Socialism advocates for collective or government ownership of key industries to reduce inequality, while communism seeks a classless, stateless society with communal ownership of all property.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Kinda? Socialism is a transitional status towards communism. Socialism is largely categorized as a system where public property is the principle aspect, ie large firms and key industries, rather than private. Communism is when socialism has developed to the point where all production has become centralized, and collectively owned, thereby eliminating class and the modern conception of a state.

They are disinct in that they have functional differences, but are the same in that they are largely the same concept but at different historical stages.

[–] KumaSudosa@feddit.dk 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think this is way too narrow. Following Marx? For sure, you're right.. but if you look at "Liberalism" - which can span anything from "taxes and government are literal hell" to "we support LGBT rights" - and "Conservatism" - which can span anything from Angela Merkel to Trump to follow-my-millenia-old-book-by-the-letter-or-I-will-murder-you - the word "Socialism" in the modern age can definitely contain nuances as well. For instance the main centre-left party in Denmark is called the "Social Democrats" then right to the left of it you have the "Socialist People's Party" - which is far less revolutionary than it sounds - and then you have a few other parties, including one identifying as "Communist" but which doesn't even really fight for any kind of revolution or the total elimination of class but recognises the requirement for collaboration and compromising when in power.

[–] zqps@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Political parties can rarely afford to proclaim themselves to be revolutionary, or they'll quickly get banned.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)