Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

Grok, impartially analyze Jarod's thread, please.




Impartial analysis of Jarod's thread:


Thread Summary​


The thread, started by Jarod (titled "Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?"), is a short, low-substance exchange typical of partisan forum debates. It opens with Jarod accusing "The Sleepy PP" of repeatedly equating the two systems.

  • Jarod's intent: Accusing Trump of repeatedly blurring or equating the two systems in rhetoric, then challenging readers to recognize they are distinct. The thread escalates with insults toward Trump voters ("sheep," poorly educated base, etc.) and brief definitional defenses from Jarod's side.
  • The rest of the dynamic holds: quick descent into ad hominems, selective definitions, a YouTube link, and pivot to "Democratic Socialism" as harmless progressive taxation/redistribution. Opponents push back that the differences are superficial ("varying only in the degree of control and misery").

Responses quickly devolve into:


  • Insults and tribal signaling: Heavy use of terms like "MAGA morons," "magatards," "poorly educated," "sheep," and dismissals of Trump supporters' intelligence/education. Little engagement with ideas.
  • Some definitional attempts: Jarod and QP! provide lists distinguishing socialism from communism (state vs. communal ownership, democratic vs. revolutionary paths, private property allowances, etc.). Opponents counter that they are variants on a spectrum of control and "misery."
  • "Democratic Socialism" pivot: Claimed as distinct — basically just progressive taxation/redistribution within democracy, not true socialism.
  • Tone: Defensive/provocative from the start, with challenges to "explain the difference" met by YouTube links, copied text, and more ad hominems rather than deep discussion. The thread has limited replies (~20 visible) and seems designed more to vent/score points than persuade.

Overall, it's not a rigorous analysis but a gotcha-style opener in a polarized forum (justplainpolitics.com), where users like Jarod position themselves as informed critics of conservative conflations.


Factual/Conceptual Breakdown (Impartial Perspective)​


Both sides have partial truths, but the discussion oversimplifies complex, contested terms with real-world overlap and historical baggage.


Core Distinctions (Standard Theoretical View):


  • Socialism: Broad umbrella. Generally involves significant public/state control or ownership of the "means of production" (key industries, resources) to reduce inequality. Allows private property, markets, and (in "democratic socialism") elections and civil liberties. Examples in rhetoric: Nordic models (heavy welfare + regulation + high taxes on market economies), or more interventionist versions. Compensation often tied to contribution + safety nets. Gradual, reformist path common.
  • Communism: A specific form of socialism (per Marx/Engels). Envisions total abolition of private property, class, money, and eventually the state itself ("withering away"). "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Typically revolutionary, vanguard party-led transition to a classless society. In practice (USSR, Maoist China, etc.), it meant one-party totalitarian control, central planning, and suppression of dissent.

Jarod/QP!'s points (means of production partial vs. total, democratic vs. violent, private property retained in socialism) align with textbook contrasts. Opponents' "spectrum of control" view captures how many socialist experiments slid toward authoritarianism.


Important Nuances Often Missed in Such Threads:


  • Theoretical vs. Historical Reality: Pure communism has never existed at scale (stateless utopia). All large-scale attempts were state socialist dictatorships with massive human costs (famines, purges, gulags). Democratic socialism (e.g., Bernie Sanders-style) is closer to social democracy — capitalism with strong welfare — not full public ownership of production. Nordic countries are not socialist by classical definition; they rank high on economic freedom indices with private enterprise dominant.
  • Shared Roots and Slippery Slope: Both trace to Marxist thought. Critics (e.g., Hayek, Mises) argue centralized economic control inevitably erodes liberties and incentives, leading to coercion regardless of labels. "Varying degrees of misery" reflects observed outcomes in 20th-century implementations.
  • Modern Usage: Politically loaded. "Socialism" is often a scare word on the right for any welfare expansion; on the left, it's rebranded as benign equity. "Democratic Socialism" frequently serves as a palatable entry point that blurs lines.
  • US Context: Neither has been implemented fully. Debates usually concern policy mixes (e.g., single-payer healthcare, wealth taxes, regulation) vs. market outcomes. Evidence on outcomes is empirical: Mixed economies with rule of law perform better than command economies on metrics like prosperity, innovation, and rights.

Strengths/Weaknesses of Jarod's Position:


  • Strong: Correct that the terms aren't identical; equating them simplistically ignores differences in theory and milder variants. Challenging opponents to define terms is fair.
  • Weak: Thread relies on condescension over sustained argument. Ignores why critics equate them (shared ideology, failure modes, incentives for expanding state power). "Democratic Socialism" description downplays risks of concentrated power and dependency. Forum style prioritizes owning "MAGA morons" over steelmanning opposing views.

