this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
127 points (97.0% liked)
Slop.
724 readers
470 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both socialism and communism are different relations of production (socialism being more of a spectrum and communism being more definite), and in both cases how production gets used is a matter of democratic decision.
How does communism (communal ownership) define what is produced?
Or capitalism or feudalism for that matter.
You could have democratic production under feudalism, but the land is owned by one person.
And you can have dictatorship in communism dictating what is produced (without any private capital, so not capitalism).
Afaik socialism (or even eg militarism?) is a direction taken or affected by government policy, not by ownership.
That's why I said that propaganda deliberately mixed our understanding of economic systems & systems of government.
Because ownership is a meaningless concept when it's separated from control. The Marxist theory of socialist production is centered on ending the "anarchy of production" of market systems by means of having a deliberately organized economy where everything is made for its use rather than profit, the particulars of which are decided by the popular will and groups delegated to by the popular will to figure out certain aspects (e.g. handling local problems, matters that can really only be understood by experts, etc.)
You can't meet a Marxist definition of communism in a bureaucratic state (the closest thing to autocracy that exists in the real world) because the bureaucracy, by virtue of controlling production, is its own class with its own class interests and class antagonisms with the underclass.
I completely agree!
What I was saying was way more basic/direct/strict meaning, but if you extend the terms into systems like that (I would say that eg Marxism is a bit wider term than communism), which makes sense, you are completely right.