Socialism vs. Communism?

[Anti-Social Socialist]

From what I understand, both are pretty much striving towards the same thing, one's just a more advanced stage, right? So what I'm wondering is what would make someone call themselves a "socialist" rather than a "communist" or vice versa? Are there socialists that dislike communists? Or communists that dislike socialists?

[swirling_vortex]

The two share many similarities. In fact, one could consider communism to be a form of socialism. According to Marx, socialism would provide the transition towards communism, so you need one in order for the other to happen. I call myself both because they both beat anything that capitalism claims is superior.

[GPDP]

IMO, socialism should be a broad, catch-all term for much of the left, encompassing Marxists, most anarchists, and even so-called democratic socialists (basically social-democrats who don't stop at making capitalism more humane, but actually want to move towards a full-fledged socialist society). Basically, to be a socialist is to be for the transcendence of capitalism and in favor of a more advanced, and more democratic society, whatever form that society may take, and whatever tactics are used to get to it.

Communism is a bit more specific, as not all socialists are necessarily communists (I know some may disagree, but I consider individualist anarchists to be socialists, though I could never call them communists). Communism entails the collective ownership of the means of production, and also calls for classlessness and statelessness. There are some socialists who don't quite see society ever getting to the point of statelessness (though perhaps the problem lies in their definition of a state, but whatever), and some may not quite agree with the abolishment of money or markets. In this sense, communism is more restrictive. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

[autotrophic]

I tend to think of communism as a classless society, while socialism is promoting equality. Communism has no state, although some forms of socialism do. They are definitely related and overlap in many areas though

[hekmatista]

Lenin's Bolsheviks started calling themselves "communists" to distinguish themselves from the socialist parties of the Second International which had failed to uphold proletarian internationalism during the First World War.

[ZeroNowhere]

According to Marx, socialism would provide the transition towards communism, so you need one in order for the other to happen. I call myself both because they both beat anything that capitalism claims is superior.
Oh, come on, where do you get your information on Marx, Wikipedia? ;)
He used the two as synonyms, so one being a 'transition' into another doesn't make any sense. Anyways, I use it in the same way (socialism = communism), others use it to describe some random transitional stage (and tend to differ on what exactly this transitional stage is, though are generally united in saying that anything else would be 'utopian'), others use it to refer to the lower phase of socialism (which is only differentiated from the higher stage by the fact that the lower stage uses labour credits, while the higher stage does not, thus meaning that it is in no way a 'transitional phase'), others (generally reformists) use it to refer to Keynesianism (regardless of how accurate you think the name is), sometimes referred to as a 'welfare state'. As for socialists and communists, I generally use it to mean the same thing, therefore I would call an anarcho-individualist fellow commie scum, but sometimes people differ between 'communism' and 'socialism' in regards to those guys. Also, 'anarcho-communism' is generally taken to be a separate current within anarchism. Though syndies would generally count as commies, they aren't referred to as 'anarcho-communists', for example.

[robbo203]

The two share many similarities. In fact, one could consider communism to be a form of socialism. According to Marx, socialism would provide the transition towards communism, so you need one in order for the other to happen..#

Not true. Marx never made any such distinction. It was Lenin who did this in his dishonest work The State and Revolution

[Post-Something]

I think Marx consciously started using the term "communism" as opposed to socialism to distance himself from the former Utopian ideas that were linked to socialism. He wanted a new scientific and revolutionary image.

[el_chavista]

I think Marx consciously started using the term "communism" as opposed to socialism to distance himself from the former Utopian ideas that were linked to socialism. He wanted a new scientific and revolutionary image.
Actually both terms may be used interchangeably. I think more important is the misuse of "communist countries" when referring to their governments. Communism is a society.

[dmcauliffe09]

Socialism is the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Problem is, there is a big question as to how this phase is completed. I am a socialist because I do not believe that communism is a reality.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Socialism is the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Problem is, there is a big question as to how this phase is completed. I am a socialist because I do not believe that communism is a reality.

No, it isn't. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the transitional phase. See zeronowhere's post.

[Floyce White]

"Revolution" is the name of the transition from capitalism to communism.

Socialism is a form of capitalism. Socialism is NOT a "lower phase" of communism.

I wrote a series of articles on this subject (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html).

Some similar views are held by PLP (http://www.plp.org) and by Communist League (http://www.communistleague.us).

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't know about you, but De Leon, Marx and pretty much every other libertarian socialist also referred to themselves as socialists, so "The USSR called themselves that, so it's authoritarian" is silly. The USSR was state capitalist, socialism is a synonym of 'communism'.

[sanpal]

"Revolution" is the name of the transition from capitalism to communism.


Absolutely correct.
And it (the transition period) should be nothing but DOTP.
Why DOTP? Because an act of the revolution doesn't happen from night to day.
The act of transformation runs through stages according definite algorithm:

- nationalization of the most important parts of economy (resources, energy, roads, heavy industry, etc.)
and also nationalization of the property of failed capitalists who lost it in competition
Note: another part of economy last to be capitalist (middle- and petty-bourgeois, cooperatives, kibbutz(s), individuals,) under control of workers' state government


- communization (or socialization - which of these two someone more likes, to me - communization) - the act of transfer of any means of production from the Proletarian State to the commune(s) without compensation (i.e. members of commune don't pay money and get property freely) according to the proletarian state's law.
Of course within commune they practice self-management (no State governing) , planned (LTV) economy and communist relations.
Note: one part of economy lasts to be capitalist, another part lasts to be state capitalist, and we see appearing of third sector of economy - communist sector.

