Since I have to drag this stubborn donkey to water and literally force it to drink,

here you go:

I will provide you many others if needed.

https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences

Quote:

---

Key Differences Between Communism and Socialism

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central governmentthe statecontrols all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

In his 1875 writing, Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx summarized the communist philosophy in this way: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy.

Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.

---

https://mises.org/mises-wire/american-socialism-isnt-marxism-its-still-problem

Quote:

---

Not All Socialism Is Marxism

How can Marxism be distinguished from representatives of other socialist currents? First of all, Marxism is an extreme and particular flavor of socialism that is usually called communism. Communists adhere to the materialist conception of history and the labor theory of value and surplus value. They claim to represent the "proletariat" class and believe in the exploitation of labor by capital. To them, this exploitation leads to the aggravation of class struggle and, as a result, instigates the socioeconomic change of society, which some would call a revolution. After the revolution, the victors would establish a proletarian dictatorship and start a socialist transformation of society, namely the collectivization of private property and consciousness. The founder of Marxism envisioned that the communist revolution would take place in all industrial countries at once. After the formation of a "new man"who does not know the concept of individualismand the achievement of economic prosperity and equality, the state would wither away. Society would then become genuinely communist.

Now, ask yourself, who in the Democratic Party shares such a view? Apparently, no one, not even openly socialist Bernie Sanders.

The question is, what kind of socialism involves the leftist elements of the Democratic Party? First of all, modern socialists do not adhere to a single coherent socialist theory or create something anew; instead, they recycle old slogans about economic equality and fairness, which have been known from time immemorial, long before Marx.

---

https://stevelalla.medium.com/marx-didnt-invent-socialism-nor-did-he-discover-it-8d924d97552c

Quote:

---

There's no debate that Marx didn't invent socialism. As co-editor of a French-German radical newspaper by 1843, a young Marx would have read the term "socialism" used by French author Pierre Leroux (17971871) generally credited with coining the term or the German Lorenz von Stein (18151890). England's Robert Owen (17711858) had bandied the word about as early as 1835. French philosopher Victor d'Hupay (17461818) called himself a communist author around 1785, thirty-three years before Marx's birth, and his colleague Nicolas-Edme Rtif (17341806) even used the term to describe a form of government.

In Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific he celebrates "the founders of socialism" Saint-Simon (17601825), Owen, and Charles Fourier (17721837), and refers to the "actual communistic theories" of tienne-Gabriel Morelly and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably.

errard Winstanley, in the 17th century, and Thomas More, who wrote Utopia in 1515, were two other notable Britons who wrote about societies where community came before profit, private property was unknown, and in which workers controlled the means of production.

Incidentally, Marx did not draw a strong distinction between socialism and communism. He implied that communism was a stage beyond that of socialism in The Critique of the Gotha Program, published posthumously in 1891. Lenin and others drew out this distinction in greater detail. In general Marx and Engels used the two terms interchangeably.

---

Quote:

---

Wait until Wind City Ag finds out that Newtonian Physics encompasses ideas that weren't actually originated by Isaac Newton.

His ****ing head is gonna explode.

---

Trying to understand this one . . . .you tell me that Marxism was the basis for socialism and then provide this? Shouldn't your statement be that Copernicus jumped in a time machine to observe Newton's writings and then went back home to establish heliocentrism?

I explicitly stated socialist ideas predated Marx. However, Marx wasn't just a random guy that wrote about socialist ideas, he was a pinnacle figure in disseminating those ideas globally. All socialists, communists, Marxists, collectivists, statists, ectcetera after Marx were massively influenced by Marx's writing.

Wait, just a second ago you expounded upon how virtually every country in Western Civilization had Marxist revolutions, and now you are saying only Lenin though Marx had good ideas.

Sooo...which is it?

Quote:

---

Wait, just a second ago you expounded upon how virtually every country in Western Civilization had Marxist revolutions, and now you are saying only Lenin though Marx had good ideas.

Sooo...which is it?

---

Failed Marxist revolutions that were often opposed by other socialist movements in the same countries . . . but that is not the point and a bit irrelevant. The point is you still can't offer up a shred of evidence or make even a slight connection between the extremist ideology of the Marxist wing of socialism and today's progressive party that you viewed as distilling ideas form Marxist leaders.

The only thing that is truly, uniquely Marxist and not just socialism is the call for violent revolution, the belief in the need of a temporary dictatorship, and the goal of a stateless society with no individual rights. You are trying to say that those views have influenced the current progressive movement here, which sounds confused and unserious.

It makes for an easy dog whistle but has no evidence in reality.

You are lying.

I've already stated this, but Critical Theory was created by Marxists and massively influential to Modern Progressivism.

So, what are you contesting here?

That Critical Theory was started by Marxists?

That it exerts massive influence on today's Modern Progressivism?

Just because you refuse to engage with the points I've made doesn't magically erase the fact that I have, indeed, made them.

