedia article detailing dozens of variations of Communism, from Marxism to variations on Marxism, to variations independent of Marxism. Just because he did a lot of thinking on the whole thing doesn’t mean he’s the only one who gets to define the word.
You seem like you’re suffering from a bad case of Dunning-Kruger. You’ve been explained very basic terms multiple times, but you keep repeating your completely wrong understanding undeterred, with brazen authority.
Literally the first sentence of your wikipedia article explains that these are different ideologies trying to achieve the same thing, a communist society.
There are variations in there that are not trying to “achieve” a communist society without classes. Religious communism for example often still has “classes” in the priesthood and worshippers, and they’re often far more about sharing resources or a lack of private ownership of land.
I’m not religious, but my views are very similar to that theory of communism, as well as sharing aspects of privative communism.
You seem to be set in your categorization of things, you realize that ideas are not an all or nothing type of situation most of the time?
It makes you someone who doesn’t understand what those terms mean, so a modern liberal.
It makes me someone who treats them as economic systems, usually referred to as an economist.
Have fun being morally outraged by my proposal, but at least it’s grounded in reality. Humans are not capable of making or maintaining a full Marxist communist state. Our desires are limitless, reality is finite.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:
You have a horrible understanding of socialism, communism, and social democracy, that frankly makes things more confusing.
You have a horrible understanding of reality.
If two people get together and put all of their earnings into a pot together, then each take out what they need. That’s a type of communism. It’s also usually called a family.
Marxism/Leninism are specific type of communism as well, that reach well into the political space as well as the economic.
What you’re trying to do right now, imposing your own singular view of what communism can be, is the same as saying Catholicism is the only type of Christianity just because it’s the most well known.
There’s a whole wikipedia article detailing dozens of variations of Communism, from Marxism to variations on Marxism, to variations independent of Marxism. Just because he did a lot of thinking on the whole thing doesn’t mean he’s the only one who gets to define the word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies
You seem like you’re suffering from a bad case of Dunning-Kruger. You’ve been explained very basic terms multiple times, but you keep repeating your completely wrong understanding undeterred, with brazen authority.
Are you saying that I made up an entire Wikipedia article with dozens of variations of Communism?
That page has existed for 2 years, not sure I’m playing that long of a game to win an argument on Lemmy.
It’s like you’re intentionally just ignoring everything I show you because it doesn’t conform to your world view.
Literally the first sentence of your wikipedia article explains that these are different ideologies trying to achieve the same thing, a communist society.
You didn’t ready very far clearly.
There are variations in there that are not trying to “achieve” a communist society without classes. Religious communism for example often still has “classes” in the priesthood and worshippers, and they’re often far more about sharing resources or a lack of private ownership of land.
I’m not religious, but my views are very similar to that theory of communism, as well as sharing aspects of privative communism.
You seem to be set in your categorization of things, you realize that ideas are not an all or nothing type of situation most of the time?