LogFAQs > #937246969

Let's say you can trade 100 loaves of bread for an oven, and each oven can bake 1000 loaves of bread before it breaks down.

In capitalism, a guy trades 100 loaves for an oven. He then lets others use it, for a price. For every 5 loaves they bake, they must give the owner one loaf. By the time the oven breaks down, the owner has accumulated 200 loaves. He has ended up with more bread than he started with, despite not working. He can then trade the loaves for more ovens, continuing the process.

In socialism, a group of workers own an oven. Where it came from is unclear - maybe they seized it in the revolution, maybe it was provided by the government. The workers hold a vote and decide that everyone who bakes bread must give one loaf out of 10 to a common storage. By the time the oven breaks down, the storage will have 100 loaves, and the workers can trade those for a new oven.

Socialism is non-revolutionary and maintains a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through reform/democracy. Communism is revolutionary and does not maintain a state, tries to enact socialist ideas through public force

That sounds more like a Menshevik/Bolshevik split. Socialism can be revolutionary and even violent. It isn't easy to upend capitalism and seize the means of production while playing with the rules of a capitalist system. And the capitalist financial markets are prone to collapse from even a gradual shift towards socialism.

---

96065