Okay, first, to lay some groundwork, there have been many modes of production throughout history
first, there was hunter/gatherer societies, then feudalism, then capitalism
Then we have theories as to what could come next, according to the marxist viewpoint, the next thing will be socialism, and then after that, communism.
So, communism is a post-socialist ideology, the only requirement for it to be socialism is that instead of a bourgeois class and a worker class, they will become unified (doesn’t matter how for the purposes of explaining this, but usually through violent revolution)
So, a socialist place would have the workers self-manage, people who work in a place would also have democratic control over that place in some way.
After that happens, for various reasons outside of the scope of an eli5, communism comes, communism is a post-socialist society in which the workers own the means of production (hence the socialist prerequisite), currency has been abolished, the state has been abolished (but not government, these are two distinct entities in socialist thought), and there are no class divisions whatsoever.
Part of the problems with discussions about these topics is that communist philosophers of old used terms in very different ways than the colloquial ways we use them today. I can expand upon this if you have any followup questions!
In the spirit of knowledge, I’ve tried to understand them by reading some sources but I never could get around it. It’s like me, a non-physicist, trying to understand quantum theory and theory of relativity. Anyway, your explanation is good enough for me to be able to different between the two terms. Thanks.
Google is extremely insufficient for this due to the insane level of propaganda on BOTH sides of the issue. The only way to get this information is to read theory from the actual philosophers, IMHO, and that’s asking a lot.
And that’s not even getting into the terminology you have to learn just to understand the philosophers.
For example: most people are under the impression that private property is things that normal people own… but that’s not even a little bit what marx means when he says abolish private property, you’ll note, that would be insane.
Private property used by marxist philosophers refers to property that generates capital. An example would be a factory.
When marx said abolish private property, what he was really saying is, make it so that factories are owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some rando who has nothing to do with working in them. He was not saying that you shouldn’t have the right to own a toothbrush.
Your toothbrush, according to marx, would be PERSONAL property.
So, folowing your theory, if …
I have a coat - it’s “PERSONAL” property;
I wash my coat myself - it’s still “PERSONAL”;
I rent my coat - it now becomes “PRIVATE” property;
I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it’s “PRIVATE” property (remember I’m still renting it);
Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is “PRIVATE” property;
Questions:
Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that?
And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?
Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
Nobody gives a fuck about your coat, do you honestly think that’s the problem marxists have with private property? that someone might… rent out their coat? that’s not the kind of thing we’re trying to solve here, it’s also something literally nobody does in the real world.
If you worked in a coat factory, and you make 100 coats a day, how much should you be paid for that? I believe profit is the stolen value of labor, so, the worker should make the value of 100 coats if they make 100 coats, that’s the injustice we’re trying to solve.
I own someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
I’d say that’s personal, if you’re paying them to clean your coat, i’d say they have a coat cleaning business and the coat cloaners should own that business… which it sounds like in this example they already do, so, nothing needs to change.
Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?
Whether you’re one of the workers or not changes. If it’s a coat factory, you just own the factory, and make money off the stolen labor value, while contributing nothing. In your examples, you actually are contributing, which makes you a worker, and someone who should get the full value of your labor.
Not OP and not as educated in leftist theory, but the difference is nobody works inside the coat to produce that value. The purpose of that bit is to ensure one cannot profit from another’s labour by virtue of one owning the means of production, or at least that’s how I’ve always understood it.
Oh, but what if they work in my coat, in my barn, gather my mushrooms for a salary?
He (worker/labourer) profits from my coat (it warms him, he saves expences not using his own), he doesn’t have to face elements and has an enviroment and a way of (having a job) earning in my barn, and his coleague sells my mushrooms gathered by team, to convert it into the money.
So the worker profits from me. Profits from my labour put into the earnign of the coat, buying it, cleaning it, me saving (debting) and building a barn, aranging a mashrooms farm, finding people, taking risks, etc …
Are you (socialists/comunists) talking about abolishing “worker/labourer” now, cause he profits from capitalist farmer? :)
P.S. in scenario above, we would all earn our part, but if somebody wants to own any part more – of gear, buildings, organization, responsibility, risks – just buy shares, or vote by feet and build your own bussines.
This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn’t even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.
A socialist system would mean that the worker is getting the full value of their labor… that includes your imaginary CEO, because that person is acting as a worker in much of your examples.
Once you recognize that you’re arbitrarily assigning this person as a non-worker, you realize the problem with your gotcha…
You’re basically saying “what if the ceo works really hard, then should he still get nothing?” the thing we’re trying to abolish is the people who DON’T work, the CEO’s who sit on their asses and collect would be the ones losing out in this system, same with landlords. The people actually working the land should own it. “passive” income is what socialists seek to abolish, because we actually value labor.
You seem to know what you are talking about. Can you ELI5 the difference between communism and sosialism, in the shortest possible words?
