What's the difference between communism and socialism

What's the difference between communism and socialism

Socialism's the transition into Communism, the final state.
Realistically though, the difference is only a scapegoat so they don't have to take any responsibility for failed Socialist States
>wasn't real gommunism
Hence that stupid line

socialism is an economic system while communism is a death-cult.

Soros funding?

Socialism is Communism with marketing.

Socialism there is still the concept of a state.
Communism there is no state.

Socialism is HIV

Communism is AIDS

Communism is a specific kind of socialism, i.e. "scientific socialism" (a propaganda term) that calls for a revolution to overthrow capitalism.

There are different kinds of socialism- capitalist socialism (the welfare state), fascist socialism (the people are nationalized rather than the banks and factories) anarcho-socialism- replacing of government with cooperative structures.

And then there is pre-WW2 american socialism which had as a goal equal legal power for workers to negotiate a better split of revenue

then what does that make anarcho-communism?
Redundant?

DIE COMMIE FUCKER

>t. Germanic Death cultist

Socialism = Everyone is broke and hungry
Communism = Everyone is broke and Hungry
Capitalism = lazy nigs are broke and hungry

Socialist here

Communists view government as a science, predictable as long as you set up controls.

Socialism is more nuanced, I view the free market as an important force, but I don’t believe in “central figures”, I view businesses as a collective of people working towards a common goal. Bosses are pointless, if you can’t take accountability to work as a contributing team member you shouldn’t be working there, everyone who stays cares, and that means they probably have good ideas for improving the business.

The institutionalized hierarchy whether it be in business or government weakens business and government by stifling the flow of ideas.

I believe in social welfare because it simplifies the workers contract in business and it helps create a secure nation through economic security

There is literally no difference between the two and the guy above me is hairsplitting to avoid being tied into the 100,000,000+ death cult that is communism.

anarcho-communism: everyone share the wealth of the world, peace and love man. just give your property to your neighbor, it's that easy
socialism: we need to give the workers control over distribution of resources and eliminate capitalist greed. they will definitely distribute everything fairly and keep working to benefit society as a whole given the opportunity.
communism: they aren't working efficiently because this is clearly going against human instinct. time to crack down on these animals.
capitalism: I'll pay you this much for working this amount of time. Sound fair? Okay, you're hired. I have to manage your superiors now, see you when you decide to quit or are laid off.

>"don't believe in central figures"
>bosses are pointless
Yeah it's not as if all the world's wars, revolutions, or changes were undertaken by a small handful of prominent figures or anything.
Fucking idiot.

>(((prominent figures)))

I used it interchangeably for 'leader'. Are you legitimately going be that autistic?
It isn't every leader that's been a jew (in history, no less) dipshit.

Depends whose definitions you're using.

Socialism is prussian way of politics (Oswald Spengler)
Anarcho-Communism is a fag theory originated on France few years after the French revolution.

Jews subverted socialism in order to open path for the Liberal plan to ultimate goal.

>muh 100 billion trillion
>everyone but me is literally Stalin

A few million corpses

Not all revolutions are bad. But, people obey their leaders because they view their leader as a reflection of themselves, Hitler wasn’t a fluke.

But the classical idea of war is particularly relevant anymore, at least here. We conduct large scale police actions on “dangerous” demographics of weak foreign nations and use espionage to under cut the credibility of strong adversaries.
We live in a nuclear world, direct confrontation leads to the destruction of everything you’ve ever known, which is just shitty and no one wants it.

It’s up to citizens to be cognizant of that and not let people lie to you.

Fuck you, stay on topic

Socialism is the democratization of businesses, Communism is the collectivization of business. Different things.

The point is that operations are led by leaders for a reason.
It's far more efficient to direct an entire group with one center orchestrating the entire project.
>classical idea of war isn't relevant
Dipshit, we still have military generals and leaders for a reason, do you not know how weak an army is without a leader?

By typical American definitions (where socialism represents social democracy and communism represents Marxism-Leninism), socialism describes a market economy where the state plays either a regulatory and/or directive role and assures a basic standard of living via social spending. Communism is a centrally planned, authoritarian system where a Communist Party controls the government and controls the economy to try and ensure certain outcomes are universally met, albeit with some repression along the way.

The army command is built out of hard work and recognition of your peers, not the oligarchs that infest laissez- faire capitalism.

Also, the Army isn’t run by 1 4-Star general, they have multiple people of rank explicitly so they can convene and find the best course. The president is technically the leader of the military, but he doesn’t come through rank, he comes through a completely separate voting system.

You have to realize the practicalities of this stuff is recognized in socialism. It works through company meetings and transparency to employees of all levels, including finance. Everyone has to get together and talk, and people still have classical positions.
You just have to have a ton of meetings and EMail to make sure everyone communicates and everyone’s voice is heard. Peer pressure keeps things in check, but you need to give your employees the information they need to be contributing members of the company.
If you’re the best marketer, prove it and you can be the best marketer

>prove it and you can be the best
If this is your opinion, then can't you at least concede that businesses will be run by smaller and smaller entities later down the line?

>Army isn't run by 1 general
Obviously not, but they aren't run by the fucking majority either, now are they? Neither are businesses run with one person. Owned, maybe, but not run.

>Laissez-Faire
There's a reason why the Oil and Steel industries of the 19th century became far more lucrative than agricultural. That was because of prominent leaders. If collective planning really was efficient, then the farmers at the time would've been far more successful than Carnegie (and they had a head start in the economy, too, as agrarian society was dominant before the IR).
But no, because collective planning is not NEARLY as productive, they had to form a Populist Party, and had representatives do things for them. Because you know, leaders are more efficient.

Most of society is either operated by or inherited from competent people. Unless you wanted to restrict success with repression, those people are going to end up BEING the successful minority.

>operated or inherited by
Operated by the inheritors, i meant to say as the latter.

the spelling...

>not understanding the joke

They're spelled and pronounced differently....

true