Businesses (capital), labor (society), and the government are the three main components of a functioning state.
“Capitalism”, “socialism”, and “communism” are terms used to describe who is given the most control over the means of production in the economic system of a state.
“Capitalism” describes an economic system that places most of the control in the hands of capital (businesses). “Socialism” describes an economic system that places most of the control with workers (society), and communism describes an economic system that places most of the control with the government.
It should be noted that, even though these terms are VERY often conflated and even used interchangeably with terms that describe political systems, such as “authoritarian” or “democratic”, the fact is that these terms have nothing to do with each other and no combination of terms from either set are mutually exclusive.
To say it more simply, any capitalist, socialist, or communist society can also be democratic or authoritarian. The idea that socialism is the same thing as authoritarianism is propaganda created by capitalists who are scared to death of livong in a society that places the needs of the common working man above the needs of the biggest businesses in the country.
communism describes an economic system that places most of the control with the government.
I know you’re simplifying things for brevity but this is misleading at best. You can’t gloss over the goal of a classless, stateless society when defining communism, and it is explicitly a left-wing philosophy. Contrast with fascism, a right-wing political philosophy that places most of the control with the government by reinforcing control over capital and creating a clear national identity.
The different types of Socialists disagree on how to achieve the classless society called Communism (including Anarchists, by the way), but the end goal of a classless society is the same. There is no seperate “Marxist” definition of communism, he just took an idea that was considered utopian before him and turned it into a science.
Communism in the strictest sense is the means of production are owned by the state.
Not off to a great start. “Common ownership” is not synonymous with “owned by the state.” There’s lots of ways to set up a government such that the means of production are owned by the state and almost none of them are communism.
The classless doctrine was proposed by Marx and is often inferred when talking about communism.
Yes, Marx was the political philosopher who described a possible outcome of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and is the de facto reference point for discussion about communism. Many subsequent people have built off those ideas or arrived at similar conclusions from another angle but it’s good practice to specify which when it’s important. Marxism-Leninism, anarchist communism, Luxemburgism, whatever. Marxist communism is indeed inferred without other context.
You can absolutely have a communist society with a caste system.
You can have a communist movement with a caste system but a communist society is classless by definition. It is post-scarcity and utopian. It might be literally impossible for humans to organize in such a way in significant numbers but moving toward that ideal is the unifying philosophy of all communist movements.
Businesses (capital), labor (society), and the government are the three main components of a functioning state.
“Capitalism”, “socialism”, and “communism” are terms used to describe who is given the most control over the means of production in the economic system of a state.
“Capitalism” describes an economic system that places most of the control in the hands of capital (businesses). “Socialism” describes an economic system that places most of the control with workers (society), and communism describes an economic system that places most of the control with the government.
It should be noted that, even though these terms are VERY often conflated and even used interchangeably with terms that describe political systems, such as “authoritarian” or “democratic”, the fact is that these terms have nothing to do with each other and no combination of terms from either set are mutually exclusive.
To say it more simply, any capitalist, socialist, or communist society can also be democratic or authoritarian. The idea that socialism is the same thing as authoritarianism is propaganda created by capitalists who are scared to death of livong in a society that places the needs of the common working man above the needs of the biggest businesses in the country.
So close until you got to communism. Cite marx.
I know you’re simplifying things for brevity but this is misleading at best. You can’t gloss over the goal of a classless, stateless society when defining communism, and it is explicitly a left-wing philosophy. Contrast with fascism, a right-wing political philosophy that places most of the control with the government by reinforcing control over capital and creating a clear national identity.
You can gloss over that goal if you don’t consider Marxism the only form of communism.
There are other types of communism possible, some that even already exist in smaller groupings of humans than at the state level.
The different types of Socialists disagree on how to achieve the classless society called Communism (including Anarchists, by the way), but the end goal of a classless society is the same. There is no seperate “Marxist” definition of communism, he just took an idea that was considered utopian before him and turned it into a science.
Communism in the strictest sense is the means of production are owned by the state.
The classless doctrine was proposed by Marx and is often inferred when talking about communism.
You can absolutely have a communist society with a caste system.
Someone better tell the anarcho-communists
Not off to a great start. “Common ownership” is not synonymous with “owned by the state.” There’s lots of ways to set up a government such that the means of production are owned by the state and almost none of them are communism.
Yes, Marx was the political philosopher who described a possible outcome of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and is the de facto reference point for discussion about communism. Many subsequent people have built off those ideas or arrived at similar conclusions from another angle but it’s good practice to specify which when it’s important. Marxism-Leninism, anarchist communism, Luxemburgism, whatever. Marxist communism is indeed inferred without other context.
You can have a communist movement with a caste system but a communist society is classless by definition. It is post-scarcity and utopian. It might be literally impossible for humans to organize in such a way in significant numbers but moving toward that ideal is the unifying philosophy of all communist movements.