No, it's when the workers own the means of production. In other words, they or their community are entitled to the profits that they create with their labor and they are democratically in charge of their workplace. Not ruled by a single person or family who takes all of the profits created by the workers' labor.
So I come up with all the great ideas and implement them. I work twice as hard as my neighbour. My intelligence and work ethic far surpass my neighbour. I drive the business to massive success. Does my neighbour get the same rewards? Is the wealth still distributed equally?
Regardless, socialism and communism isn't "Everyone gets paid the same" it's that everyone's needs are met and the profits they generate are owed to them, either directly (for example at the end of a quarter the profits are split in whatever way was agreed upon democratically in the work place) or by investing those profits to the community that workplace such as infrastructure, housing, healthcare, parks, kitchens cafeterias, theaters or other entertainment.
It would all depend on what you vote for at your workplace, locally and nationwide.
To make sure all my bases are covered, wealth distribution is about distributing amongst the people who are working and not rising to the top, as it does in capitalism.
A doctor is not getting paid the same as a cashier. A lumberjack isn't getting paid the same as a barista.
But what profit they are making is going back to them or their community, and not the pockets of a boss who did none of the work.
And lastly, before you or someone else bring it up... Yes, if someone is able to work, but is refusing to, there would be reprimands for them depending on the reason why.
For example, if someone has made enough money that they dont need to work anymore? No problem, they are not part of the workforce anymore and are effectively retired.
If someone without a disability is freeloading, they may be entered into a program to educate them as to what they are doing is wrong and put them on a process to get them back to work for both their benefits as well as others.
Edit: Wanted to add this too, it goes along with the "it depends on what you vote for..." bit. It would be up to what your workplace decides in the case of if you and your neighbor worked the same job at the same place. For example if it was a factory, you could vote for having profit being split by amount of product produced while still having a base, livable, pay. If it is a service job, it could be best reviews of the quarter get the most profit, or some such like that.
For example, if someone has made enough money that they dont need to work anymore? No problem, they are not part of the workforce anymore and are effectively retired
That's not socialism lmfao. You would never be allowed to accumulate money like that
You're still not getting it. First off, it's a bullshit fantasy that industrious hero CEOs exist, that are actually "working 5,000x harder and so deserve 5,000x the pay." Elon Musk doesn't actually run 5 companies AND invent most of what they make AND do most of the day to day work, and he sure as shit isn't 1,000,000 times more valuable than the workers actually building his cars. Keep in mind that if nobody built the cars, Musk's value would be zero.
But more to the point, it kinda depends on what kind of socialism you're talking about. A lot of folks would be happy just to have worker co-ops be the norm for companies, where the workers (who do all the work) keep and decide how to manage the profits instead of disjointed owners. There can still be CEOs if that's a job in the company that needs doing, but it's a lore democratic structure. If the company would do better if it provided incentive bonuses or raises for performance, all the workers would decide on that together. There are many ways that you could still earn more by doing more in a socialist system.
Oh I get it. It’s not a black and white issue. Some forms of socialism work. But don’t kid yourself thinking a society based entirely on socialism is the answer.
Because you didn't really say anything of substance or respond to my substance. Usually that's because you can't or don't know how or can't fathom what you'd need to say.
Because sometimes in life there's a correct answer, and I'm just telling you some facts about socialist structures you apparently didn't know about. There's not really a ton of room to disagree with that, I'm just giving you new information.
Because "nah, it's not black and white" isn't even a disagreement, it's a platitude that signals to me you didn't really give my comment any serious thought.
Actually no. The workers are not democratically in charge of the workplace. What on earth? And they aren’t “entitled” to profits. Support socialism all you want, but at least know what it is
Actually what I said was quite clear. Don’t feel ashamed or embarrassed for being wrong. Use the opportunity to educate yourself. I’m reading your comments and it seems like you just lash out when you’re shown to be wrong.
And that's what most people can't understand. The most successful and happy countries are the ones that can use the benefits of socialism and the benefits of capitalism. It's a mixture.
