1
244
245

ELI5: The difference between socialism and communism (self.explainlikeimfive)

submitted by NeckbeardAMA

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Autorotator 0 ポイント1 ポイント

There needs to be a global Socialist movement before anything closely related to Communism can occur.

And a total abandonment of shitty jobs, because nobody is going to do a shitty job for no reason.

[–]moumouren 9 ポイント10 ポイント

You're thinking with a capitalist mindset. I remember there was a story about a man who visited Cuba, where he saw a doctor and a cobbler playing chess and conversing like brothers, with no hint of difference in class between them. It really boils down to incentive.

In a capitalist society, more value is accorded to a life saving doctor than a shoe fixing cobbler, so the incentive for the individual is to pursue the thing which gives him more value. In a truly socialist society, the individuals all realize that without each other the state cannot survive, and without the state they cannot have protection from the elements. So the guy who scoops sewage is just as important to the continued functioning of the state as the guy who transplants a kidney. The value of a doctor in the eyes of the society never has the chance to exceed the value of the cobbler in the first place because both are needed to equal degrees for the survival of the state.

The only reason we feel being a doctor is better than a cobbler is because we grew up in a society which values one above the other. So in a way you could say the capitalist system is not an objective point of reference to compare other systems of government.

[–]RustledJimm 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Upvoting this because it should be seen, a capitalist and socialist mindset are very different in how they view society. Most of us have grown up in a capitalist society and so had that mindset ingrained into us.

Also a lovely example, thankyou for providing it.

[–]ParisPC07 2 ポイント3 ポイント

And that is a good Eli5 of the conclusions of material analysis. The human nature argument that is bouncing around in here is refuted by the notion in this comment.

[–]moumouren 0 ポイント1 ポイント

A pleasure ;)

[–]Autorotator -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

More value is accorded the doctor because a human life is worth more than a shoe.

[–]moumouren 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Ahh yes but more shoes get broken than hearts need fixing. And without shoes men can't build buildings, or put out fires, or save dying patients. So the relative value of the cobbler rises in parallel with his cumulative importance to the society along with the doctor.

[–]AllTheyEatIsLettuce 0 ポイント1 ポイント

If you're walking to visit the doctor, probably not.

[–]Autorotator 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Still doesn't answer the question about cleaning up shit. Or picking up garbage. Or working in the landfill.

And who is going to be an astronaut, or even a scientist in this utopia? We are all curious creatures, so who decides who gets to be what? The state? What about the people who aren't interested in their relegated duties? The whole thing breaks down with a quickness as soon as you start looking at individual desires. Either they are forfeit, or magical equilibrium of societal needs and individual desire takes place. Not banking on either being successful.

[–]Jatoro [score hidden]

This is one of the big fallacies that people make about socialism, that labor becomes regulated and people get assigned some sort of "life-job" determined by a test or other aptitude measurement. This is also false. The goal of socialism (and it's endpoint, communism) is the emancipation from exploitative work. Technology plays a huge factor in this. Right now, people only work those "shit jobs" because they need money to live. But what about a future where those kinds of jobs are automated? People would be able to pursue whatever kind of career brought them the most fulfillment (since, in a socialist cooperative, people get the things they need to live without have to be exploited by the bourgeoisie). Marxist thought was a little different on this point; he thought that people would see the social utility of these sorts of jobs and do it "for the greater good"; but technology was a large part of his historical materialism, and with advances in technology come opportunities for emancipation from exploitative labor.

[–]shouldbebabysitting -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I don't believe it is a capitalist mindset but a human nature mindset. Humans in general are lazy. While there are those extraordinary few who will work hard for everyone ( the horse in Animal Farm ), most everyone tries to get the most out of the least effort. This is evolution in action.

As a result, few would expend the effort required to become a doctor simply for the goodwill or recognition of being a doctor. We can see these results in capitalist systems where teachers are paid little because many people will teach for low pay because of goodwill. Doctors would also be low paid if everyone entered the medical profession purely for the goodwill.

[–]ParisPC07 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I teach for low pay because my workplace isn't adequately organized and my ability to negotiate my salary has been dismantled over the last 30 years.

I'd love to only teach and not have to have another job.

[–]shouldbebabysitting 0 ポイント1 ポイント

If you don't like being a teacher, then why not be a doctor?

[–]ParisPC07 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Because I like being a teacher. I don't just do it for the goodwill. I want more money.

When you say just go be a doctor you mean go completely change everything about my life and accrue a huge amount of debt.

It's not a hobby you just pick up. My skill set makes me a good teacher. We are people who could make a lot more money in the fields we teach but who recognize that if no one does it, our entire society will suffer.

[–]shouldbebabysitting 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Because I like being a teacher. I don't just do it for the goodwill. I want more money.

Sure, everyone wants more money but you are willing to accept less because you value the goodwill more than the lower salary. That's my point.

