What's the difference between Socialism and Communism

[MMIKEYJ]

Hey everybody,

Just like to get your opinions on what the differences are between socialism and communism... Im just looking for generalities here, so you dont need to break it down into specifics like leninism, etc.. (unless of course you have to, to explain what it is you want to explain).

Thanks

[#FF0000]

Put most simply, communism is a classless and stateless society. Socialism is somewhere between capitalism and communism, with varying degrees of classlessness and statelessness (but always having a state, or else it'd be communism)

[MMIKEYJ]

Put most simply, communism is a classless and stateless society. Socialism is somewhere between capitalism and communism, with varying degrees of classlessness and statelessness (but always having a state, or else it'd be communism)
So, ideally communism is free from classes and is stateless? State-less as in government-less??

It sounds confusing.

[kiki75]

There's a thread a little ways under this one called "Socialism vs. Communism". I think it will help answer your question.

I have always viewed communism as a type of socialism and for me, from my reading and understanding, I have never understood socialism to require the state, although there is room for that option.

There is the "each according to his deeds" (socialism) vs. "each according to his needs" (communism) angle to look at. For me, that has never been an either/or thing.

[LOLseph Stalin]

There's a thread a little ways under this one called "Socialism vs. Communism". I think it will help answer your question.

I have always viewed communism as a type of socialism and for me, from my reading and understanding, I have never understood socialism to require the state, although there is room for that option.

There is the "each according to his deeds" (socialism) vs. "each according to his needs" (communism) angle to look at. For me, that has never been an either/or thing.

Your description seems good. :thumbup1: Obviously Socialism is just a transition stage between Capitalism and Communism that takes place after the revolution. Sadly it has never reached the Communism stage. :(

[sanpal]

Put most simply, communism is a classless and stateless society. Socialism is somewhere between capitalism and communism, with varying degrees of classlessness and statelessness (but always having a state, or else it'd be communism)

A bit exactly what you talk about: it is proletarian socialism in contrast to bourgeois socialism which has no "varying degrees of classlessness and statelessness" in the form of communist sector of economy (multi-economy). Proletarian socialism (after proletarian revolution) goes through multi-economy toward full communist society.

MMIKEYJ said:


So, ideally communism is free from classes and is stateless? State-less as in government-less??

It sounds confusing.


People under communism practice the self-management and they demand no state government over them.
The same is inside of communist sector during proletarian socialism period.

InsertNameHere said:


Obviously Socialism is just a transition stage between Capitalism and Communism that takes place after the revolution.


Exactly Proletarian Socialism is ... but not Socialism as generally.


Sadly it has never reached the Communism stage. :(

Because creation of communist sector within proletarian States was never set as an aim. Now we have to do it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Pronunciation and spelling. That's pretty much it.


There is the "each according to his deeds" (socialism) vs. "each according to his needs" (communism) angle to look at. For me, that has never been an either/or thing.
That's based around the higher and lower phases of socialism, not a difference between socialism and communism.

[Pogue]

I'd often use them as one and the same when speaking and typing, i.e. I'm an Anarchist but I could also be an Anarcho-Socialist, Anarcho-Communist, Socialist etc. Some use socialist to mean transitional stage i.e. the workers state envisaged by Lenin. I used to do that but it just confuses things and its not really relevant to me as an Anarchist.

You have to trace the history of the movement. Socialism refers to all the ideas based around collective ownership and thus communism, which came around later than socialism as an defined ideology, is a part of socialism, a more radical one which was developed by Marx, Engels, Bakunin etc.

Depending on context they mean different things but can also mean the same thing. Its not that confusing when you get used to it.

[MMIKEYJ]

OKay I get the stateless thing. It was kind of weird because normally we, meaning non-leftists like myself, view communism as allegiance to the communist party like in Russia and then of course with their statist govt we figure these things go hand in hand.

But in America in 1607 we had Jamestown, and they originally tried communism and there was no government per se to guide them other than themselves, so I guess thats an example.

[ZeroNowhere]

But in America in 1607 we had Jamestown, and they originally tried communism and there was no government per se to guide them other than themselves, so I guess thats an example.
The US government also aided the fascist Franco in putting down the Spanish anarchists. Not to say that the Russians didn't help you there.

[revolution inaction]

OKay I get the stateless thing. It was kind of weird because normally we, meaning non-leftists like myself, view communism as allegiance to the communist party like in Russia and then of course with their statist govt we figure these things go hand in hand.


vary few people on revleft would consider the Communist party of russia or most other countries to be communist. Almost no one would consider the ussr to have been communist.

[#FF0000]

OKay I get the stateless thing. It was kind of weird because normally we, meaning non-leftists like myself, view communism as allegiance to the communist party like in Russia and then of course with their statist govt we figure these things go hand in hand.

Right. Keep in mind that the Russians never called their government "communist". They always said "socialist".

