whats the diffence between Socialism and Marxism?

[oxoladysguilty]

Ed Balls and the new Labour leader often get accusations from opponents of being socialist but I never hear the word 'Marxist'.

I thought Ed Balls was accused of being Tory-lite, not a socialist.

As for Corbyn, no one seems to be sure whether he is a follower of Marx or not.

"Labour despair as Corbyn refuses to deny being Marxist
...
The backbench MP, who is gaining momentum in the race to succeed Ed Miliband, refused to deny being a Marxist during a BBC television interview yesterday.
...

Mr Corbyn, 66, was quizzed about his views on Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, by BBC interviewer Andrew Marr yesterday.

The Islington North MP said: “Marx obviously analysed what was happening in a quite brilliant way and the philosophy around Marx is fascinating.

“He was essentially a fascinating figure … from whom we can learn a great deal.”

Marx obviously analysed what was happening in a quite brilliant way and the philosophy around Marx is fascinating

Jeremy Corbyn

Asked if he regarded himself as a Marxist, Mr Corbyn paused before saying: “That’s an interesting question. I haven’t thought about that for a long time.

“I haven’t really read as much of Marx as I should have done.”

He told Marr: “We all owe something to him. Probably inside you, even you do.”

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/593968/Corbyn-admits-Karl-Marx-my-communist-hero

I'm not exacyly sure what being a Marxist actually entails, but I'm pretty sure that Ed Balls is not a socialist.

I think that Marxists are revolutionary socialists whereas socialists are democratic socialists. Ed Balls is in fact a socialist. I think he was once Vice-Chair of the Fabian Socialists and he has also attended Bilderberg.

The Fabians, according to conspiracy theorists, are a step by step socialist group famously portrayed in the Fabian Window designed by Fabian George Bernard Shaw which among other things depicts a wolf in sheep's clothing. Conspiracy theorists say that they are part of the New World Order, one arm of it that serves the elite.

"The stained glass window was designed by George Bernard Shaw in 1910 as a commemoration of the Fabian Society, and shows fellow Society members Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease, among others, helping to build 'the new world'.
...
The window explicitly reflects the goal of the Fabian Society to portray an outward role contrary to its real character, i.e. to use deception in pursuing its ultimate aim. Specifically, a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is the image which appears in the shield above the world being wrought in the Fabian mold. This biblical reference comes from the New Testament and a sermon by Jesus warning that false prophets come in sheep's clothing, but are actually ravening wolves. Authors such as G. Edward Griffin, in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island, have given voice to the reality that this shield image highlights the distinguishing feature of the Fabians as compared to the communists, in that the Fabians desire to create a socialist state using subversive tactics, as opposed to the communist method of revolution and violence."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Window

But I don't know much about it. Interested to hear what others think the difference between Marxists and socialists is.

Marxism is a political framework that lays the foundation for socialism and communism which are both very different.

Socialism calls for public ownership of monopolies in natural resources, infrastructures such as transport and telephone lines / broadband. Socialists believe that pure "free-market" capitalism leads to vast inequality and so the state is required to regulate some of the effects.

Communism believes in 100% state control of everything including property/industry and people.

Marxism critiques the free capitalist market.

Most countries adopt a mixture of socialist and capitalist and/or communist.

Corbynomics leans closely to socialism but recognises our current economic position.

We live in a sort of warped pro-capitalist society which is no-where near a "Free market" when you look at the level of subsidy, tax-payer funded bailout, and corporate welfare. It would cost us far less if we drop subsidy, welfare to corporates, and did not bail out private companies. If we just owned them instead.

www.renewal.org.uk/articles/the-british-corporate-welfare-state

claig
btw I meant to type Millaband not Balls. Floydian slip

Marxism is even more left wing than communism. If you're looking for the creator of Communism then you'll find Karl Marx. Marxism is true communism (because we all know how communism is at the moment)

Sorry to be pedantic but nightstalker isn't correct.

Nothing is "further left than communism".
Marx covers a spectrum of sociopolitical concepts, from imperial capitalism on the right, through socialist concepts, to communusm on the far left.

Communism as an ideal is a stateless, classless, humane society based on common ownership. In practice this has only been historically acheived through totalitarian dictatorship and violent means.

Imperial capitalism is found today in the USA and Russia in the form of Plutocracy.

The critical analysis of capital and wealth dustribution is deemed "Marxist".

Marxism is an analytical approach whereas socialism is a description of a certain kind of society.

