>>942230977
This is the most ironic statement on /b/
Did YOU do that before you asked him to do it?
Also, Socialism is a separate economic theory from Communism. If they were the same thing, they would be called the same thing, and modified with prefixes.
So instead of "Socialism" it'd be called "Social Communism" and no one would question why you are referring to it as communism.
Also, from the wiki page:
"The distinction between communism and socialism became salient in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, interpreting communism specifically to mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism and later that of Marxism–Leninism,[50] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism."
So at least 107 years now the terms have meant different things. Your grandmother wouldn't have been able to walk, read, or potentially exist, when these terms meant the same thing.
Karl Marx didn't define these terms separately, because to him the end result was the same; he used so many terms to refer to the so-called "post-capitalist society" that there's a little booklet of them somewhere.
Here's some:
"A free association of Producers," "Communism," "Socialism," "A Realm of Free Individuality," "Equal Classism," "A Society where all Class differences have been leveled."
It's important to note, NONE of this was writing about GOALS. He believed that what he was witnessing in the world would make the things he wrote come to pass; not that those were goals that needed to be sought after. To him, it was inevitable that the world would become stateless.
Why ANYONE continues to argue against these ideas is beyond me, modern communists use the book as a reading guide for 'better' communist theories and writings as far as I can tell.
