I am wondering why this question was closed.

The reason one of the mods Swami Vishwananda gave was "I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the question is asking about a difference defined in the dictionary."

I was totally bewildered. Communism, in essence, according to Marx and Engels, is to me almost very close to the anarchism, quote

Marx, >When communist artisans associate with one another, theory, propaganda, etc., is their first end. But at the same time, as a result of this association, they acquire a new need — the need for society — and what appears as a means becomes an end. ... the brotherhood of man is no mere phrase with them, but a fact of life, and the nobility of man shines upon us from their work-hardened bodies. ( Human Needs & the division of Labour )

According to Marx and Engels, when communism is established, the division of the labor and the money itself would have been abolished, which to me is impossible, since the problem reification , wherein communism society, all the "communication" between all the humans are conducted through their labor itself, which is, impossible ( or at least to me. and which is no problem to Socialism )

The reification matter was debated around 50-70's, especially by Wataru Hiromatsu and Lucac, since the men can not exchange the commodities through labors themselves ( need an intervention through the Money The Mammon. )

Marx > In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.( German Ideology )

This is the statement by Marx about the communism aka the total semi-anarchism. Who makes the tools for hunting for one's morning activities? Who makes the rear cattle in the evening? The one who rears?

On the other hand in Socialism the appropriation of the apt amount commodities to each workers are main concern, where the abolishment of the division of the labor doesn't matter at all, the perfect freedom is ignored ( either in a good sense or bad sense. ) So the distinction between Socialism and so-called Communism is a huge matter, not a dictionary level, and I am astonished that this question ( sincere ) was closed. I would like the moderators to reopen. The reason that this distinction is the dictionary level is a complete ignorance to the Marx and Engel's ideas, not Marxism.

And there is furthermore. Socialism doesn't deal with the problem of thingnification wherein the human beings are dealt as the things, but rather only see the pastoral community where each individual works happily with same wages and the same amount of labor. I was bewildered that the Philosophy mods have not yet conquered such a huge but simple distinction, and I was wondering if they are thinking Marx and Engels are not philosophers, but rather the common view, which is the radical revolutionaryies, which is a complete nonsense to me.

  • What's wrong with this site. Now, the original post was removed by force?
    – user13955
    Oct 28, 2018 at 10:12
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is I who was wrong. ( Unfortunately )
    – user13955
    Oct 29, 2018 at 4:43
  • Communism anarchism, Marx. I have mentioned this essay before in comments, but if you are still here, here is an article. M. Rubel "Marx, theoretician of anarchism" marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm
    – Gordon
    Oct 30, 2018 at 0:26
  • @Gordon Thank you for your reference. Though I would like to read it, I need time and the volumes of dictionaries. lol. Marx should have only concentrated on the analysis of the capitalistic mode of the production, which is the production by a genius, though the U.S people are happy with G-G' mechanism which someday culminates in the catastrophy. On the other hand, Marx was not cautious enough on his words about the "society to come", which led many to even the pandemonium of one's life, which is harshly criticized by many. I would like to say,
    – user13955
    Oct 30, 2018 at 23:32
  • the vision thing Marx saw ambiguously was an almost criminal level,which was not exposed to anyone in any concrete manner, which is even suicidal level.
    – user13955
    Oct 30, 2018 at 23:34
  • You have strong opinions on this subject. That's fine. Since you mentioned anarchism I just wanted to provide the essay. I don't always agree with Rubel, but I often find him interesting
    – Gordon
    Oct 31, 2018 at 4:14

1 Answer 1


I voted to leave the question open primarily because I was hoping some users might provide interesting answers. I am here for the answers, not the questions. I do sometimes vote to close questions, but generally I would like to see a question have a few days for users to provide an answer.

That being said, it only takes five people to vote to close for a question to be closed. Users who ask questions need to keep that in mind. They have to phrase their questions to get past these potential closers. That may seem unfair, but it provides good practice dealing with people.

One can do that by making the question more specific or citing references to add context. One might be able to think of other ways.

And if the question is closed, so what? There are many ways to continue participating.


Here are some of the rules for closed questions: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions

  • 1
    Thank you for your answer. Now I regret I should not have asked this question, because the depth of the understanding of the OP is beginning to be revealed, and here I am beginning to to consider to vote to close. It is hard to tell how deep the OP knows only by the question. The OP's knowledge was the dictionary level. Geeze.
    – user13955
    Oct 28, 2018 at 23:36
  • @KentaroTomono I have only started reading your posts. We share different interests, but I find your perspective on Marxism and Zen interesting although I know very little about either of these topics. Oct 29, 2018 at 0:29

You must log in to answer this question.