As to changing to be a doctor, the debt would quickly be paid for by the much higher salary. Yet you don't change. I submit you haven't changed because you value your teaching more than simply the money you can make doing it.

We are people who could make a lot more money in the fields we teach but who recognize that if no one does it, our entire society will suffer.

That is 100% the point I made.

[–]ParisPC07 0 ポイント1 ポイント

For the debt salary comment, I'm betting that you don't know many people who have become doctors in the past few years.

And it didn't start as a good will thing. It started as an I need the money thing

[–]ParisPC07 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Shitty is subjective. Some people hate gardening, some people long for it.

[–]Autorotator 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Do you think enough people long for picking up garbage or being a school janitor to supply the need for garbage men and janitors?

[–]ParisPC07 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Probably not. Try to consider that in a socialist system of production and distribution of goods and services, the capitalist model of one person specializing in one specific job that they do every day for 8+ hours a day might not be an ideal way of organizing labor. Janitor duty might be something that could be part of a labor rotation in a workplace or community. That could also have the effect of giving everyone more reason to remain tidy in the first place.

I'm just spitballing here, but socialism would change more about our relationship to labor than who signs our check.

[–]Autorotator -1 ポイント0 ポイント

The problem is it's just another utopian ideal that disregards the conflict between human nature and real world needs.

[–]ParisPC07 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Ah yes. Human nature. That thought killing idea that changes as time passes but that people discuss as a static thing.

[–]Autorotator -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It is a static thing. We are the animals that contain us first, and the minds that control us second. Societies may differ, and this may lead to different modes of thinking, but our nature itself is static.

As to being thought killing, well that depends on what you mean by that. If you mean utopian pipe-dream killing, then yes. Human nature is why all the Utopian ideals have failed. Consternation, we just can't seem to get everyone to want the same things and have the same values! Variety in experience and personality, that's a constant trait of human nature!

If you mean thinking in applying the constants of human nature to a process or system of equitable human interaction, then no. No, in fact it's thought provoking. How can we design a system that honors the rights of the individual while ensuring the maximum prosperity, safety, and justice for all people in a limited resource environment?

[–]ParisPC07 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Ladies and gentlemen, come from far and wide to hear this redditor, whose interpretation of human nature matches perfectly with the one interpretation widely accepted in its historical context!

See how they completely disregard the fluid nature of human society and the entire world's body that attempts to answer the question of the true nature of man in favor of their personal interpretation that must be literally true!

Yes folks, /u/Autorotator has the answer to one of the biggest questions ever pondered by man!

Liberal Capitalism is the end of history! Private ownership of productive resources by people who don't actually work them is literally the nature of man! Let truth be heard!

Sorry, I can't take that human nature shit seriously. Consider replacing that metaphysic business with some concrete material dialectic and scientific observation of human history.

[–]billygermans -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Re-read. He's not being close-minded at all...

[–]ParisPC07 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Saying that you know the true nature of humanity and how that can be applied to political economy betrays a lack of study and intellectual seriousness about the topics of philosophy and of political economy. Its the same hubris that makes people write lengthy posts in here about the differences between socialism and communism that contain zero correct information.

[–]Autorotator -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Snark. The signature of someone who cannot have an intellectually honest discussion.

Where, exactly, did I say the answer was capitalism? Can you cite it? No? Making rash assumptions? Lashing out against someone challenging your philosophy?

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.”

― Socrates

Thank you for conceding defeat with your little rant there.

Observation of human History? Greed, fear, jealousy, anger, envy, hope, joy, love, hate... all existed 100,000 years ago, all exist today. See how your superior mind expressed both fear (of having a rational discussion) and hate (because you are childishly frustrated that everyone doesn't agree with you) You jump right into a sarcastic appeal to majority, but I'm supposed to respect your world view?

Have a good day. I sincerely hope you outgrow your methods for dealing with those who have differing opinions, or you will live a truly frustrated and disappointing (or worse, lonely) life.

[–]ParisPC07 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Oh it's not everyone. It's just that invoking human nature destroys any ability to discuss ideas. You know what the true nature of man is so why would you consider anything else?

You didn't say the answer is capitalism. Can you provide one thing that is both absent from the tenets of liberalism and consistent with your knowledge of human nature?

I jumped to sarcasm because I've had this conversation and you who believe you truly know that human nature is some monolith that remains constant all say the same things and all are as impossible to change as you believe the nature of man to be. Supposing to know that human nature is static and constant is astoundingly arrogant.

Strong minds discussing ideas is inconsistent with assuming that the entire body of philosophy before and after Socrates was essentially foolish,because human nature is static and we understand it and its relationship to our historical context.

What about Marx's interpretation of the nature of humanity do you disagree with?

It's easy to feign a moral high ground when you don't see anything wrong with the hubris required to make judgements on huge bodies of philosophical work based on one (totally true) interpretation of the innate characteristics of human beings.

[–]Gamiac 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Check out /r/Automate.