Socialism is when the means of production are publicly owned. Communism is the ultimate manifestation of that, in a stateless society with no bourgeoisie and only proletariats.

Again, you really don't know what you're talking about. You're just saying words and hoping they stick.

And you have to insult again...

No, I am simply pointing out that you are not making any sense.

Stop being so quick to play the victim card. It'll get old quick.

"EEE THATS NOT REAL SOCIALISM"

Socialism calls for a big government

Communism calls for no government.

Socialism doesnt have to be "ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT"

Communism calls for a 1984 government

No, it doesn't.

You're thinking of Marxism-Leninism.

"Communism can be summed up in one sentence. The elimination of private property" -Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Marxism-Leninism was the synthesis of Marx and Lenin's ideals on how to build a **socialist state**, which, ultimately, withers away into a communist society which is stateless and operates on the basis of proletariat confederates.

@L0GAN You're confusing government ownership with proletariat ownership. Bordiga criticized the USSR as state capitalist because the state owned everything but there was still a class-based society and people still used capital.

This is the origin of the "not real communism" argument.

And if you want to be strictly orthodox to Marx real communism has never existed. That doesn't mean it's a good thing, it just means it isn't achievable.

The USSR was a socialist state, nominally transitional.

The USSR was communist aswell...

Communism is stateless though. As defined by Marx.

Marxism-Leninism literally defines the USSR as a SOCIALIST STATE, that withers away to be replaced by a STATELESS COMMUNIST SOCIETY.

It's not controversial.

They subscribed to the ideals of communism as that was what they were trying to achieve, and for the purpose of convenience Marxist-Leninist states are referred to as "communist" states.

It's a lot more complicated than it needs to be but it's not really hard to understand either.

You know I've never been a communist but I used to be one of the people that made fun of commie faggots for pulling the "not real communism card". Once I actually learned something, I understood the argument and why from a neutral standpoint it's valid even if people use it as a defense of communism. You guys seem to think socialism=liberalism=communism which is just blatantly incorrect.

You know your talking to yourself...

I'm watching 3AM at the krusty krab

I can explain just from history why it's incorrect in three steps from their origins:
1) John Locke, the original liberal, was at odds with Marx at every level.
2) Marx wasn't the first socialist.
3) Marx defined socialism as the transitional stage to communism. Socialists who do not want communism are called socialists, communists want socialism as a transitional phase.

also 5 am now so goodnight, sleep well fellow debater

Goodnight.

if there is a business you really don't like you can plant black mold spores around their building and they'll have to pay for inspectors

@Rex Colt is it bad that i have some acquaintances who might be in on all the stuff on level 6

@Doctor Anon liberalism is only a stepping stone to socialism if freedom of speech isn't put above other rights.

Hence why libertarians aren't socialist

@Deleted User thanks for that definition I hope you understand that consumption of liquid estrogen or testosterone won't actually place it in your blood stream it would be dissolved by stomach acid otherwise women that eat testicles would grow beards.

@Josh42A soy alert

I don't drink soy milk

I just apparently understand medical science more than the idiots that believe drinking something can upset someone's homorones

Literally if it worked like that drinking a coke would be lethal because of the amount of acid making it too your blood stream.

>believing in medical science

kek