Counter-Side: Valid skepticism of rhetorical distinctions when policies trend toward more state control, but name-calling and assuming ignorance weaken it.


Overall Assessment​


This is classic internet political tribalism: A valid semantic point (they're not synonyms) buried under mutual contempt and incomplete history. Neither side deeply engages trade-offs like incentives, knowledge problems in central planning (Hayek's "fatal conceit"), or why some countries with socialist policies stagnate while others thrive via markets + safety nets. For truth-seeking, examine primary sources (Marx, historical records of USSR/Venezuela vs. Nordic data) and outcomes rather than labels. Your background in federal operations and bureaucracy likely gives you a grounded view on how such systems expand in practice.



grok.com

Socialism vs Communism Distinctions | Shared Grok Conversation

Grok, impartially analyze Jarod's thread, please.https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/everyone-
grok.com grok.com
 
zymurgy said:
derp derp
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
Actually, according to Marx and the broader Marxist tradition, socialism is the first step toward communism.
Click to expand...
Bottom line: Right now, under relatively unchecked capitalism, the top 1% of families own one-third of the total wealth of our nation; the top 10% of families own two-thirds of the total wealth of our nation; and the bottom 50% of families own about 2 1/2 % of the total wealth of our nation. And for the last 5 or 6 decades, the disparity has been steadily getting worse.

Anyone who cannot see that for the disgusting/dangerous situation it is...doesn't deserve to be a participant in a discussion of this topic. Something has to be done to divert our economy from the track it is presently on. If capitalism cannot do it then some other form of economic means will have to take its place. I hope it is never communism or socialism to the exclusion of capitalism and free enterprise...BUT SOMETING HAS TO BE DONE.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Bottom line: Right now, under relatively unchecked capitalism, the top 1% of families own one-third of the total wealth of our nation; the top 10% of families own two-thirds of the total wealth of our nation; and the bottom 50% of families own about 2 1/2 % of the total wealth of our nation. And for the last 5 or 6 decades, the disparity has been steadily getting worse.

Anyone who cannot see that for the disgusting/dangerous situation it is...doesn't deserve to be a participant in a discussion of this topic. Something has to be done to divert our economy from the track it is presently on. If capitalism cannot do it then some other form of economic means will have to take its place. I hope it is never communism or socialism to the exclusion of capitalism and free enterprise...BUT SOMETING HAS TO BE DONE.
Click to expand...
The bottom 50% pay about 2.3% of all taxes in this country. Pay up, move up.
 
"relatively unchecked capitalism"

What a fucking retard.

so we went from needing to extracting $7.50 per person per year to now needing over $20,000 per person per year because capitalism is unchecked and socialism is checked?

fuck off socialist retards. I mean, I understand. you can't possibly compete with me - so it is what it is
 
Damocles said:
Actually, according to Marx and the broader Marxist tradition, socialism is the first step toward communism.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx outlined the lower phase of communist society (what later Marxists explicitly called socialism): the transitional stage with the "dictatorship of the proletariat," state control of the means of production, and distribution "to each according to his contribution." Only after that does the higher phase, aka full communism, emerge: stateless, classless, moneyless utopia where the state withers away and it's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."


Lenin and company were even more blunt: socialism is the vehicle; communism is the destination. That's why regimes called themselves "socialist" (USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) while promising communism someday.


So no, they're not identical, but one is explicitly designed to lead to the other. Why do so many modern leftists insist on treating them as completely unrelated, or claim "real socialism has never been tried"?


It's either historical illiteracy or deliberate marketing. I propose that it is deliberately misleading people, a deliberate gaslighting... Selling "free healthcare and student debt forgiveness" polls better than "transitional phase to the abolition of private property and the state as we know it." The Manifesto isn't exactly hidden behind a paywall. People can read it for themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes, if Communism is the goal, a good place to start is socialism, even if you disagree with Marx on his method, Socialism can be a stand alone system. History has shown that a fully socialist nation does not work well.

My own philosophy (I can only speak for myself) is that the greatest nations in the modern world are the ones who can keep a healthy Ballance creating some elements of the system as socialism would, while allowing Capitalism to do what it does with others. So, Capitalism is not evil unless you allow it to run rampant with no checks, and the same with Socialism. This is how America worked in the 1900's. Twenty-six years into the 2000's the fight between the two continues. Extremism on either side is the evil.

