Dear Mhaze,

«My definition is that socialism is communism-lite. Whereas communism requires that the means of production be owned by the people»

I agree with this definition that socialism is communism-lite, but what is communism?

While communism might also have economic implications, this is not its essence: communism is the belief or attitude as if all the people [of a country], whether they like it or not, constitute a community and that the success of that community is the rationale for us to be living here on this earth.

In this sense, the Liberal party too is guilty of communism, because they too speak in such terms, for example when debating whether or not a prisoner or an asylum-seeker ought to be "released into the community". They are not debating whether the person ought to be allowed to live their own life, or whether they ought to be allowed to live with their family and friends, no, all they can think of is that "community" of theirs. They possibly have different economic policies, but their language betrays their nature, communists them all!

'Community' is the notion we only survive collectively ; that we must organise collectively to survive. And 'we find ourselves' in community and not just as isolated individuals. This is not 'full on communism' in the Marxist sense. (though Marx shares the assumption) In the Marxist sense 'communism' is a condition of absolute abundance and plentiful freedom to live as we choose as a consequence. Small experiments (eg: the kibbuztim in Israel) have tried to put communist principles into practice. But in the Marxist sense communism depends on abundance which Marx agrees is created by capitalist development in the first place. That said ; we can put communist principles into practice when we implement under the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". This is what Hayek and Rand oppose in any form. For them we are all in it alone as individuals ; in it for ourselves ; and unless you have the support of family it's 'sink or swim' no matter what problems (eg: disability) you may have. Hayek supports a place for family but has nothing to say about those who don't have those supports. (or how fair that is to specific families) Many systems put the Marxist principle into practice to an extent. They are also overwhelmingly capitalist. To demand 'a pure system here and now' (in either the Marxist or the neo-liberal sense) is impractical extremism. Lenin learned this after the disaster of War Communism.

Eric Aarons was a life-long Marxist who engaged seriously with Hayek. The following is a review (which the right-wingers will probably hate). But it is conceded that markets and individual motivations are part of the picture ; as are personal determination of needs structures via markets. see the following review of mine from many years ago:

http://hayekversusmarx.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-eric-aarons-hayek-versus.html