Socialism, social democracy, and communism all focus on a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income. To what extent and what their approaches are, differ, though.
Social democracy proposes a classless society, usually within the premise of an ‘electoral democracy’, often with trade unions, collective bargaining, worker representation, and strikes as a bulwark against further deterioration into capitalism.
Socialism, if distinguished from social democracy, also wishes for a classless society, but it goes further: it wishes to advance social ownership of the economy.
Rather than just politics, the economy is also fully democratised. Instead of a CEO possibly deciding for all, it’s the labourers that choose, that have a say.
Communism proposes that a just society must be not just classless, but also moneyless and stateless.
Instead of money as transferrable and susceptible to wealth accumulation, other means for exchange are used; labour vouchers, community exchange systems, and so on. Instead of a centralised, repressive state, society would be decentralised and free, living in communes; if there is a military or a police, both should stand on equal footing with the people.
Personally, I’m an anarchist communist and favour that model, though I also can see a case for market socialism or council communism, and feel sympathetic to the left wing cause in general. And that is what all of us should do: respect each other’s outlooks, and strive together for the left cause. The greater the strength is there, if comrades complement one another, supporting each other under the red banner.
Talking about “socalism” in a language beset by capitalist oligarchs applying the label to things as mundane as “feeding children” really does require we draw a distinction between the numerous resultant definitions.
Some people use “socialism” to mean the anti-capitalist ideal you describe, while others mean either “thing I dont want my taxes to provide” or “the things those guys keep blocking.”
Socialism, social democracy, and communism all focus on a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income. To what extent and what their approaches are, differ, though.
Social democracy proposes a classless society, usually within the premise of an ‘electoral democracy’, often with trade unions, collective bargaining, worker representation, and strikes as a bulwark against further deterioration into capitalism.
Socialism, if distinguished from social democracy, also wishes for a classless society, but it goes further: it wishes to advance social ownership of the economy.
Rather than just politics, the economy is also fully democratised. Instead of a CEO possibly deciding for all, it’s the labourers that choose, that have a say.
Communism proposes that a just society must be not just classless, but also moneyless and stateless.
Instead of money as transferrable and susceptible to wealth accumulation, other means for exchange are used; labour vouchers, community exchange systems, and so on. Instead of a centralised, repressive state, society would be decentralised and free, living in communes; if there is a military or a police, both should stand on equal footing with the people.
Personally, I’m an anarchist communist and favour that model, though I also can see a case for market socialism or council communism, and feel sympathetic to the left wing cause in general. And that is what all of us should do: respect each other’s outlooks, and strive together for the left cause. The greater the strength is there, if comrades complement one another, supporting each other under the red banner.
Talking about “socalism” in a language beset by capitalist oligarchs applying the label to things as mundane as “feeding children” really does require we draw a distinction between the numerous resultant definitions.
Some people use “socialism” to mean the anti-capitalist ideal you describe, while others mean either “thing I dont want my taxes to provide” or “the things those guys keep blocking.”