LogFAQs > #948103428

Yellow posted...

That's true but with Socialism it's mandated by law that 100% of the company is distributed to the workers (idk if it was exactly 100% in practice but that was the concept). Which is why it's such an easy jump to Communism, which is the same thing except owned by the government (public ownership).

That's not Communism; it's State Capitalism.

Sure, a lot of State Capitalist countries called themselves Communist, but in reality they stopped before they actually got there.

Marx initially believed that State Capitalism was the first step towards Communism, until the Paris Commune happened and he decided that no, actually, State Capitalism was a terrible idea and there were better to achieve Communism. Lenin continued to advocate for State Capitalism as a step towards true Communism, but no one ever actually made it that far.

Government ownership of the means of production does not eliminate the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie as Socialism and Communism (being a form of Socialism) seek to do, it merely creates a new group of bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat. It is antithetical to Socialism and, by extension, Communism.

---

The problem with the internet today is that it's filled with entire generations that did not grow up with the great wisdom of the Wyld Stallyns.