What Trump (and others before him, to a different extent) is trying to do is polarize the issue into extremism, as if Pure Capitalism is the Goal, and the other side Pure Socialism as the evil. The Democratic Socialists seem to generally be the mirror of Trump. The current Democratic Party might have some elements of extremism, but those elected generally embrace the balance. The Republican Party pre-Trump, also embraced the ballance. Since Trump hijacked the party, he is casting anything with Government control (other than social issues) as evil.

I would argue his use of the Government to advance his agenda, pushing the FCC to be pro-Trump, using the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies, and Personally suing the Government... while in the position to also represent the Government's defense, are examples of 'Bad Socialism', but they are widely supported by the Republican party.

I personally believe the system in some areas is unbalanced, resulting in the wealthy having to much power over the government and the class structure, and keeping the poorest on the edge of forced servitude without advancement opportunities. What good is Liberty if you are so poor you have no opportunity to use it. But I do understand the position on the other side, that we need more Capitalism, because Capitalism is efficient and is the best system for pushing technology and creating wealth.
 
AProudLefty said:
Like I said, even if it's really is him and not out of context, it changes nothing. No where on their site and none of other members has ever stated their goal is Communism.
Click to expand...
It changes nothing that the leadership of the DSA is promoting communism? That's ridiculous, and you know it. I can only surmise by your lame attempts at obfuscation that you support communism.

Oh look, here's another DSA member, and candidate for Congress busted promoting communism.

Deleted tweets on Darializa Avila Chevalier’s account had favorable references to communist leaders and Marxism​


Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic congressional nominee endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who ousted longtime Rep. Adriano Espaillat in Tuesday’s primary, maintained a since-deleted Twitter account with repeated sympathetic references to communism, Marxist ideology and Soviet figures, including Vladimir Lenin.


Avila Chevalier, a sociology PhD student whose victory sent shockwaves throughout the Democratic establishment, has been under fire for a since-deleted Twitter account, previously reported by CNN, that included phrases such as “seize the means of production,” along with calls to abolish police, prisons and borders. Other controversial tweets include one that said Black and Arab men are both “Fetishizing ugly colonizer women” and another that described wiping her dirty hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin.


As an undergraduate, Avila Chevalier attended Columbia University, where she organized with Students for Justice in Palestine, and after graduation became involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza. She also attended a controversial October 8, 2023, pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square — one day after Hamas’ attack on Israel — that featured speeches and rhetoric praising the attack.
 
Jarod said:
Yes, if Communism is the goal, a good place to start is socialism, even if you disagree with Marx on his method, Socialism can be a stand alone system. History has shown that a fully socialist nation does not work well.

My own philosophy (I can only speak for myself) is that the greatest nations in the modern world are the ones who can keep a healthy Ballance creating some elements of the system as socialism would, while allowing Capitalism to do what it does with others. So, Capitalism is not evil unless you allow it to run rampant with no checks, and the same with Socialism. This is how America worked in the 1900's. Twenty-six years into the 2000's the fight between the two continues. Extremism on either side is the evil.

What Trump (and others before him, to a different extent) is trying to do is polarize the issue into extremism, as if Pure Capitalism is the Goal, and the other side Pure Socialism as the evil. The Democratic Socialists seem to generally be the mirror of Trump. The current Democratic Party might have some elements of extremism, but those elected generally embrace the balance. The Republican Party pre-Trump, also embraced the ballance. Since Trump hijacked the party, he is casting anything with Government control (other than social issues) as evil.

I would argue his use of the Government to advance his agenda, pushing the FCC to be pro-Trump, using the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies, and Personally suing the Government... while in the position to also represent the Government's defense, are examples of 'Bad Socialism', but they are widely supported by the Republican party.

I personally believe the system in some areas is unbalanced, resulting in the wealthy having to much power over the government and the class structure, and keeping the poorest on the edge of forced servitude without advancement opportunities. What good is Liberty if you are so poor you have no opportunity to use it. But I do understand the position on the other side, that we need more Capitalism, because Capitalism is efficient and is the best system for pushing technology and creating wealth.
Click to expand...
LOL.

You take the step because that is the first towards the floor on which you want to land.