Okay, first, to lay some groundwork, there have been many modes of production throughout history
first, there was hunter/gatherer societies, then feudalism, then capitalism
Then we have theories as to what could come next, according to the marxist viewpoint, the next thing will be socialism, and then after that, communism.
So, communism is a post-socialist ideology, the only requirement for it to be socialism is that instead of a bourgeois class and a worker class, they will become unified (doesn’t matter how for the purposes of explaining this, but usually through violent revolution)
So, a socialist place would have the workers self-manage, people who work in a place would also have democratic control over that place in some way.
After that happens, for various reasons outside of the scope of an eli5, communism comes, communism is a post-socialist society in which the workers own the means of production (hence the socialist prerequisite), currency has been abolished, the state has been abolished (but not government, these are two distinct entities in socialist thought), and there are no class divisions whatsoever.
Part of the problems with discussions about these topics is that communist philosophers of old used terms in very different ways than the colloquial ways we use them today. I can expand upon this if you have any followup questions!
In the spirit of knowledge, I’ve tried to understand them by reading some sources but I never could get around it. It’s like me, a non-physicist, trying to understand quantum theory and theory of relativity. Anyway, your explanation is good enough for me to be able to different between the two terms. Thanks.
No problem, feel free to PM or message on matrix if you want any elaboration or have any questions!
Just Google it u lazy little shit
Google is extremely insufficient for this due to the insane level of propaganda on BOTH sides of the issue. The only way to get this information is to read theory from the actual philosophers, IMHO, and that’s asking a lot.
And that’s not even getting into the terminology you have to learn just to understand the philosophers.
For example: most people are under the impression that private property is things that normal people own… but that’s not even a little bit what marx means when he says abolish private property, you’ll note, that would be insane.
So what does he mean by “private property” if he’s not talking about the things normal people own?
Private property used by marxist philosophers refers to property that generates capital. An example would be a factory.
When marx said abolish private property, what he was really saying is, make it so that factories are owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some rando who has nothing to do with working in them. He was not saying that you shouldn’t have the right to own a toothbrush.
Your toothbrush, according to marx, would be PERSONAL property.
So, folowing your theory, if … I have a coat - it’s “PERSONAL” property; I wash my coat myself - it’s still “PERSONAL”; I rent my coat - it now becomes “PRIVATE” property; I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it’s “PRIVATE” property (remember I’m still renting it); Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is “PRIVATE” property;
Questions:
Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?
Nobody gives a fuck about your coat, do you honestly think that’s the problem marxists have with private property? that someone might… rent out their coat? that’s not the kind of thing we’re trying to solve here, it’s also something literally nobody does in the real world.
If you worked in a coat factory, and you make 100 coats a day, how much should you be paid for that? I believe profit is the stolen value of labor, so, the worker should make the value of 100 coats if they make 100 coats, that’s the injustice we’re trying to solve.
I’d say that’s personal, if you’re paying them to clean your coat, i’d say they have a coat cleaning business and the coat cloaners should own that business… which it sounds like in this example they already do, so, nothing needs to change.
Whether you’re one of the workers or not changes. If it’s a coat factory, you just own the factory, and make money off the stolen labor value, while contributing nothing. In your examples, you actually are contributing, which makes you a worker, and someone who should get the full value of your labor.
Not OP and not as educated in leftist theory, but the difference is nobody works inside the coat to produce that value. The purpose of that bit is to ensure one cannot profit from another’s labour by virtue of one owning the means of production, or at least that’s how I’ve always understood it.
Oh, but what if they work in my coat, in my barn, gather my mushrooms for a salary? He (worker/labourer) profits from my coat (it warms him, he saves expences not using his own), he doesn’t have to face elements and has an enviroment and a way of (having a job) earning in my barn, and his coleague sells my mushrooms gathered by team, to convert it into the money.
So the worker profits from me. Profits from my labour put into the earnign of the coat, buying it, cleaning it, me saving (debting) and building a barn, aranging a mashrooms farm, finding people, taking risks, etc … Are you (socialists/comunists) talking about abolishing “worker/labourer” now, cause he profits from capitalist farmer? :)
P.S. in scenario above, we would all earn our part, but if somebody wants to own any part more – of gear, buildings, organization, responsibility, risks – just buy shares, or vote by feet and build your own bussines.
This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn’t even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.
A socialist system would mean that the worker is getting the full value of their labor… that includes your imaginary CEO, because that person is acting as a worker in much of your examples.
Once you recognize that you’re arbitrarily assigning this person as a non-worker, you realize the problem with your gotcha…
You’re basically saying “what if the ceo works really hard, then should he still get nothing?” the thing we’re trying to abolish is the people who DON’T work, the CEO’s who sit on their asses and collect would be the ones losing out in this system, same with landlords. The people actually working the land should own it. “passive” income is what socialists seek to abolish, because we actually value labor.