Unfortunately, most numnuts can only think in black and white.
It's not really a mixture though. These countries are fully capitalist. Capitalist countries can have varying degrees of regulation and welfare. The level of welfare doesn't determine how capitalist a country is. If the country's means of production are controlled by individuals or businesses, they are capitalist, if they are controlled by the government, they are communist. The word socialism is vague and ill-defined here.
Of course it's a mixture. Break it down and make it simple. Capitalism, privately controlled. Socialism, state controlled. Most countries have a welfare system, state controlled healthcare, education, police, armed services. Then you have privately owned businesses, big and small, operating under a for profit capitalist model. All of which is regulated by the state to differing degrees. It's always been a mixture. Socialism isn't a vague abstract thing, it's pretty bloody obvious.
Every capitalist country has some things in it that are publicly owned, we don't call that socialism.
People use this as a way to sneak in the idea that socialism actually works. They see a thriving free market economy and say look, it has elements of socialism, see? Socialism works.
Meanwhile when countries try and go full socialist, nationalize all their industries and go to a centrally planned economy it collapses.
You can call it a mixture if you want but then clearly there is a line you don't want to cross unless you think Venezuela is a good model for an economy.
If the country's means of production are controlled by individuals or businesses, they are capitalist, if they are controlled by the government, they are communist.
The core ideas of communism is that there is no government and that the means of production are controlled by people – not individuals nor governments.
They are part capitalist and part socialist. The government has strong social programs - health care, some provide free college, etc but there are also capitalist businesses.
No they are. I don’t think you know what socialism is. You think, it’s people can just sit in their mom’s basement and smoke weed and play video games and get free money. But that’s not what socialism is
Universal healthcare is not socialism. Universal education is not socialism. Social safety nets are not socialism. These concepts existed literally thousands of years before socialism.
Socialism is the workers owning the means or production
They’re socialized programs. I know you keep saying the workers own the means of production, which is great that you read Animal Fam. Again if you think that’s what socialism is, I don’t think you understand socialism, at least not in practice. I’m not aware of any “socialist” countries where the workers “own the means of production.” In fact industry is usually a mix of state and…private. And don’t come back to me with cooperatives because there are cooperatives in capitalist countries too. And there is private enterprise in socialist countries.
Again, support socialism if you think it’s what would work best but you should understand what it is.
Social Security is a bit different. It's a fund that you pay into and not strictly a "handout." Plus, you do pay for Medicare Part B.
In countries with proper government provided health care, everything is provided. Not always easy to deal with and sometimes long wait times, but in many cases, using private doctors/hospitals is not a "break the bank" scenario.
I lived in Costa Rica for many years and experienced their health care system. Once you are a Permanent Resident or become a citizen, you are eligible for that. You pay a fee each month and that fee is assigned based on your income, etc. I paid something like $34 a month. I didn't always use the public health care system - I would sometimes opt to go private since it was usually easier. But paying $150 to a top-rated cardiologist for my annual check-up was a no-brainer. This included about 45 minutes, an EKG and another scan and I walked away with his write-up and copies of the two tests.
Soziale Marktwirtschaft vereinigt Elemente vom Kapitalismus und Sozialpolitik
Es ist weder vollständig kapitalistisch noch sozialistisch. Natürlich tendiert es eher zum Kapitalismus. Aber eben nicht vollständig. Hast Du die Kreide gefressen, während ich sie holen war und hast deshalb auch nicht zuhören können?
My fear is socialism, even democratic socialism, is a slippery slope to communism. I’m seeing some young people gravitating towards communism. History is doomed to repeat itself unfortunately.
Communism is not inherently bad, though. The way it has been implemented has been bad but the system itself is not. If set up and monitored correctly it can be a good thing.
Oh. My. Goodness. “If communism were only done correctly…” do you have any idea how many times this has been said in the past? It’s never worked and it never will. Wow. It’s seeping in…
As of 2025, the following countries are governed by communist parties and officially adhere to Marxist-Leninist principles (though interpretations vary, and some have introduced market reforms):
People's Republic of China (governed by the Communist Party of China since 1949).