I get that you want to distract from this, but it is literally a word coined by the Manifesto... this path leads to one thing. Pretending that they are not related to each other is just another attempt to sell it (unless you are what Lenin and Stalin would call a "useful idiot" and were sold the bill of goods). I mean it is possible you have bought into that Ponzi Scheme and don't realize what you've been sold, but don't blame others when they point out where this map leads...
 
countryboy said:
I actually hope you are playing dumb, because if you are truly this stupid, that's astonishing.

You keep saying "no member states their goal is Communism", yet one of their leaders, David Jenkins, has stated such. Here is the co-chair of the DSA, Ashik Siddique, acknowledging that that clip is genuine, and saying they have a "big tent". So, are you are simply in denial, or just plain stupid?

View: https://youtu.be/LQzhGnuhx0I?t=424
Click to expand...
I am sure it is the Goal of some random people, much like a return of Naziism is the goal of some people, but that is not the platform of the American Democratic Socialist party anymore than a skinhead at 1/6 promoting an insurrection is the goal of the Republican Party.

You have to be smarter than taking sone statement from one fairly powerless person in a party and claiming it is the goal of the entire party. If that were valid argument I could post racist shit Trumppers say all day long as proof that Trumppers are racist. That is simply silly.
 
zymurgy said:
"relatively unchecked capitalism"

What a fucking retard.

so we went from needing to extracting $7.50 per person per year to now needing over $20,000 per person per year because capitalism is unchecked and socialism is checked?

fuck off socialist retards. I mean, I understand. you can't possibly compete with me - so it is what it is
Click to expand...
Hey, moron.

If the way capitalism has to work is to go from $7.50 to over $20,000...that is an indictment of capitalism...not socialism.

As for competing with you, if you mean intellectually, I will leave you in your own dust every time. You are a pathetic advocate for whatever your cause is.
 
Jarod said:
Yes, if Communism is the goal, a good place to start is socialism, even if you disagree with Marx on his method, Socialism can be a stand alone system. History has shown that a fully socialist nation does not work well.

My own philosophy (I can only speak for myself) is that the greatest nations in the modern world are the ones who can keep a healthy Ballance creating some elements of the system as socialism would, while allowing Capitalism to do what it does with others. So, Capitalism is not evil unless you allow it to run rampant with no checks, and the same with Socialism. This is how America worked in the 1900's. Twenty-six years into the 2000's the fight between the two continues. Extremism on either side is the evil.

What Trump (and others before him, to a different extent) is trying to do is polarize the issue into extremism, as if Pure Capitalism is the Goal, and the other side Pure Socialism as the evil. The Democratic Socialists seem to generally be the mirror of Trump. The current Democratic Party might have some elements of extremism, but those elected generally embrace the balance. The Republican Party pre-Trump, also embraced the ballance. Since Trump hijacked the party, he is casting anything with Government control (other than social issues) as evil.

I would argue his use of the Government to advance his agenda, pushing the FCC to be pro-Trump, using the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies, and Personally suing the Government... while in the position to also represent the Government's defense, are examples of 'Bad Socialism', but they are widely supported by the Republican party.

I personally believe the system in some areas is unbalanced, resulting in the wealthy having to much power over the government and the class structure, and keeping the poorest on the edge of forced servitude without advancement opportunities. What good is Liberty if you are so poor you have no opportunity to use it. But I do understand the position on the other side, that we need more Capitalism, because Capitalism is efficient and is the best system for pushing technology and creating wealth.
Click to expand...
Excellent piece, Jarod. Good thinking and superbly written. Thank you.

(But I doubt they will understand.)
 
Jarod said:
I am sure it is the Goal of some random people, much like a return of Naziism is the goal of some people, but that is not the platform of the American Democratic Socialist party anymore than a skinhead at 1/6 promoting an insurrection is the goal of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
Here's the difference, your claims of Nazism and J6 skinhead insurrection are fake. These Dems are promoting communism out loud in their own voice.
Jarod said:
You have to be smarter than taking sone statement from one fairly powerless person in a party and claiming it is the goal of the entire party.
Click to expand...
What? Mamdani, AOC and Bernie are powerless people in your party? Are you saying you denounce this radical communist wing of your party?
Jarod said:
If that were valid argument I could post racist shit Trumppers say all day long as proof that Trumppers are racist. That is simply silly.
Click to expand...
No you couldn't.
 
countryboy said:
It changes nothing that the leadership of the DSA is promoting communism? That's ridiculous, and you know it. I can only surmise by your lame attempts at obfuscation that you support communism.

Oh look, here's another DSA member, and candidate for Congress busted promoting communism.