I had a friend whom a member of the Labour Party (now an MP) described as a Trotskyite. When I asked what that actually meant she hummed and ha'ed and changed the subject.

I still don't know, so if anyone can enlighten me, I'd be grateful.

Trotskyist! Great.

Well firstly it's very specific to the conditions of the post-revolutionary Stalinist/Leninist Soviet union, so pretty difficult to transcribe to Western European politics.

Essentially, Trotsky's interpretation of Marxism includes the theory of permanent international revolution(s) and opposes the idea of socialism in one country. And specifically opposes totalitarianist methods.

Trotsky himself opposed the rise of beurocracy under Stalin's USSR, was expelled, and ultimately assassinated.

Anyone calling a labour MP "Trotskyist" probably really doesn't know much about anything.

I like this thread.

Were does utopia fit in?

After reading it I assumed all communist societies are based on it. But I never hear of it been refered to.

I have heard people use utopian when talking about something perfect or paradise Though. Which I find very strange.

'Were does utopia fit in?

After reading it I assumed all communist societies are based on it.'

Yes, all these movements are said to be based on a utopian ideal where the few can change society for the many and provide a perfect paradise that overcomes the inherent weaknesses in human nature. That is where the big state, nanny stae fits in as the metropoitan elite decide what is good for the many. That is why communism is not a democracy, because the few think they know what is best for the many and it is no good asking the many to vote for the utopia because they may decide they don't like it.

Belief ina utopian society involves faith which is why most utopian movements need to eliminate religious belief because that is a competitor which will stop the imposition of the utopia, or something like that.

Utopia for who though?

In England, we have generally adopted a liberal, pragmatic type philosophy and idealism has never really taken hold here. We are wary of idealists and utopians because they they think they know best and remove our liberties in their quest to produce their utopia. Conservatism and liberalism are against the big state and big government and prefers them off our backs. They say they love us, like Big Brother did, but "named persons" and state control goes against the grain of English liberalism and freedom.

'Utopia for who though?'

Utopia for the educated elite who impose it on the masses either overtly or by stealth.

The socialists, Blair and the gang, desperately tried to impose their biometric ID cards and DNA databases on us, but we voted them out before they got their chance. Boris Johnson, a conservative, said he would shred his ID cards and feed them to his children on their cornflakes. Nick Clegg, to his credit, in true liberal tradition was against them too. We beat the utopians, but they will be back. They will say they love us, they want to look after us, protect us from terrorism, and they will wave their ID cards back in our faces. One day, they may beat us, but they ain't managed it yet.

Thanks claig

That's why I find it so strange it is refered to a perfect paradise that overcomes the inherent weaknesses in human nature

Because It's glaringly obvious the utopian (other than being incredibly oppressive) society wouldn't and couldn't function without criminals. As they are the ones who are used to prop up the whole society.

If it truly overcame the inherent human nature, there would not be any criminals. There would not be anybody to do those less desirable but essential jobs for the rest of utopia.

Sorry xposts.

They wanted to regulate our free media, put it under state control of some sort, stop our Daily Mail telling it like it is. Lots of them were in it together, but we beat them once again. They'll be back, they'll try again, but they ain't beat Dacre and the Daily Mail yet.

TwatNinja I don't understand your positioning that a utopian society is propped up by criminals, seeing as "crime" is a social construct.

Care to elaborate? (genuine interest)

Oh dear,
Sorry claig I really didn't ask to set you off on one.

It was just a question about utopia as I hear people talk about Marx and other communists theories but not utopia.

Since a few posters had been explaining a few things quite nicely I just thought I'd ask.

It reads as though you see criminals are doing jobs for society...

TwatTheNinja, but the utopian ideal is part of human nature too. There is a drive to make things better, to think that all problems can be solved, that they know best. There is a drive to control to produce an outcome. That is why we always have to be wary of the metropolitan elites, divorced from the people, in their own bubble, out of touch and occasionally out of mind.

"The road to hell was paved with good intentions"

They have to remove religion because religion opposes man's self-aggrandisement to become as a God.

The best way is balance, to combine the good intentions with the freedom and liberalism that keeps the elite off the people's backs. We are lucky to have that in our country and it has come about due to our history and our philosophy and our nature.

But we must always be vigilant to ensure freedom, because sure as grass is green, the utopians will always be back with their ID cards, their regulation of free speech and their minimum price for our alcohol.

'Sorry claig I really didn't ask to set you off on one.'

Sorry, that question got me started,