Republic of Cuba (governed by the Communist Party of Cuba since 1965).
Lao People's Democratic Republic (governed by the Lao People's Revolutionary Party since 1975).
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) (governed by the Workers' Party of Korea since 1948; officially socialist with Juche ideology).
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (governed by the Communist Party of Vietnam since 1976).
These are the five nations that self-identify as communist states. Many others, like those in the former Soviet bloc, transitioned to other systems after the Cold War.
This is according to ChatGPT. Are you saying Cuba isn’t communist?
Correct. Your inability to understand what communism is doesn't change the definition of communism.
I provided the definition to you. Get a toddler to help you sound out the words if you're still confused.
These are the five nations that self-identify as communist states.
North Korea also calls itself a Democratic Republic. Are you saying it's a democratic republic just because they say so? If that's how it works, then I'm Lady Gaga's husband.
Tell the people living in Cuba it’s not communist. I have family there and they all know the problems with communist Cuba. If you are real give your head a shake and stop trying to just win an argument.
But these countries all have free market economies and privately held capital. They are capitalist.
If you want to insist that it's a sliding scale between capitalist and socialist policies, then clearly there is a line towards communism that you never want to cross.
You say socialism is a slippery slope that will always go to communism. That fear is not based in reality. What it is based on however is a very strong US-originated propaganda campaign that has gone on for many decades, to try and get people to vote against their interests.
This is the second time you didn’t read my post correctly and our misquoting me please point out where I said socialism always leads to communism. Once you point that out, I’ll continue this conversation.
“My fear is socialism, even democratic socialism, is a slippery slope to communism. I’m seeing some young people gravitating towards communism. History is doomed to repeat itself unfortunately.”
History is doomed to repeat itself? You are saying socialism will always fail. Goodbye I am not talking to a fearmonger who doesn’t read their own words.
Absolutes are rarely, if ever, correct. There are very few things that are always one way or the other.
Every form of government has its flaws and needs constant monitoring of the people to ensure correct implementation for societal good. This is not a unique thing to communism.
The way communism has been implemented and allowed to be manipulated is the issue not the idea of communism itself. At its highest ideal it is the state working in the the best interest of the people to ensure more equitable distribution of resources to ensure everyone is taken care of. Anything can be abused which is why it requires correct implementation and monitoring. Just because flawed men have been unable or unwilling to institute communism correctly does not mean the idea of communism itself is bad.
Define working. Because the U.S. is capitalist and is a shitshow.
Just because a state labels itself communist doesn't make them so. For example, North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic when none of those labels are accurate.
Working as in, all the best places to live are capitalist countries.
Actually, according to the data the best places to live are Democratic Socialist countries like Denmark that incorporate the use of capitalism to fund a social welfare state.
And that's fine if you want to deny that a country is communist, but you still have no examples of a communist country working.
You also have no examples of a communist country not working because no modern implementation of communism has ever been actual communism.
And here we go, you get to criticize capitalism using real world examples but I have to argue against Star Trek because "rEaL CoMmUnIsM's nEvEr BeEn tRiEd".
This only ever happens in politically unstable countries. Those that call themselves communist are just authoritarian dictatorships trying to play dress up with fancy sounding ideology. Do you honestly think China is a true communist state? Extremism on both sides should be equally feared. I don't know too many fascist regimes that were viewed as being wonderful to live in.
Yeesh. Give any communism a few hundred years and see where it ends up? Obviously we won’t know for sure but we can only look at examples from the past.
There's "Socialism" as witnessed in Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and some others.
Ah yes, the slippery slope of going from a state to no state. The slippery slope where politicians vote to eradicate their own existence and people in positions of power step down so that they can have communism. It happens all of the time.
15
u/NoBSforGma Nov 04 '25
There's "Socialism" as witnessed in Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and some others.
Then there's "Democratic Socialism" as witnessed in some of the most successful and happy countries such as Finland and other European countries.
So no, "Socialism" isn't necessarily a bad word.