Deleted tweets on Darializa Avila Chevalier’s account had favorable references to communist leaders and Marxism​


Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic congressional nominee endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who ousted longtime Rep. Adriano Espaillat in Tuesday’s primary, maintained a since-deleted Twitter account with repeated sympathetic references to communism, Marxist ideology and Soviet figures, including Vladimir Lenin.


Avila Chevalier, a sociology PhD student whose victory sent shockwaves throughout the Democratic establishment, has been under fire for a since-deleted Twitter account, previously reported by CNN, that included phrases such as “seize the means of production,” along with calls to abolish police, prisons and borders. Other controversial tweets include one that said Black and Arab men are both “Fetishizing ugly colonizer women” and another that described wiping her dirty hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin.


As an undergraduate, Avila Chevalier attended Columbia University, where she organized with Students for Justice in Palestine, and after graduation became involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza. She also attended a controversial October 8, 2023, pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square — one day after Hamas’ attack on Israel — that featured speeches and rhetoric praising the attack.
Click to expand...
Asked in a subsequent phone interview with MSNOW if she was a communist, Avila Chevalier said, “I’m not. I’m a democratic socialist.”

Nice try.
 
Hey, genius.

The federal government going from roughly $7.50 per person in 1910 to over $20,000 per person in 2026 is not “how capitalism works.”

That is literally the growth of government.

Capitalism is private property, voluntary exchange, market pricing, and profit/loss. Federal spending is taxation, borrowing, redistribution, bureaucracy, debt service, subsidies, entitlements, war spending, bailouts, and political allocation.

So if your argument is, “The government now spends vastly more money per person than it did a century ago,” congratulations — you have identified the expansion of the state, not the expansion of capitalism.

The capitalist side produces the wealth. The political side taxes it, borrows against it, redistributes it, regulates it, inflates it, and then blames capitalism when the bill comes due.

That is not an indictment of capitalism.

That is an indictment of the idea that government can keep becoming more “humane” with money it does not have.

“If capitalism worked, why did government spending explode?”

What a devastating point.

Next up: “If exercise works, why did I gain weight after eating cake for 100 years?”
 
Damocles said:
LOL.

You take the step because that is the first towards the floor on which you want to land.

I get that you want to distract from this, but it is literally a word coined by the Manifesto... this path leads to one thing. Pretending that they are not related to each other is just another attempt to sell it (unless you are what Lenin and Stalin would call a "useful idiot" and were sold the bill of goods). I mean it is possible you have bought into that Ponzi Scheme and don't realize what you've been sold, but don't blame others when they point out where this map leads...
Click to expand...
I can't help it if you believe something different about me than what I express, that comes from you, not me. The United States, has for a Century, balanced these oppositional ideologies to create the Greatest Economic superpower the world has seen. I do not know the exact percentages of each system is optimal, but I can observe that we have bounced along the sweet spot for a century.

If we are in a ponzi scheme, it sure is taking a long time to melt down.

Tell me, do you believe in pure unabashed Capitalism? If not, what should we do to moderate it?
 
Ross Dolan said:
Extremely important point. Robert Byrd was one of the most important and dedicated CONSERVATIVES in America. Democrats did vote him into office, but those Democrats were AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES.

The American conservatives have been wrong on just about every important moment in American history...especially right now.
Click to expand...

Were FDR and Woodrow Wilson, likewise "conservatives?"

Like a 2 year old Ross, you blame the other side for the sins of your party.
 
Jarod said:
I am sure it is the Goal of some random people, much like a return of Naziism is the goal of some people, but that is not the platform of the American Democratic Socialist party anymore than a skinhead at 1/6 promoting an insurrection is the goal of the Republican Party.

You have to be smarter than taking sone statement from one fairly powerless person in a party and claiming it is the goal of the entire party. If that were valid argument I could post racist shit Trumppers say all day long as proof that Trumppers are racist. That is simply silly.
Click to expand...
The #2 of the DSA, David Jenkins is not "some random people," he is top leadership.

Marx refutes your claim of separatism between silver spoon socialists and communists;

{In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois régime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism.

Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also inEngland.This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capitaland land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, ofthe old nationalities.} (pg. 52)

As we see, Marx calls the silver spoon socialist, those of privilege who cling to socialism as a virtue signal - what Marx terms "petty-bourgeois Socialism" hypocrites who promote Communism and live in a state of contradiction. Spoiled children who hate their parents and want to destroy their parents world, yet still demand the privilege and comfort their parents toiled to give them.

Such is socialism in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top