You don't get to decide what is and isn't Marxism. You are not the final arbiter of truth. Here is what wiki has to say about Marxist philosophy:

Quote:

---

The key characteristics of Marxism in philosophy are its materialism and its commitment to political practice as the end goal of all thought.

---

Nothing about dictators. Nothing about violent revolutions.

YOU are insisting on a narrow definition that, quite simply, becomes obviously unworkable when one surveys the rich tapestry of movements that have SELF IDENTIFIED as Marxist.

Quote:

---

You are lying.

I've already stated this, but Critical Theory was created by Marxists and massively influential to Modern Progressivism.

So, what are you contesting here?

That Critical Theory was started by Marxists?

---

Critical Theory was created by a weird kluge of people, not just Marxists. It was an attempt to blend certain very specific parts of the Marxist platform regarding scientific socialism with a bunch of other weird crap like Freud's Psycho analytic theory, Max Weber's burgeoning field of sociology, whatever stuff Fredrich Nietzche was pumping at the time and the writings of Emmanuel Kant. Hegel was in there as well. Somehow Kierkegaard got in there as well. Why not,

Max Horkheimer cooked up Critical Theory specifically because he found Marx's whole collapse of the capitalists through violent revolution process to be dumb. He expressly opposed any rhetoric in Frankfurt regarding revolution.

Yes, there were some one time Marxists in there but they were in there because they were disillusioned Marxists who had abandoned the extreme aspects of Marx's beliefs and were looking for a better approach.

So no, Critical Theory is not some clear link to the Progressive movement. It really sounds like a bunch of dope smoking profs riffing in an ever more bizarre way but most of philosophy sounds like that to me.

At best it is described as "Post-Marxist" and most of the Orthodox Marxist and Leninist thinker in the early 20th Century attacked the Critical Theory concepts as a sell-out and heretical to Marxist ideology.

Quote:

---

So the Critical Theorists, despite being self described Marxists, weren't actually Marxists.

Man. That's some impressive logic.

---

They were admitted disillusioned and lapsed Marxists looking to build something new that actually made sense and in doing so offended orthodox Marxists and Leninists who still stuck to the Marxist playbook.

So yes, they were not Marxists.

And Critical Theory is not some static field. There were three distinct evolutions of it and it had fritted out to weird assaults on artists towards its latter years.

Look, I get that nuance is not your interest but digging into Critical Theory you will find that is basically an attempt to tear down and rebuild the original Marxist thoughts and binning most of what Marx said in the process.

Quote:

---

So Critical Theorists, who self identified as Marxists, who are ALWAYS referred to as Marxist, weren't actual Marxist because Professor Nomenclature says so.

---

It is interesting, this rock solid faith of yours in statements that are easily debunked.

Critical Theorists were not ALWAYS referred to as Marxist. You know who the first folks were to say they were not Marxists? The actual Marxists at the time the Frankfurt School started publishing their thoughts.

I liked your funny memes better this morning,
I mean don't you think Senior Harris slunk by
downtown DC at some time? Was he in jail?
From your F16 post...

Yes, absent a shred of evidence, this is less than a theory: this is you showing your bias.

Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.

Marxism has become such a tired and hackneyed term that it's become almost meaningless. Oftentimes it just means "something conservatives don't like." (e.g. socialized healthcare, taxing the rich, increasing the minimum wage, LGBT rights, support for Palestine). And when used in a historical context, it's rightfully criticized given that most of the regimes that embraced Marxism were oppressive dictatorships. But the fact is, probably 1 in 10 people who condemn Marxism have actually read up on it or fully understand it. It's just a catchall term for negative things.

as far as I'm concerned, pretty much everything is fair game for criticism, including principles we hold dear and sometimes think of as "above" that. Such as the pitfalls of capitalism, the cruel nature of for-profit healthcare, the undeniable fact that the working class has been screwed over and left behind in our current capitalistic system.

I could go on.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.

---

No one gives a **** about where he lives. Can you provide any evidence that Harris has significant contact or ties with him? That he's somehow designed or running her economic platform? He's in his mid-80s and hasn't had a relationship with Harris since she was a kid. And yet you keep trying to argue he's some secret mastermind plotting a Marxist revolution under his daughter. It's a pretty stupid conspiracy theory in general, but you have nothing to back it up.

You have zero proof outside of a 1 off line in a 21 year old article that he doesn't have a personal relationship with her.

My father went to prison when I was 7. I've had maybe a dozen conversations with him since then. I'm very aware of his world view and how it has influenced mine, for better of for worse.

You know his existence is terrible optics politically and you don't want to be seen supporting Marxists so your cognitive dissonance is working in overdrive.

You are a victim of ideological capture and it's pretty obvious to the rest of us.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a person's father had influenced them, considering that's the normative operation in most cases.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that what happens most of the time isn't happening in this instance.

Also, when she quickly embraces far left positions like Medicare for All, price controls, and open borders, it's reasonable to conjecture maybe her father has been influential after all.

Of course none of us knows for sure. But your vehement protestations are embarrassing to watch. Have a shred of pride in yourself.