Also keep in mind that Socialism is a very broad term. Russia's brand of Socialism was Marxist-Leninism. China's was Maoism. There's also Trotskyism, Hoxhaism, Libertarian Socialism and a number of currents of communist thought under the name "left communism" such as De Leonism and Luxemburgism.


But in America in 1607 we had Jamestown, and they originally tried communism and there was no government per se to guide them other than themselves, so I guess thats an example.

You can also look at Anarchist Catalonia, and the Paris Commune. Further, a good deal of hunter-gatherer societies operated under what we call "primitive communism", in which society was run without hierarchy, and without social classes, but that also didn't have the means to produce surplus. I suppose Jamestown could fall into that category of "primitive communism", then.

[Dave B]

On the subject of examples of early communist communities and ideas etc.


Letter from Engels to Marx, in Paris, [Barmen, beginning of October 1844]




The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America.The thing will take me three days or so, and should prove very enlightening for these fellows. I’ve already observed this when talking to people here.

And that led to;


Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence

Written: in mid-October 1844




The sect of the Shakers originated some seventy years ago. Its founders were poor people who united in order to live together in brotherly love and community of goods and to worship their God in their own way. Although their religious views and particularly the prohibition on marriage deterred many, they nevertheless attracted support and now have ten large communities, each of which is between three and eight hundred members strong.

Each of these communities is a fine, well laid-out town, with dwelling houses, factories, workshops, assembly buildings and barns; they have flower and vegetable gardens, fruit trees, woods, vineyards, meadows and arable land in abundance; then, livestock of all kinds, horses and beef-cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry, in excess of their needs, and of the very best breeds.

Their granaries are always full of corn, their store-rooms full of clothing materials, so that an English traveller who visited them said he could not understand why these people still worked, when after all they possessed an abundance of everything; unless it was that they worked simply as a pastime, having nothing else to do. Amongst these people no one is obliged to work against his will, and no one seeks work in vain.

They have no poor-houses and infirmaries, having not a single person poor and destitute, nor any abandoned widows and orphans; all their needs are met and they need fear no want. In their ten towns there is not a single gendarme or police officer, no judge, lawyer or soldier, no prison or penitentiary; and yet there is proper order in all their affairs.


The laws of the land are not for them and as far as they are concerned could just as well be abolished and nobody would notice any difference for they are the most peaceable citizens and have never yielded a single criminal for the prisons. They enjoy, as we said, the most absolute community of goods and have no trade and no money among themselves.




The shakers were working class immigrants from Bolton in Lancashire about 10 miles north of central Manchester.


The earliest ‘communist’ on record was probably Gerald Winstanley, perhaps a member of the artisan ‘class’ but hardly capitalist, whose writings Marx and Engels were not aware of. But they obviously knew of the existence of the Levellers and referred to them as only that.
Winstanley was interesting as he almost had a historical materialist analysis, for the time anyway.

He originated from Wigan I think which is about 15 miles West of Manchester.

Then there was the Etienne Cabet and French Icarian thing , which was a working class movement, and Marx and Engels were initially enthusiastic about it, panning it later on theoretical grounds in the Communist Manifesto.

It had the objective of setting up independent communist colonies.

They begged an audience with Cabet after the Communist Manifesto was written and having left them for hours waiting, Cabet told them to piss off.

The shakers were by no means any kind of Amish Luddites either;


"In 1777, Samuel Miller invented the circular saw in England, the
round metal disk type of saw that cuts by spinning and is used hand-
held or table-mounted. Large circular saws are found in saw mills
and are used to produce lumber. In 1813, Shaker-Sister, Tabitha
Babbitt (1784-1854) invented the first circular saw used in a saw
mill."

[ZeroNowhere]

There's also Trotskyism, Hoxhaism, Libertarian Socialism and a number of currents of communist thought under the name "left communism" such as De Leonism and Luxemburgism.
Well, technically, most left communists would be counted as libertarian socialists. Also, De Leonism isn't necessarily counted under left communism, though we can be, seeing as we don't really have a stance on internationalism and the like. De Leon appeared to be something of a left commie ("The capitalist class knows no country and no race, and any 'God' suits it so that "God" approve of the exploitation of the worker. Despite all seeming wranglings, sometimes even wars, among them, the capitalist class is international, and presents a united front against the working class. But for that very reason the capitalist class is interested in keeping the workingmen divided among themselves. Hence it foments race and religious animosities that come down from the past."), but yeah.

[robbo203]

Put most simply, communism is a classless and stateless society. Socialism is somewhere between capitalism and communism, with varying degrees of classlessness and statelessness (but always having a state, or else it'd be communism)


You can call it what you like but this was not the original marxian understanding of these terms. Communism and socialism were originally treated as synonyms It was Lenin and some in the Second International who shifted the mean of socialism to suit their own ends. First Lenin claimed socialism was the lower phase of communism - a pure invention on his part - then he identified socialism with state capitalism in The Impending Catastrophe and how to combat it. This is what he said:

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.


That is a world away from what Marx and others had to say on the subject