So summary the transitional period contains three sectors of economy (multi-economy): 1) state capitalist sector 2) tradition capitalist sector and 3) communist sector of economy.



Socialism is a form of capitalism.


You are right and you are not right. As it's above socialism (the proletarian socialism of course) contains capitalist and state capitalist sectors so it could be mentioned that socialism is a form of capitalism. And (the proletarian) socialism contains communist sector as well so it could be mentioned that socialism is not capitalism (almost communism because it contains the lower phase of communism - the LTV economic system). It rather to be more conglomerate or simply the multi-economy. To differ it from full communist society (higher stage) it's needed to define "socialism" as not the similarity to "communism" but as the kind of society appropriated to the transitional period. So it has to have the self-depended name as "Socialism".


Socialism is NOT a "lower phase" of communism.


See above, you are right and you are not right. Socialism is not communism because of the transition period including stage of existing capitalist and state capitalist sectors of economy and during the proletarian socialist period the first communes should be created and developed for the conquest of the economic space and then for exclusion of the capitalist and state capitalist sectors of economy (the State should wither away).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speaking of "socialism," comrade, you might be interested in an additional neologism in this thread: commonwealth-ism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-needs-new-t101105/index.html?p=1352293). This word harkens back to what Marx and Engels said about the traditional state being replaced by a Gemeinwesen (http://books.google.com/books?id=pBiPKtOYWpkC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=marx+gemeinwesen+commonwealth&source=web&ots=IigCpAmn8W&sig=Fx8gc3Duc75w7OLp14f7fYpVo1M&hl=en&ei=JguXSfjDJpGYsAPLou2GAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result).

[sanpal]

Hah, wait a minute till the words like "socialism" and "communism" will die together with old generation (me too) and then neologisms fill full left space.:)
Seriously, I don't care how to name one or another thing. One could describe to define the only thing something like "bla-bla-bla" or "abra-kadabra" or "yellow submarine", etc. This thing will stay the same thing.
I don't care how to name DOTP (transition period through multi-economy): "Social Proletocracy"? Why not? Pretty suitable. But, as i suppose, it's more important if this or those social model would be realizable in practice.
If you are able to explain to somebody definition of the subject with a lot of words pls do it ... instead of saying the short term. In the other side a term could be interpreted with different views of some people. It could confuse someone. Ha-ha, almost thousand threads named as "What's the difference of socialism from communism", "Soc. versus Com.", etc. Maybe to change the name of term and it will be Okey?
I don't think so. The workers are more pragmatic than some of revleft theorists, they need in explanation of how the (communist) mechanism works though it's no necessity to pronounce the word in parentheses aloud.

[Cumannach]

The USSR was socialist and Marx would have supported it had he lived to see it.

[sanpal]

The USSR was socialist and Marx would have supported it had he lived to see it.

Yeah, i agreed. Marx with Engels had named Duhring's utopian model of society as socialism. The USSR was built just like Duhring' socialism

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you are able to explain to somebody definition of the subject with a lot of words pls do it ... instead of saying the short term.

[...]

The workers are more pragmatic than some of revleft theorists, they need in explanation of how the (communist) mechanism works though it's no necessity to pronounce the word in parentheses aloud.

Indeed they are more understanding when the subject is given more explanation. That's the job of revolutionary programmes and pamphlets around such, without which "there can be no revolutionary movement" (Lenin). :cool:


Yeah, i agreed. Marx with Engels had named Duhring's utopian model of society as socialism. The USSR was built just like Duhring' socialism

Maybe you and your comrades could write a pamphlet on critiquing Duhring's socialism, its impact on the Second International, and Lenin's inability to break away from such even when coming so close.

[rebel warrior]

Socialism and communism as seen by leninists is deeply flawed.

We need a movement of workers without hierarchical leadership.

[Floyce White]

Sanpal, I critiqued the theory and practice of using forms of rule to try to abolish the substance of rule. Form and substance, as I explained, are the external and internal aspects of the same creature. Nationalization, or state ownership of property, I critiqued in particular as not a method that has ever or could ever accomplish the abolition of property.

Economics is the social science--and the practice resulting from application of science--that explains and/or develops the system of property ownership and exchange. Communism has no property; therefore, no economy, no economics, and no public sector of any presumptive transition economy.

In my essays, I pointed out that a commune is an organization of antiproperty struggle by the lower class. A commune is not a syndicate, cooperative, partnership, or any other form of ownership or administration of property. Think of it as you do a union. A union is not a labor-management organization, and should it be corrupted into becoming one, it ceases to be the union or unity of the oppressed.

There is no halfway period between a family claiming to be your landlord, and the masses using violence to break that claim. Either your family pays rent to the landlord, or you do not. Either you receive wages, or you do not. There is no subtlety. There is no confusion. Communism means no money, no wages, no rent. Communist revolution means that owner families forever renounce their claims or die. That's that. Any former owner who says one peep against the new society will be killed. That's that.

The lack of immediate violence to end the property system is why socialist revolution is not communist revolution.

That is also why the difference in the meaning of the words is an important topic for discussion.