Just to make it clear in this I am going to be talking ONLY about the idealized versions of each, not the on-ground, in-action, real versions such as Israel and China.
Socialism = We the righteous (those who have rights), being more virtuous and better than the commoners deserve to rule over them with more privilege and wealth. Common laborers have only the rights we grant to them as we see fit. We are the good and their god to speak their reality into truth.
Communism = We the entire population share equal impoverishment. We all have equal authority - none. We all love each other equally - to death. We are the good. There is no god, no reality, and no truth.
Rather than explain to you what these terms mean and why, let’s examine your definitional formulations.
Let me begin with a question:
If you’re not deriving Socialism and Communism from what you call the “on-ground, in-action, real versions”, from where are you arriving at the “reality of these ideals”?
I have been attempting to get him to focus not so much on what he believes about socialism and Communism but on the extent to which he is convinced that unless others share his own assessment, they are wrong.
The psychology of objectivism. The belief that morally and politically one is able grasp the objective truth about any “ism”. And that this truth is rooted logically and epistemologically in a philosophically rational assessment. And that rationality itself is the root of all virtue.
And not in the manner in which I construe the “self” here in my signature threads.
I would be more than willing to explore this part with him on another thread.
I guess that I am of the Plato school where ideal and real are distinct from each other. There is no “reality of the ideal” because that is like saying “the black of the white”. So what did you actually mean?
What I meant was that there is a meaning to those named ideals and a reality/truth to that intended meaning. The ideals themselves have no reality to them but the concepts are actual concepts that have real communication and language intent.
For example
That embolden part is where the effect of “equally impoverished” and “authority - none” come from.
Right - so you have briefly laid out a meaning to each of these named ideals in your opening post.
When you say a “reality/truth to that intended meaning” - are you referring to what you call the “on-ground, in-action, real versions”, or “real communication and language intent” that results from ideals (in spite of them having no reality)? I suspect probably the latter, but just making sure.
So the definitions you outline in your opening post are grounded in the themes of “equally impoverished” and “authority - none” that you detect as inevitably emerging from the Wikipedia quote?
You draw attention, through emboldening part of the quote, to the notions of “absence of social classes, money and the state”, and I assume you see a direct correlation between these notions and the interpretation of “equally impoverished” and “authority - none”. Is that a fair assumption?
And in turn, from “equally impoverished” and “authority - none”, you infer the following extended details laid out in your opening post:
an attitude of righteousness and virtuousness of a ruling class over commoners that justifies relative social and material boons over them, the dictatorship of values and truth over them, and an inequality of rights (for Socialism), and
equality in love - to death, atheism, no reality, and no truth (for Communism).
That is to say:
no social class/money/state → equally poor with no authority → justified hierarchy and oppression as judged by those at the top of that hierarchy for Socialism, and
no social class/money/state → equally poor with no authority → unwavering equality of love, no God, no reality and no truth for Communism.
To be fair, you only referenced a quote about Communism as your source, and not one about Socialism - but am I being fairly representative of your source (Wikipedia quote) and how it progresses to your conclusion (your opening post definitions)?
Would you like to provide an origin source for Socialism as you did for Communism?
Or are you happy to have “no social class/money/state → justified hierarchy and oppression as judged by those at the top of that hierarchy” seeming close enough to your thought process when it comes to your definition of Socialism?
In your estimation, do you see any conflict between no social class (from the quote) and oppressive hierarchy (from your definition)?
And for Communism, are you happy that “no social class/money/state” (from your quote) necessarily results in “uniformity in love, atheism, no reality/truth” (from your definition)?
That is to say, there is a necessary direct correlation between social/economic/political conditions and emotion/theology/ontology?
In your estimation, do you see any conflict between the reality and truth of no social class (from the quote) and no reality/truth (from your definition)?
You see “no social class” (from the quote you provided) and “oppressive hierarchy” (from the definition you provided in your opening post) as “distinctly different”?
If I have that right, then you are “happy with the definitions you provided” being “distinctly different” to the quote you’re basing them on?
So to my question ‘where are you arriving at the “reality of these ideals”?’ you answer with a quote that is “distinctly different” from your definitions?
Please correct me if this sounds to me like you’re happy that the definitions of the opening post are “distinctly different” to the quote you’re basing them on.
Adjourned I’ll summarise as follows, for you to mull over in the meantime:
I am understanding that “I see them as distinctly different” applies to “no social class (from the quote) and oppressive hierarchy (from your defintion)” being distinctly different.
My initial question was ‘from where are you arriving at the “reality of these ideals”?’
This question asks about where you’re getting your definitions in your opening post when, as you said, you are not getting them from what you call “on-ground, in-action, real versions”. You provide the Wikipedia quote as where you’re getting your definitions from.
The Wikipedia quote references “no social class” and your definitions in your opening post reference “oppressive hierarchy”.
So you appear to be saying that the quote you provided is distinctly different from your definitions - on account of the former stating “no social class” and the latter stating “oppressive hierarchy”.
It would follow that your defintions are distinctly different from the quote you provided to base your definitions on, meaning the definitions do not follow from the quote.
Please feel free to correct me whenever you’re ready if I have misunderstood.
That is what I meant also. The “hierarchy” that you pointed to (in this case merely an upper and lower cast) would be a part of a socialist state, not a communist society.